The economy has been in a state of depression and recession for a few years now, and unemployment rates are going up in Finland. This has sparked a lot of discussion and disgruntled people have voiced their feelings about quite many different things. People still seem to be surprised by the fact that in the private sector public companies will act in a radical fashion and attempt to adapt to changing situations by laying off parts of the workforce. It's called adaptability; if the landscape is changing, you either adapt or you die. It's unfortunate, but that's how the game works. Unfortunately, however, it seems that in some cases companies maybe should exercise a bit of moderation as the actions have sometimes been rash at best and purely idiotic at worst.
Nonetheless, the companies will attempt to function in the best interest of their owners, or so the theory goes. But these times are well to demonstrate, yet again, that individual people must also be able to adapt to changing situations. I somehow get a feeling that too many people are stuck inside a box and when things abruptly change, they are unable to transform themselves. What this past decade or two have shown is that the world is becoming increasingly dynamic, as opposed to the more traditional stable landscape in which you sought work positions from which you would retire from. So it is up to the employee to demonstrate flexibility and adaptability by being able to jump from one career to the next, even across different disciplines and industries. But ultimately I feel that the key point is to have the skills to actively renew and retrain oneself to be able to go up against new challenges.
On a slightly different note, I have also gotten a feeling by following some discussions surrounding the Finnish welfare system that the system is in fact slightly flawed and does not really encourage entrepreneurship and active job seeking as much as it could. A friend of mine recently listed himself as unemployed, and being a non-native he was interested in using this pause in his career to learn more Finnish in order to increase his attractiveness in the job market. Unfortunately, however, it seems that there are some situations in which he will lose his unemployment benefits if he begins to take language courses. Apparently the system would, at worst, classify him as a student and then strip him of his benefits. This is not only silly, but also very counterproductive. Overall it seems that the system will very often make its victims very passive. I have some thoughts on how the system could be reformed (and overall I feel that reforms will need to be revolutionary rather than evolutionary, as the system is very much broken), but I fear that I will have to leave them for another blog post. But feel free to pull my sleeve if you want to talk about these issues, for they are very interesting.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
On dialogs and debates
When I was in high school, we had a number of debates during Finnish classes, where students were introduced into the fine arts of rhetoric and the things that accompany it. The concept was very good: teach the students how to argue and debate as well as utilize words and wit. Somehow I feel that a lot of the really basic problems of society could be avoided if instead of resorting to violence people would possess the ability to talk, discuss, and communicate. But far too often when a person runs out of words, they resort to other, more unfortunate measures in trying to communicate their point across.
Another learning from these debates was that quite often people do not or cannot form opinions, or are unwilling to argue a side. The best debates, in my opinion, were the ones where you found two people with opposing views of a common topic which both held dear. It was truly interesting to observe the jousting that ensued. But unfortunately very often the situation was very asymmetric (i.e. one was very opinionated and the other could not care less) or then the overall mood was indifferent. This is one reason why I am somewhat hesitant when it comes to the praising of democracy's flawlessness...
I have unfortunately long since forgotten whether we were taught any theory behind dialogs and debates, but on a personal and purely empirical level I think that some very obvious clusters can be formed. A dialog can be exploratory in nature, where the participants collectively work towards discovering ideas through an exchange of information and opinions. Or then a dialog can be more competitive and debating in nature, where the exploratory objective is surpassed by the objective of winning by means of either convincing the opponent of your point of view or by merely deflating the opponents arguments.
Politicians seem to venture on a very different level and are measured against different dimensions. In a debate it is not only relevant for the politician to win the debate, but also to do so while applying good form and by not upsetting the people too much. The battle of debate is subordinate to the larger war which is fought on a higher level. And one must not upset the general populace, which wields the power. It is this group which I am slightly afraid of, as it requires much more studying of a person of political inclination to understand their ultimate motive, as they often play very many games at once.
This does tie back to the dynamics of high school debates: I argue that, at least our, debate was much more political in nature than what, I would imagine, the teachers wished to teach. Ultimately it does not matter whether or not you had the more solid arguments or the ability to deflate the arguments of your opponent. Ultimately the decision of who won was decided by the rest of the class, which very often resulted in a situation where the debate turned into a popularity vote of either the debaters or then of the topics. Very seldom did the actual debating amount to anything: the judging parties had already made up the mind, even prior to the debate.
Another learning from these debates was that quite often people do not or cannot form opinions, or are unwilling to argue a side. The best debates, in my opinion, were the ones where you found two people with opposing views of a common topic which both held dear. It was truly interesting to observe the jousting that ensued. But unfortunately very often the situation was very asymmetric (i.e. one was very opinionated and the other could not care less) or then the overall mood was indifferent. This is one reason why I am somewhat hesitant when it comes to the praising of democracy's flawlessness...
I have unfortunately long since forgotten whether we were taught any theory behind dialogs and debates, but on a personal and purely empirical level I think that some very obvious clusters can be formed. A dialog can be exploratory in nature, where the participants collectively work towards discovering ideas through an exchange of information and opinions. Or then a dialog can be more competitive and debating in nature, where the exploratory objective is surpassed by the objective of winning by means of either convincing the opponent of your point of view or by merely deflating the opponents arguments.
Politicians seem to venture on a very different level and are measured against different dimensions. In a debate it is not only relevant for the politician to win the debate, but also to do so while applying good form and by not upsetting the people too much. The battle of debate is subordinate to the larger war which is fought on a higher level. And one must not upset the general populace, which wields the power. It is this group which I am slightly afraid of, as it requires much more studying of a person of political inclination to understand their ultimate motive, as they often play very many games at once.
This does tie back to the dynamics of high school debates: I argue that, at least our, debate was much more political in nature than what, I would imagine, the teachers wished to teach. Ultimately it does not matter whether or not you had the more solid arguments or the ability to deflate the arguments of your opponent. Ultimately the decision of who won was decided by the rest of the class, which very often resulted in a situation where the debate turned into a popularity vote of either the debaters or then of the topics. Very seldom did the actual debating amount to anything: the judging parties had already made up the mind, even prior to the debate.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Housekeeping
It's amazing how much stuff a person is able to amass, even within a short amount of time. I'm constantly faced with the task of trying to keep my apartment in check, and questioning whether I need to keep something or not. The struggle seems to be something of a never ending streak of losses: you just can't win! I've been playing around with an idea of revising my apartment a bit in a desperate effort to clear some more room for coats and jackets and streamline everything by putting books behind some type of glass doors to keep the dust out. But in a small apartment it seems to be incredibly difficult to find the type of furniture that you actually want and that would fit the needs that you've specified.
On other frontiers I guess a bit of housekeeping is also required. In the digital world it seems that you also have to be fairly rigorous to ensure that you throw out the old as you introduce the new. I took some first steps by removing obviously dead and/or outdated links from my blog (it seems that quite many people lack the persistence to keep up a blog, so I got rid of all links to blogs that haven't been updated in a while).
An additional challenge has also appeared with the emergence of social networking sites: how do you prune your network? It isn't as trivial as throwing away an old shirt, since removing links may be a politically sensitive issue. "It's nothing personal, but I don't want you in my social network anymore" just seems sort of blunt and only works for the persona non grata -types, who you don't necessarily want to deal with in the future. But otherwise I guess it's just a matter of more carefully grouping and segmenting the network. Or something to that extent.
On other frontiers I guess a bit of housekeeping is also required. In the digital world it seems that you also have to be fairly rigorous to ensure that you throw out the old as you introduce the new. I took some first steps by removing obviously dead and/or outdated links from my blog (it seems that quite many people lack the persistence to keep up a blog, so I got rid of all links to blogs that haven't been updated in a while).
