Speculation:Not So Humble Pie
03.29.08 (7:07 am) [edit]In a far off country,one of the biggest Initial Public Ofers took off yesterday.You can imagine the preceding rush by old and prospective investors to get their hands on this "home baked pie". The "pie" is actually delicious.The firm rakes a lot of profits,is finacially acclaimed in the region.The government hopes that by selling its 25% stock to the