An additional challenge has also appeared with the emergence of social networking sites: how do you prune your network? It isn't as trivial as throwing away an old shirt, since removing links may be a politically sensitive issue. "It's nothing personal, but I don't want you in my social network anymore" just seems sort of blunt and only works for the persona non grata -types, who you don't necessarily want to deal with in the future. But otherwise I guess it's just a matter of more carefully grouping and segmenting the network. Or something to that extent.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Patience, perseverence, and persistence
For some odd reason patience seems to be one of the rarer virtues around. This manifested itself in e.g. the overt greed of Wall Street and the City, and how sustainability and persistence were forgotten. It's especially sad to see, amongst others, longstanding and very traditional institutions be the victims of very short-term greed.
On a slightly separate note, I recently signed up for the Stockholm Half Marathon. It is held on Saturday, September 12th and I thought that it would be a great way to rectify the injustice of me not getting to participate in HCR'09 this earlier in the spring due to health issues. Also, I recently noticed that due to some slipping in lifestyle-related things I had started to amass some weight. Instead of going on a diet as such, I just decided that I would kick up my training a notch and then adjust my eating habits to contain a larger proportion of vegetables, fruits, and the like. Another policy decision concerned fast food and soft drinks: they're gone and replaced with more frequent home cooking and mineral water.
Related to this, I never really understood the point of any type of strict, project-oriented dieting, which seems to be all the craze with women. It's not only one or two women who I know who seem to be doing this; deciding to drop weight over a certain period of time and then they go back to their old routines. But if the old routines were the ones that brought the extra weight in the first place, how does this work? I think that it's the longer term policy decisions with which you hopefully more permanently alter you lifestyle that get the job done.
I also broke out my heart rate monitor from the closet again to complement my running. It seems that I may have finally matured enough to actually be able to do slower runs at lower heart rate levels, which are quite possibly the things that were missing from my previous training. It again requires a healthy bit of patience and restraint to keep yourself from just blasting away on your jogs in the same way that you've been used to before. But again, hopefully this type of strategy will pay off in Stockholm and if things go well, then maybe even on a marathon next summer. All in all I feel that this recent change of trying to integrate sports and exercising as a more integral part of my life may be for the best. We'll see...
On a slightly separate note, I recently signed up for the Stockholm Half Marathon. It is held on Saturday, September 12th and I thought that it would be a great way to rectify the injustice of me not getting to participate in HCR'09 this earlier in the spring due to health issues. Also, I recently noticed that due to some slipping in lifestyle-related things I had started to amass some weight. Instead of going on a diet as such, I just decided that I would kick up my training a notch and then adjust my eating habits to contain a larger proportion of vegetables, fruits, and the like. Another policy decision concerned fast food and soft drinks: they're gone and replaced with more frequent home cooking and mineral water.
Related to this, I never really understood the point of any type of strict, project-oriented dieting, which seems to be all the craze with women. It's not only one or two women who I know who seem to be doing this; deciding to drop weight over a certain period of time and then they go back to their old routines. But if the old routines were the ones that brought the extra weight in the first place, how does this work? I think that it's the longer term policy decisions with which you hopefully more permanently alter you lifestyle that get the job done.
I also broke out my heart rate monitor from the closet again to complement my running. It seems that I may have finally matured enough to actually be able to do slower runs at lower heart rate levels, which are quite possibly the things that were missing from my previous training. It again requires a healthy bit of patience and restraint to keep yourself from just blasting away on your jogs in the same way that you've been used to before. But again, hopefully this type of strategy will pay off in Stockholm and if things go well, then maybe even on a marathon next summer. All in all I feel that this recent change of trying to integrate sports and exercising as a more integral part of my life may be for the best. We'll see...
Sunday, July 19, 2009
On generosity
In brief, my position on generosity is increasingly that you should not be generous. It isn't as simple as that, I'm afraid, but if nothing else, there's no point in it. If you are generous, people will forget it very quickly. If you are not generous, then you're pretty much like everyone else and/or you just merely upset some people. Machiavelli had an interesting chapter on whether or not princes should be generous, and he concluded something similar. He did, however, also note that if you are generous, you should be generous out of someone else's fortune, as that does not deplete your fortune or the fortunes of your citizens.
That said, you actually should be generous, but not to everyone. I have increasingly gotten the feeling that there are two criteria to judge when deciding on whether or not to be generous to someone: 1) are they in a position to offer you something and 2) if they are, are they willing to give you something? Why be generous to a person who does not reciprocate at all, either because they cannot afford to or because they just do not want to?
That said, you actually should be generous, but not to everyone. I have increasingly gotten the feeling that there are two criteria to judge when deciding on whether or not to be generous to someone: 1) are they in a position to offer you something and 2) if they are, are they willing to give you something? Why be generous to a person who does not reciprocate at all, either because they cannot afford to or because they just do not want to?
Friday, July 03, 2009
Customer retention
I've recently had to buy quite a few pairs of trousers in an attempt to revitalize my wardrobe in that area. For some strange reason it's a lot easier to casually pick up jackets, coats, and shirts rather than trousers and jeans. I've even bought shoes online in a vim. But trousers need consideration. Anyway, without getting into the whole debacle, I would like to highlight an issue related to marketing and customer retention...
As everyone who has passed Marketing 101 knows, traditional view holds that it's a lot cheaper (and more profitable) in the long run to retain customers rather than continuously attract new ones. That's why most companies in most businesses would do better to shed the transactional mode of business and focus on building relationships. Relationships are based on trust. And trust in business is created via successful deals. Now, in consumer business, at least, it's very easy to create long-term customer relationships by rectifying mistakes that you've made and compensating the customer very generously. If the customer's bad experience can be salvaged into a good one, you'll also be able to tap the viral marketing mechanism: the customer will undoubtedly tell his friends about the good service he got.
So, back to trousers. I bought a new pair of... uhmm... Swedish designer jeans from Beamhill and a pair of Pal Zileri trousers from Fere. Both had problems. The cloth of the jeans wore down and got a hole after two weeks of use and the trousers, after being initially adjusted, started to unravel from the back seem. Now, at this point the two different companies went two very different routes. That's why I will continue to be a customer of one company, but stear clear of the other.
First, the Pal Zileris... I took them back to the store and I was met by a shocked salesperson, who seemed genuinely apologetic after I told him about the somewhat awkward situation. Then we laughed and agreed that it's a good thing that men wear jackets to cover their rear. The salesperson then proceeded to ensure me that although the tailor had gone home for the day (to be fair, I was at the store at around 5.30 PM, and they were closing pretty soon), they would fix the trousers first thing in the morning and I would be able to pick them up pretty much as soon as the store opened. All of this on top of the fact that they kindly enough gave me a discount and threw in free alterations to the trousers in the first place, and even then they delivered within 24 hours since I was in somewhat of a hurry that week. Brilliant service.
Then on to the jeans. Amazingly enough the cloth itself wore out with the jeans. And in two weeks! That can't be possible! I take them back to the store and the salesperson takes them and my contact information and promises to be in touch the following morning as she is unable to make a decision on how to proceed by herself and has to consult her boss. Ok, fair enough... Then, the following day... No call. I get interested about the situation as those were the only pair of jeans that I had at the moment and swing by the store just before closing time. The same salesperson is there, this time telling me that yes, I'll get a new pair and that I can pick them up the following day (Day 3). Not any mention of apologies for not following up on the promised call, which then resulted in me making a pointless trip to the store. Well, come Day 3 I go to the store just before closing time and this time there is another salesperson, who I explain the situation to, and just as I'm finished the first salesperson comes along and it turns out that this new person is in fact the boss of the initial salesperson. And now it turns out that the jeans are still not at the store, but I can go fetch them from some obscure location elsewhere. Or I can wait and have them possibly fetch the jeans to this store tomorrow.
At this point I'm quite annoyed at the fact that I've made two pointless trips and still don't have my jeans. My annoyance might've become obvious after I told them that let's just schedule my pickup for next week, so that they would have seven whole days to be able to handle the simple transportation to the store. They insist that the jeans will be available the following day (Day 4). Ok, I'm somewhat skeptical, thank, and leave. Then after 30 minutes I get a phone call from the store saying that the jeans are there. Excellent! I didn't typo the phone number that I gave them. Up until now I was fairly convinced that there was a possibility that I wrote the wrong phone number. Anyway, what am I supposed to do about the situation now? The information is useless as I've already gone home and don't feel like making a fourth trip to the store.
Ultimately I ended up getting the new jeans, and I've been wearing them now for slightly over a week. Right now I'm fairly jumpy and I have this strange feeling that the jeans are slowly coming apart again. Let's hope that they won't, since I do not want to deal with this company again. Actually, if the jeans do come apart, I'm just going to take them back and leave them there. I don't really even care about the money as it was just slightly more than a day's pay, but let's just say that if they don't offer any tangible apology, I'm going to be slightly sad for them.
Let's just hope that the jeans will now last. And I'll never buy anything Swedish ever again, just to be safe...
As everyone who has passed Marketing 101 knows, traditional view holds that it's a lot cheaper (and more profitable) in the long run to retain customers rather than continuously attract new ones. That's why most companies in most businesses would do better to shed the transactional mode of business and focus on building relationships. Relationships are based on trust. And trust in business is created via successful deals. Now, in consumer business, at least, it's very easy to create long-term customer relationships by rectifying mistakes that you've made and compensating the customer very generously. If the customer's bad experience can be salvaged into a good one, you'll also be able to tap the viral marketing mechanism: the customer will undoubtedly tell his friends about the good service he got.
So, back to trousers. I bought a new pair of... uhmm... Swedish designer jeans from Beamhill and a pair of Pal Zileri trousers from Fere. Both had problems. The cloth of the jeans wore down and got a hole after two weeks of use and the trousers, after being initially adjusted, started to unravel from the back seem. Now, at this point the two different companies went two very different routes. That's why I will continue to be a customer of one company, but stear clear of the other.
First, the Pal Zileris... I took them back to the store and I was met by a shocked salesperson, who seemed genuinely apologetic after I told him about the somewhat awkward situation. Then we laughed and agreed that it's a good thing that men wear jackets to cover their rear. The salesperson then proceeded to ensure me that although the tailor had gone home for the day (to be fair, I was at the store at around 5.30 PM, and they were closing pretty soon), they would fix the trousers first thing in the morning and I would be able to pick them up pretty much as soon as the store opened. All of this on top of the fact that they kindly enough gave me a discount and threw in free alterations to the trousers in the first place, and even then they delivered within 24 hours since I was in somewhat of a hurry that week. Brilliant service.
Then on to the jeans. Amazingly enough the cloth itself wore out with the jeans. And in two weeks! That can't be possible! I take them back to the store and the salesperson takes them and my contact information and promises to be in touch the following morning as she is unable to make a decision on how to proceed by herself and has to consult her boss. Ok, fair enough... Then, the following day... No call. I get interested about the situation as those were the only pair of jeans that I had at the moment and swing by the store just before closing time. The same salesperson is there, this time telling me that yes, I'll get a new pair and that I can pick them up the following day (Day 3). Not any mention of apologies for not following up on the promised call, which then resulted in me making a pointless trip to the store. Well, come Day 3 I go to the store just before closing time and this time there is another salesperson, who I explain the situation to, and just as I'm finished the first salesperson comes along and it turns out that this new person is in fact the boss of the initial salesperson. And now it turns out that the jeans are still not at the store, but I can go fetch them from some obscure location elsewhere. Or I can wait and have them possibly fetch the jeans to this store tomorrow.
At this point I'm quite annoyed at the fact that I've made two pointless trips and still don't have my jeans. My annoyance might've become obvious after I told them that let's just schedule my pickup for next week, so that they would have seven whole days to be able to handle the simple transportation to the store. They insist that the jeans will be available the following day (Day 4). Ok, I'm somewhat skeptical, thank, and leave. Then after 30 minutes I get a phone call from the store saying that the jeans are there. Excellent! I didn't typo the phone number that I gave them. Up until now I was fairly convinced that there was a possibility that I wrote the wrong phone number. Anyway, what am I supposed to do about the situation now? The information is useless as I've already gone home and don't feel like making a fourth trip to the store.
Ultimately I ended up getting the new jeans, and I've been wearing them now for slightly over a week. Right now I'm fairly jumpy and I have this strange feeling that the jeans are slowly coming apart again. Let's hope that they won't, since I do not want to deal with this company again. Actually, if the jeans do come apart, I'm just going to take them back and leave them there. I don't really even care about the money as it was just slightly more than a day's pay, but let's just say that if they don't offer any tangible apology, I'm going to be slightly sad for them.
Let's just hope that the jeans will now last. And I'll never buy anything Swedish ever again, just to be safe...
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Asymmetricity of information
The internet is truly a game changing disruption. I've noticed this again recently as I've shifted even more of my shopping online. It's actually quite logical: if you're buying more or less standardized products, the main differentiator between sellers is price. Right now I'm looking for sunglasses. I've narrowed my search down to one pair that I'm fairly interested in, and there is only one place in Finland selling that specific brand of sunglasses. I haven't been there yet, but I'm imagining that they are most likely charging a premium. Fortunately, however, I've been doing my homework and calculated the price that I would have to pay if I ordered them from abroad (including shipping and handling, taxes, and customs fees). Another dimension to this is the currency market, which gives me an additional discount to offset the fees with. So now, thanks to the available information related to the product's price as well as an efficient method of transporting goods globally, I'm going to be in a lot better position to negotiate with the local merchant about the price of the pair of sunglasses that he is selling.
The interesting thing about this is, however, that it's precisely in the asymmetric distribution of information where the merchants make their profits from. Used car merchants used to be in the brilliant position to basically lie and cheat the customer, since the customer was seldom able to value the car as well as the merchant could. Now with the rise of the internet and an access to global used car markets, the buyer can calculate some different scenarios about what it would cost to obtain the car from some other dealer. So in a sense the customer is now able to value the car being sold in a lot more precise and better way. This has sent the used car dealers scrambling for the hills. One Finnish dealer was actually saying in a newspaper that the internet should be destroyed, because it's killing business. That may be, but I for one see the positive aspects in this: business shouldn't necessarily be based on lying and cheating the customer but on creating tangible value add for the customer. If you're not creating value, the globalization of markets will soon drive you out of business. And that's how it should be...
The interesting thing about this is, however, that it's precisely in the asymmetric distribution of information where the merchants make their profits from. Used car merchants used to be in the brilliant position to basically lie and cheat the customer, since the customer was seldom able to value the car as well as the merchant could. Now with the rise of the internet and an access to global used car markets, the buyer can calculate some different scenarios about what it would cost to obtain the car from some other dealer. So in a sense the customer is now able to value the car being sold in a lot more precise and better way. This has sent the used car dealers scrambling for the hills. One Finnish dealer was actually saying in a newspaper that the internet should be destroyed, because it's killing business. That may be, but I for one see the positive aspects in this: business shouldn't necessarily be based on lying and cheating the customer but on creating tangible value add for the customer. If you're not creating value, the globalization of markets will soon drive you out of business. And that's how it should be...
Monday, June 15, 2009
Ethical financing
I was recently in Turku during a student-oriented binge drinking spree. The idea was that people would go around the bar boats in the river Aura and have a drink in each one and collect stamps to obtain a small cloth patch that they can then stitch onto their student overalls. My freshman year came and went a long time ago, but some friends of mine were still able to abduct me from the office and drag me to Turku, so there I was...
After a couple of hours of crawling through bars, we ended up meeting some casual acquaintances from Helsinki. Amongst the group that we met was a person studying economics and finance at Helsinki. I found her quite interesting as she obviously disliked my blatant way of firing opinions and my perception of the world. She insisted that she would become an ethical financier once she graduated. This sparked my interest as the issue is very topical, but I don't think that the finance world will ever change. In my view people will remain greedy and the people on Wall Street will continue to see the world as a zero-sum game. Somebody wins and somebody loses. I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with that: as an analogy we could look at boxing. I don't think the boxers in the ring have any sort of ethical problems when they go head on and try to knock the other guy out. It's only if they come out of the ring and start punching bypassers that it turns somewhat questionable; everyone knows that it's not too nice to punch random bypassers on the street.
Similarily I think financiers and the lot will act extremely rationally in the future and attempt to optimize against their own gain. And that there isn't inherently anything wrong with this: more money is better. Saying that you are an ethical financier is sort of like going in the boxing ring and saying that you'll only use your left hand: you're doing a stupid move and giving the other guy a very big advantage over you. What's the point? I personally won't be giving any of my money to a person who is going to most likely make a loss with it because of some personal agenda and ethical beliefs that they advocate. Instead I want the person investing my money to maximize my money against the timeframe that I'm working.
Now, the observant reader will notice that we completely omitted the definition for "ethical" investing/financing in this context. That's something that my ethical financier and I didn't get around to talking, perhaps because of the many beers that I'd already had. But regardless, I don't think that's the real issue at hand. I would say that within the boxing ring and within the markets, the only unethical things are the things that are made illegal by law. It's not nice to manipulate the markets and use inside information, and so on. But the thing here is that in my opinion the ethical issues should be tackled by the regulator. They should act as the referee and determine what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed. One thing that should have become clear from this financial meltdown is that the free markets very rarely are able to moderate themselves over a longer period of time. They always get greedy and the game gets tougher. That's when the regulator should step in and the referee should separate the boxers and make sure that the situation doesn't get out of hand.
The argument I'm trying to provoke here is that if your job is winning, you should not hesitate to use the angles and destroy the opponent. If you look at star athletes, I don't think they go into competition thinking about whether or not it's ethical to beat the opponent. They work within the boundaries that are set by the rules and they do their utmost to win. It's very difficult to start making rules if you're the one who is competing: you can't remain objective enough. And you shouldn't bother yourself with stuff like that. It should be the regulator who needs to understand what the rules are and how they should be developed.
Interestingly enough I don't personally, for instance, engage in derivatives trading. Not because of any ethical reasons as such, but because I feel that I don't right now need derivatives to protect my portfolio and on the other hand I don't want to engage in speculative behavior with derivatives as the risks are too high for me. But derivatives are good for some things and less good for other things. The million dollar question, I guess, is how the regulators will tackle the question about speculative behavior with derivatives: is it ok or should it be regulated? And other such questions...
After a couple of hours of crawling through bars, we ended up meeting some casual acquaintances from Helsinki. Amongst the group that we met was a person studying economics and finance at Helsinki. I found her quite interesting as she obviously disliked my blatant way of firing opinions and my perception of the world. She insisted that she would become an ethical financier once she graduated. This sparked my interest as the issue is very topical, but I don't think that the finance world will ever change. In my view people will remain greedy and the people on Wall Street will continue to see the world as a zero-sum game. Somebody wins and somebody loses. I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with that: as an analogy we could look at boxing. I don't think the boxers in the ring have any sort of ethical problems when they go head on and try to knock the other guy out. It's only if they come out of the ring and start punching bypassers that it turns somewhat questionable; everyone knows that it's not too nice to punch random bypassers on the street.
Similarily I think financiers and the lot will act extremely rationally in the future and attempt to optimize against their own gain. And that there isn't inherently anything wrong with this: more money is better. Saying that you are an ethical financier is sort of like going in the boxing ring and saying that you'll only use your left hand: you're doing a stupid move and giving the other guy a very big advantage over you. What's the point? I personally won't be giving any of my money to a person who is going to most likely make a loss with it because of some personal agenda and ethical beliefs that they advocate. Instead I want the person investing my money to maximize my money against the timeframe that I'm working.
Now, the observant reader will notice that we completely omitted the definition for "ethical" investing/financing in this context. That's something that my ethical financier and I didn't get around to talking, perhaps because of the many beers that I'd already had. But regardless, I don't think that's the real issue at hand. I would say that within the boxing ring and within the markets, the only unethical things are the things that are made illegal by law. It's not nice to manipulate the markets and use inside information, and so on. But the thing here is that in my opinion the ethical issues should be tackled by the regulator. They should act as the referee and determine what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed. One thing that should have become clear from this financial meltdown is that the free markets very rarely are able to moderate themselves over a longer period of time. They always get greedy and the game gets tougher. That's when the regulator should step in and the referee should separate the boxers and make sure that the situation doesn't get out of hand.
The argument I'm trying to provoke here is that if your job is winning, you should not hesitate to use the angles and destroy the opponent. If you look at star athletes, I don't think they go into competition thinking about whether or not it's ethical to beat the opponent. They work within the boundaries that are set by the rules and they do their utmost to win. It's very difficult to start making rules if you're the one who is competing: you can't remain objective enough. And you shouldn't bother yourself with stuff like that. It should be the regulator who needs to understand what the rules are and how they should be developed.
Interestingly enough I don't personally, for instance, engage in derivatives trading. Not because of any ethical reasons as such, but because I feel that I don't right now need derivatives to protect my portfolio and on the other hand I don't want to engage in speculative behavior with derivatives as the risks are too high for me. But derivatives are good for some things and less good for other things. The million dollar question, I guess, is how the regulators will tackle the question about speculative behavior with derivatives: is it ok or should it be regulated? And other such questions...
Friday, June 12, 2009
The new BMW Z4
... it is also a paint brush, so how convenient is that? Aspirational over rational arguments every day of the week, when it comes to cars. You should never get a car that you're merely satisfied with; you should get a car that you actually want. And right now I want quite a few different cars... You know, for different occasions...
Sunday, May 24, 2009
On thoughtlessness
We went to see Angels & Demons last week with R and for some odd reason I always get very annoyed at the movie theater. Granted, the movie itself wasn't as horrible as I was afraid of, but it seems that the typical moviegoer these days is not capable of being in any way considerate when it comes to the experience of other viewers. One of my pet peeves is how people are checking their phone in a dark movie theater. Just maybe it's not a good idea, namely because when the backlight of the phone's screen kicks on in a dark room, your movie viewing experience is degraded as your view is automatically turned to the new source of stimulus. And when this happens every ten minutes you can't help but complain to the person (if they are close to you) and wish that you'd have a bottle to throw at the person if they're sitting further away.
Another brilliant thing to do is to leave the movie theater in the middle of the movie in disgust. Nothing's better than directly and immediately protesting against the shitty quality of the plot and acting than to march out in protest. That may work in a theater where the actors are present and attempting to perform (and I have to admit that even I haven't dared disrupt theater presentations in this way, even though I've seen quite a few rather appalling ones in my time), but for some odd reason I think the protest is lost on the fact that at movies you don't have a direct feedback channel available to the actors or the producer or the director. So please, fly to California and bitch and moan at them, but please don't do it in the movie theater. The only thing you accomplish is the same that you get when you play with your phone: the other moviegoers will be wishing that someone would decapitate you.
It's funny since I recall that I've bitched and moaned about these things before. But all seems to not be lost yet as the people playing with their phones seem to know on some level that they're doing something wrong. Or at least I get this feeling when I tell them to lose the phone and shut up. In my experience everyone thus far has put their phones away without trouble. Maybe it's because we Finns inherently adhere to rules or maybe it's because I look scary or something. But from my point of view it doesn't matter what the reason is as long as it continues to work in the future as well.
Another brilliant thing to do is to leave the movie theater in the middle of the movie in disgust. Nothing's better than directly and immediately protesting against the shitty quality of the plot and acting than to march out in protest. That may work in a theater where the actors are present and attempting to perform (and I have to admit that even I haven't dared disrupt theater presentations in this way, even though I've seen quite a few rather appalling ones in my time), but for some odd reason I think the protest is lost on the fact that at movies you don't have a direct feedback channel available to the actors or the producer or the director. So please, fly to California and bitch and moan at them, but please don't do it in the movie theater. The only thing you accomplish is the same that you get when you play with your phone: the other moviegoers will be wishing that someone would decapitate you.
It's funny since I recall that I've bitched and moaned about these things before. But all seems to not be lost yet as the people playing with their phones seem to know on some level that they're doing something wrong. Or at least I get this feeling when I tell them to lose the phone and shut up. In my experience everyone thus far has put their phones away without trouble. Maybe it's because we Finns inherently adhere to rules or maybe it's because I look scary or something. But from my point of view it doesn't matter what the reason is as long as it continues to work in the future as well.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Sunday, May 03, 2009
On microblogging and such
Antti, a friend of mine, was recently writing about the issues with micro-blogging services like Twitter. He also reflected his own personal usage and identified the requirement to commit oneself to the micro-blogging as of the single biggest issues for him and the services in general. I see the point, but do not necessarily agree on the potential impact that it has for the systems.
Social software like blogs and social networking sites do require some level of activity. If I don't blog anything here for a while, the few readers that this blog has will disappear. I disagree, however, with the notion that the commitment needs to be that big. Even less so with sites like Twitter. If I don't post anything in a while, it doesn't really matter: I might be away from network connectivity or something similar, but I doubt that people would send search parties to find me. I can't help but feel that Antti's example is not necessarily that realistic. The real value from these services comes from the network externalities. The more friends you have using the systems the more you get from them in the form of updates and such. Even if you're not too active yourself, you can still follow what other people are doing. And when you do post something yourself, you're contributing something to the system, making it that much more valuable.
Now, the systems do indeed require activity, but for me this activity comes from intrinsic motivators. I don't blog for others; I blog for myself. I may update my Facebook status or send a tweet to notify other people, but again I do this out of free will, not because I feel that I have to do so. Antti does, however, brush upon one point that is relevant here: if you feel that you "have to" update your blog and if you are driven by external motivators, you are of course a lot more likely to stop blogging and using Twitter than if you were doing it for yourself instead of other people.
While most of the social software these days does benefit from network externalities, I do feel that there is one very tangible threat around the corner. While technically the more information that goes through the network has traditionally meant more value for each node of the network, the same problem lurks nearby that Google has been tackling for the World Wide Web since the mid-90s: creating some sense into the chaos of information tidbits. So the risk is that as our social links go increasingly online, there need to be proper tools to filter and manage the information that spreads in the network. A fine and very tangible example of this is the Facebook phenomenon of quizes: many people feel a need to fill out tons of different quizes to supposedly learn something interesting about themselves. These quiz notifications go out to all of the friends in the network, but even with some hundred contacts the problem is easily that the quiz notifications drown all the other signals in the network and thus actually reduce the value of the network by increasing the noise level and making it more difficult for me to pick up the signals that interest me.
Social software like blogs and social networking sites do require some level of activity. If I don't blog anything here for a while, the few readers that this blog has will disappear. I disagree, however, with the notion that the commitment needs to be that big. Even less so with sites like Twitter. If I don't post anything in a while, it doesn't really matter: I might be away from network connectivity or something similar, but I doubt that people would send search parties to find me. I can't help but feel that Antti's example is not necessarily that realistic. The real value from these services comes from the network externalities. The more friends you have using the systems the more you get from them in the form of updates and such. Even if you're not too active yourself, you can still follow what other people are doing. And when you do post something yourself, you're contributing something to the system, making it that much more valuable.
Now, the systems do indeed require activity, but for me this activity comes from intrinsic motivators. I don't blog for others; I blog for myself. I may update my Facebook status or send a tweet to notify other people, but again I do this out of free will, not because I feel that I have to do so. Antti does, however, brush upon one point that is relevant here: if you feel that you "have to" update your blog and if you are driven by external motivators, you are of course a lot more likely to stop blogging and using Twitter than if you were doing it for yourself instead of other people.
While most of the social software these days does benefit from network externalities, I do feel that there is one very tangible threat around the corner. While technically the more information that goes through the network has traditionally meant more value for each node of the network, the same problem lurks nearby that Google has been tackling for the World Wide Web since the mid-90s: creating some sense into the chaos of information tidbits. So the risk is that as our social links go increasingly online, there need to be proper tools to filter and manage the information that spreads in the network. A fine and very tangible example of this is the Facebook phenomenon of quizes: many people feel a need to fill out tons of different quizes to supposedly learn something interesting about themselves. These quiz notifications go out to all of the friends in the network, but even with some hundred contacts the problem is easily that the quiz notifications drown all the other signals in the network and thus actually reduce the value of the network by increasing the noise level and making it more difficult for me to pick up the signals that interest me.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Crisis, opportunities, and change
The economic downturn is finally hitting more tangible and personal levels. Our unit at work began negotiations to "streamline" its operations (as can be read from Finnish newspapers). According to the Finnish labor legislation, there is a six week long consultation period during which representatives from the employers and the employees attempt to negotiate the specifics of the arrangements.
Interestingly enough I was talking with a few people about this situation and the general attitude people have is negative. That's not very surprising per se, but if you do the math and carefully plan different scenarios, at least I noticed that getting laid off might not even be the worst possible scenario. Amidst the crisis and the events that have begun to unfold, there are plenty of opportunities. The driver of all this is change: change in the market place, change in the organization and competences, change in the financial setup, and so on. Change isn't inherently good or bad. It can have good resulting effects or bad resulting effects. Most often both, depending on the perspective you take.
A major reason why people think negatively of layoffs is that they fear change, because there is always a deal of uncertainty involved. And more often than not people equate uncertainty with lack of visibility to the future. But in many cases the situation can be helped merely by looking objectively and mapping out the future according to different assumptions. And eventually you'll notice that there are some scenarios with suboptimal results and others with much better results. But during the process you also make the fog a bit less thick and enhance your visibility about different situations. And more importantly, you can also identify the different crossroads and decision points that you can actually influence yourself.
I won't go into my thinking on the current subject per se, as that I fear does not really fit the scope of this blog. As with poker, often in times of tight situations its better to keep your cards to yourself rather than spilling all the beans. Sufficient to say, I'm not very worried about the current situation. There are one or two scenarios that may have clearly negative impacts, but the probabilities of those materializing are very slim (not least because they're the ones the I can actually influence very well myself). But besides those, there are a few paths which are more probable in regards to how the events might unfold, and none of these paths is especially poor.
And as a closing thought, one of the key things here is flexibility, both in strategy as well as operations. If you lose your flexibility, then you're a sitting duck. As long as you have degrees of freedom left, you are still able to execute maneuvers and attempt to flank the situation and sieze the moment.
Interestingly enough I was talking with a few people about this situation and the general attitude people have is negative. That's not very surprising per se, but if you do the math and carefully plan different scenarios, at least I noticed that getting laid off might not even be the worst possible scenario. Amidst the crisis and the events that have begun to unfold, there are plenty of opportunities. The driver of all this is change: change in the market place, change in the organization and competences, change in the financial setup, and so on. Change isn't inherently good or bad. It can have good resulting effects or bad resulting effects. Most often both, depending on the perspective you take.
A major reason why people think negatively of layoffs is that they fear change, because there is always a deal of uncertainty involved. And more often than not people equate uncertainty with lack of visibility to the future. But in many cases the situation can be helped merely by looking objectively and mapping out the future according to different assumptions. And eventually you'll notice that there are some scenarios with suboptimal results and others with much better results. But during the process you also make the fog a bit less thick and enhance your visibility about different situations. And more importantly, you can also identify the different crossroads and decision points that you can actually influence yourself.
I won't go into my thinking on the current subject per se, as that I fear does not really fit the scope of this blog. As with poker, often in times of tight situations its better to keep your cards to yourself rather than spilling all the beans. Sufficient to say, I'm not very worried about the current situation. There are one or two scenarios that may have clearly negative impacts, but the probabilities of those materializing are very slim (not least because they're the ones the I can actually influence very well myself). But besides those, there are a few paths which are more probable in regards to how the events might unfold, and none of these paths is especially poor.
And as a closing thought, one of the key things here is flexibility, both in strategy as well as operations. If you lose your flexibility, then you're a sitting duck. As long as you have degrees of freedom left, you are still able to execute maneuvers and attempt to flank the situation and sieze the moment.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Drastic times call of drastic measures
It's been a long break from blogging again. Part of it is due to a certain increased level of self-consciousness stemming from the fact that it turns out that apparently more people are aware of this blog than I had anticipated. And that in turn has unconsciously caused me to become slightly more critical about what I write (= I've started writing on multiple occasions but then abandoned the pursuit in a streak of self-censorship). But another, perhaps bigger part of the lack of activity has been the refocusing of energy to other pursuits, namely work and exercise. But because work is work, we'll just discuss a bit about exercising instead.
I recently signed up for the Helsinki City Run, a half-marathon, for the second year in a row. I'm hoping to make it a habit of sorts in an effort to keep myself at least somewhat fit. This was caused by the sudden realization that I had weighed 79 kg after the surgery last summer, but more recently my weight had popped up to 91 kg. This in turn created an imminent issue with my wardrobe, namely that my slim-fit shirts and aggressively cut suits would soon have to either make another appointment with the tailor or just make room for better fitting clothing. And with the economic downturn, going to the Zegna-shop just seemed like too suicidal, the logical conclusion was that we'd of course take aggressive measures driven by vanity to curb the trend of increasing waist size.
Actually the situation isn't as hopeless as this might sound. The only real measurement of size that you want to use these days is in fact the aforementioned waist size, and a perfect measurement for that are your jeans. And I still fit into the same jeans as well as I did five years ago. The other measurement, in light of the HCR, is how long and fast I can run. I have occasionally been doing some running on the treadmill at the office, but last Wednesday I went out for the second actual jog outdoors this year. The target was to run around Lauttasaari, but then halfway through I was feeling so good that I decided to extend the jog to cover also Keilalahti. In the end I managed to do about 16 km in pretty much exactly an hour and thirty minutes. So on that dimension the HCR should not be that big a problem as long as I continue doing some running before it.
But more importantly I've again found the drive to actually do some training. Running outside has turned out to be more fun than I remembered and I've also been averaging a couple of times to the gym per week. And best of all I am actually seeing some improvements in strength and stamina, which further motivate me. So hopefully this pre-emptive strike will have more positive effects and ensure that the basic backbone of my wardrobe will be safe for years to come.
On a completely unrelated note, I watched Geraint Anderson's documentary on investment banking and bankers in London last week and got interested in the subject again. I also ordered his book along with some others that I had been meaning to get. Check out his somewhat provocative and very much hilarious music video below...
I recently signed up for the Helsinki City Run, a half-marathon, for the second year in a row. I'm hoping to make it a habit of sorts in an effort to keep myself at least somewhat fit. This was caused by the sudden realization that I had weighed 79 kg after the surgery last summer, but more recently my weight had popped up to 91 kg. This in turn created an imminent issue with my wardrobe, namely that my slim-fit shirts and aggressively cut suits would soon have to either make another appointment with the tailor or just make room for better fitting clothing. And with the economic downturn, going to the Zegna-shop just seemed like too suicidal, the logical conclusion was that we'd of course take aggressive measures driven by vanity to curb the trend of increasing waist size.
Actually the situation isn't as hopeless as this might sound. The only real measurement of size that you want to use these days is in fact the aforementioned waist size, and a perfect measurement for that are your jeans. And I still fit into the same jeans as well as I did five years ago. The other measurement, in light of the HCR, is how long and fast I can run. I have occasionally been doing some running on the treadmill at the office, but last Wednesday I went out for the second actual jog outdoors this year. The target was to run around Lauttasaari, but then halfway through I was feeling so good that I decided to extend the jog to cover also Keilalahti. In the end I managed to do about 16 km in pretty much exactly an hour and thirty minutes. So on that dimension the HCR should not be that big a problem as long as I continue doing some running before it.
But more importantly I've again found the drive to actually do some training. Running outside has turned out to be more fun than I remembered and I've also been averaging a couple of times to the gym per week. And best of all I am actually seeing some improvements in strength and stamina, which further motivate me. So hopefully this pre-emptive strike will have more positive effects and ensure that the basic backbone of my wardrobe will be safe for years to come.
On a completely unrelated note, I watched Geraint Anderson's documentary on investment banking and bankers in London last week and got interested in the subject again. I also ordered his book along with some others that I had been meaning to get. Check out his somewhat provocative and very much hilarious music video below...
Friday, March 27, 2009
The problem with Finnish (or: Why we should all just be engineers)
We went to the theater last night with R to see Teatteri Takomo perform Ihmeellinen armo. It was about the rise and fall of an Evangelical-Lutheran preacher. I won't actually go into the plot too much, but sufficient to say it made me think of There Will Be Blood more than a few times. And they also played the National Coalition card; nothing's easier than to poke fun at the upper classes. Anyway, I have to admit that I'm not a very big fan of Finnish television or theater. Or very many art forms in general. My issues are multifold: on one hand I always feel that Finnish as a language, while average for literature, is entirely appalling and unsuitable for any sort of verbal artform. On the other hand I feel that an average Finnish actor has the stage charisma of a shoe. The starting points are thus not too good for the Finnish "intellectual" artforms.
Maybe it has something to do with the overall Finnish attitude and temperament. We've traditionally been very sparsely populated as a country and very much oriented towards survival in a climate where the winters are dark and cold and agriculture stands firmly on its own, as long as the European Union is supporting it. I talked to a Polish acquaintance a few years back and he explained that they see Finns as good intending folks, who may be slightly naive and like to cut trees, swim across rivers (as opposed to using bridges) and then drink vodka to get warm again. And once a Finn starts to do something, s/he will typically do the best s/he can. So it's not a surprise that once a Finn decides to act, it will be something that you will remember: "Now I am acting and I am going to let everyone know that I truely am acting." Not too good, especially if acting is supposed to be the act of pretending or portraying someone who you are not. If acting is deception, then Finns will be unbelievably appalling in lying.
And then about the language: this is slightly difficult to elaborate on, since it's just something that personally annoys me very greatly. I don't consider Finnish an especially beautiful language. It lacks the finesse that some other languages have and the language is difficult to master. I've never read Douglas Adams in Finnish, but I somehow feel that if I had, I would've had to contemplate hurting myself to ease the pain. There are some famous Finns who have been able to make beautiful and great things with Finnish (Mika Waltari comes to mind, for obvious reasons). It's just a shame that had they had access to better tools in the form of other languages, they could've potentially achieved very much more and on a more global scale.
Then there is the general problem that amateur theaters have to struggle with: building credibility and getting noticed. This isn't necessarily applicable only to Finns, but based on personal experience, it just seems that Finnish theater, especially on the lower levels, is very much based on silly gimmicks and plots and dialogue that has been written for the sole reason of trying too much to be controversial, thought-provoking, and intellectual. Or if it doesn't aspire to the former of the three, then it's because it wants to be so artsy that it will be credible in the right circles. This combined with the "I'm acting now!" trait, as described above, can result in very... err... well, something.
Now, I know I might be fairly cruel. And I have to admit that Ihmeellinen armo was surprisingly decent for Finnish theater. And I know that theaters have trouble to compete with other entertainment forms in the contemporary world and for the niche that is still left it's a cutthroat competition to the end. But that does not change the fact that more often than not I just cannot stand Finnish theater. As an experience, I much more prefer the opera.
And one last thing: I seriously hate it when the actors start interacting with the audience. The audience is often very courteous and respects the presence of the fourth wall, but when the actors break the wall, I personally have a very big urge to also abuse the broken wall and throw something at them in return...
Maybe it has something to do with the overall Finnish attitude and temperament. We've traditionally been very sparsely populated as a country and very much oriented towards survival in a climate where the winters are dark and cold and agriculture stands firmly on its own, as long as the European Union is supporting it. I talked to a Polish acquaintance a few years back and he explained that they see Finns as good intending folks, who may be slightly naive and like to cut trees, swim across rivers (as opposed to using bridges) and then drink vodka to get warm again. And once a Finn starts to do something, s/he will typically do the best s/he can. So it's not a surprise that once a Finn decides to act, it will be something that you will remember: "Now I am acting and I am going to let everyone know that I truely am acting." Not too good, especially if acting is supposed to be the act of pretending or portraying someone who you are not. If acting is deception, then Finns will be unbelievably appalling in lying.
And then about the language: this is slightly difficult to elaborate on, since it's just something that personally annoys me very greatly. I don't consider Finnish an especially beautiful language. It lacks the finesse that some other languages have and the language is difficult to master. I've never read Douglas Adams in Finnish, but I somehow feel that if I had, I would've had to contemplate hurting myself to ease the pain. There are some famous Finns who have been able to make beautiful and great things with Finnish (Mika Waltari comes to mind, for obvious reasons). It's just a shame that had they had access to better tools in the form of other languages, they could've potentially achieved very much more and on a more global scale.
Then there is the general problem that amateur theaters have to struggle with: building credibility and getting noticed. This isn't necessarily applicable only to Finns, but based on personal experience, it just seems that Finnish theater, especially on the lower levels, is very much based on silly gimmicks and plots and dialogue that has been written for the sole reason of trying too much to be controversial, thought-provoking, and intellectual. Or if it doesn't aspire to the former of the three, then it's because it wants to be so artsy that it will be credible in the right circles. This combined with the "I'm acting now!" trait, as described above, can result in very... err... well, something.
Now, I know I might be fairly cruel. And I have to admit that Ihmeellinen armo was surprisingly decent for Finnish theater. And I know that theaters have trouble to compete with other entertainment forms in the contemporary world and for the niche that is still left it's a cutthroat competition to the end. But that does not change the fact that more often than not I just cannot stand Finnish theater. As an experience, I much more prefer the opera.
And one last thing: I seriously hate it when the actors start interacting with the audience. The audience is often very courteous and respects the presence of the fourth wall, but when the actors break the wall, I personally have a very big urge to also abuse the broken wall and throw something at them in return...
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
On deltas, again
I was watching the latest episode (S02E19) of Gossip Girl on Tuesday morning and I noticed that indeed the most interesting things in life often do revolve around change. We hosted a very interesting seminar at work where we benchmarked various things and there also the most interesting tidbits of knowledge were concerned with trends, or deltas and amounts of change over a time period.
As with benchmarking trends, Gossip Girl is also interesting because of the deltas. My favorite character from the start onwards was always Chuck, who on the surface is a very superficial and manipulative chap, but it was obvious from the beginning onwards that this setup would afford the most juicy character development prospects, at least from my perspective. And now with season 2, things have come true. I won't spoil anything for the Finns reading this blog who are following the series on Finnish television (and thus lagging 18 episodes), but I will say that right now Chuck's situation is interesting to say the least. And it's all thanks to the deltas.
As with benchmarking trends, Gossip Girl is also interesting because of the deltas. My favorite character from the start onwards was always Chuck, who on the surface is a very superficial and manipulative chap, but it was obvious from the beginning onwards that this setup would afford the most juicy character development prospects, at least from my perspective. And now with season 2, things have come true. I won't spoil anything for the Finns reading this blog who are following the series on Finnish television (and thus lagging 18 episodes), but I will say that right now Chuck's situation is interesting to say the least. And it's all thanks to the deltas.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Count your blessings, not your problems
Now I've pretty much seen and heard it all. I've been called a lot of things by very many different people, but I've never been called a Count before (well, the closest one prior to this incident was when I was told that I had a slight resemblance to the Count of Monte Cristo; I don't necessarily entirely agree with this...).
Anyway, we were checking out the new entrants to the Helsinki nightlife with Istvan on Saturday and thanks to his magnificent charm and exotic appearance, my friend was gathering the attention of the fairer gender for the most part of the evening. We eventually found our way to the recently opened Tiger where we ran across some of the people from the previous destinations. I kept myself out of the discussions and let my friend enjoy the ride while I kept myself preoccupied by working on my recent Twitter addiction and trying to figure out what I would like to drink next with an additional constraint that the generic, but still very friendly, bar staff would actually know how to make (it turns out that Manhattans are way to exotic). The bomb of the night arived when I briefly rejoined the conversation my friend was having: our new pals were very much intrigued whether or not I was a member of nobility, a Count perhaps. Unfortunately I had to admit that to the best of my knowledge I am nothing of the like. Nor are my ways in general very noble, so there we are...
I didn't get around to asking what this was about, but I have formed two mutually non-exclusive theories regarding my supposed promotion. The first is that Finland is still not entirely ready for any sort of dandyism, and I would very much argue that what I was wearing wasn't very dandyistic in the first place--a black blazer with grey buttons, a white-and-blue striped shirt, relaxed jeans, brown oxfords and a black Ascot tie with slightly slicked back but still wavy hair. My second theory is that I might've come off as slightly arrogant by excluding myself from the conversation and also exhibiting a decent posture and restraint of unnecessary facial expressions.
Now, asides from these two theories I'm still very much baffled. But this begs the question as to whether or not Finland is destined to be doomed; are Finnish men really so lost that Finnish women will mistake a semi-decently dressed person as a person with class and are youngsters so ill after being exposed to hip-hop-pop that they cannot hold a decent posture? Now that one actually begins to think about it, maybe it seriously is so...
Moving on, surprisingly enough The Tiger seemed like a semi-decent place. It's still essentially Lux but with a slightly different colorscheme and women who are more aggressively trying to steal drinks that your group has positioned onto a table. Then again, it was opened on Friday, so I guess we'll need to give it a month or two and see what it turns into. Privé opened up again a while back after being closed for a few years. The opening event saw the place packed up pretty tightly, but last Saturday it was more or less empty. Is it so that trying to position yourself in the upmarket amidst a recession is a foolish thing, or is it just that the places that are truly founded in the upmarket are ones that stay around year after year and are not even competing in the same category as the fad-ish clubs that come and go in three year cycles... Anyone see the parallels to the fashion and art worlds?
Anyway, we were checking out the new entrants to the Helsinki nightlife with Istvan on Saturday and thanks to his magnificent charm and exotic appearance, my friend was gathering the attention of the fairer gender for the most part of the evening. We eventually found our way to the recently opened Tiger where we ran across some of the people from the previous destinations. I kept myself out of the discussions and let my friend enjoy the ride while I kept myself preoccupied by working on my recent Twitter addiction and trying to figure out what I would like to drink next with an additional constraint that the generic, but still very friendly, bar staff would actually know how to make (it turns out that Manhattans are way to exotic). The bomb of the night arived when I briefly rejoined the conversation my friend was having: our new pals were very much intrigued whether or not I was a member of nobility, a Count perhaps. Unfortunately I had to admit that to the best of my knowledge I am nothing of the like. Nor are my ways in general very noble, so there we are...
I didn't get around to asking what this was about, but I have formed two mutually non-exclusive theories regarding my supposed promotion. The first is that Finland is still not entirely ready for any sort of dandyism, and I would very much argue that what I was wearing wasn't very dandyistic in the first place--a black blazer with grey buttons, a white-and-blue striped shirt, relaxed jeans, brown oxfords and a black Ascot tie with slightly slicked back but still wavy hair. My second theory is that I might've come off as slightly arrogant by excluding myself from the conversation and also exhibiting a decent posture and restraint of unnecessary facial expressions.
Now, asides from these two theories I'm still very much baffled. But this begs the question as to whether or not Finland is destined to be doomed; are Finnish men really so lost that Finnish women will mistake a semi-decently dressed person as a person with class and are youngsters so ill after being exposed to hip-hop-pop that they cannot hold a decent posture? Now that one actually begins to think about it, maybe it seriously is so...
Moving on, surprisingly enough The Tiger seemed like a semi-decent place. It's still essentially Lux but with a slightly different colorscheme and women who are more aggressively trying to steal drinks that your group has positioned onto a table. Then again, it was opened on Friday, so I guess we'll need to give it a month or two and see what it turns into. Privé opened up again a while back after being closed for a few years. The opening event saw the place packed up pretty tightly, but last Saturday it was more or less empty. Is it so that trying to position yourself in the upmarket amidst a recession is a foolish thing, or is it just that the places that are truly founded in the upmarket are ones that stay around year after year and are not even competing in the same category as the fad-ish clubs that come and go in three year cycles... Anyone see the parallels to the fashion and art worlds?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Spaces and decorating
I was watching an episode of a Finnish home decoration/renovation series last night and they were renovating the home of one of the hosts of the program. His home was a large loft apartment and being an interior decorator or something of the like, he had fairly solid views about what he wanted and what he didn't want. The outcome, while technically ok, was not something that I would've done.
I really like loft apartments thanks to the vast amounts of space they provide. But in my opinion the whole philosophy of a loft apartment is to be industrial and minimalist in some way; in the show last night the end result was very much crowded and looked like something that was forced into the world for the sake of doing something "different" and making a statement. It just didn't work, in my opinion. There were too many tricks and gimmicks to keep the open and spacious nature of the loft intact.
But I guess there might be some issues with decorating large areas. A person I once knew lived in this quite decent sized apartment, but the problem there was the typical Finnish mentality of decorating: put all of the furniture along the walls. There were other issues with not having any continuity or having interesting details, but the main turn-off for me was that by piling everything against the walls, it looked empty and soulless. As if no effort and creativity was used at all. In smaller spaces it's more difficult to place furniture due to the constraints, but in open areas this constraint doesn't exist and things should be a lot more easy. If you want to go for minimalism in open spaces, you should take very bold stances and not fear about placing furniture in the middle of the room.
But I'm nitpicking here and provoking a fight. While I have strong opinions on these subjects, ultimately I guess the core point is that you have to feel at home in your apartment or house. That said, you can decorate things in an interesting way, or then you can be a Finn...
I really like loft apartments thanks to the vast amounts of space they provide. But in my opinion the whole philosophy of a loft apartment is to be industrial and minimalist in some way; in the show last night the end result was very much crowded and looked like something that was forced into the world for the sake of doing something "different" and making a statement. It just didn't work, in my opinion. There were too many tricks and gimmicks to keep the open and spacious nature of the loft intact.
But I guess there might be some issues with decorating large areas. A person I once knew lived in this quite decent sized apartment, but the problem there was the typical Finnish mentality of decorating: put all of the furniture along the walls. There were other issues with not having any continuity or having interesting details, but the main turn-off for me was that by piling everything against the walls, it looked empty and soulless. As if no effort and creativity was used at all. In smaller spaces it's more difficult to place furniture due to the constraints, but in open areas this constraint doesn't exist and things should be a lot more easy. If you want to go for minimalism in open spaces, you should take very bold stances and not fear about placing furniture in the middle of the room.
But I'm nitpicking here and provoking a fight. While I have strong opinions on these subjects, ultimately I guess the core point is that you have to feel at home in your apartment or house. That said, you can decorate things in an interesting way, or then you can be a Finn...
Friday, March 13, 2009
On support
All in all I would say that I'm fairly responsible as a person. This manifests itself in various different ways and when I typically start doing something, I want to do it properly and strive to keep within the given timeframes. In practice this means that occasionally I put in decent amounts of time and effort at work, which I guess most people do. It's also sometimes called commitment.
Based on empirical evidence, the reactions to this sort of effort and commitment are interesting, to say the least. They vary very widely from just acknowledging that "yeah, that's life" to the oh-so-traditional "you're working too hard, you should take it more easy". It's very seldom that I've heard very many encouraging things, which has led me to wonder why that is. It's actually surprisingly often that I encounter the "you should take it more easy" reaction, and somehow I always get this impression that this is just something that you should say to attempt to discourage the person from putting in more effort into something and as such tries to inhibit the progress of the other person. I know that this may be quite a strong interpretation and that there are others as well, but on some level it just feels that when someone tells you that, they're in fact trying to tell themselves that it's ok that they're not putting in as much effort and obtain some sort of better consience. It's something that happens when the other person feels that they're not ahead in the game and might be feeling threatened.
And as usual, this has been slightly provocative in an attempt to bring out another aspect to this phenomenon. So take it with a grain of salt...
Based on empirical evidence, the reactions to this sort of effort and commitment are interesting, to say the least. They vary very widely from just acknowledging that "yeah, that's life" to the oh-so-traditional "you're working too hard, you should take it more easy". It's very seldom that I've heard very many encouraging things, which has led me to wonder why that is. It's actually surprisingly often that I encounter the "you should take it more easy" reaction, and somehow I always get this impression that this is just something that you should say to attempt to discourage the person from putting in more effort into something and as such tries to inhibit the progress of the other person. I know that this may be quite a strong interpretation and that there are others as well, but on some level it just feels that when someone tells you that, they're in fact trying to tell themselves that it's ok that they're not putting in as much effort and obtain some sort of better consience. It's something that happens when the other person feels that they're not ahead in the game and might be feeling threatened.
And as usual, this has been slightly provocative in an attempt to bring out another aspect to this phenomenon. So take it with a grain of salt...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
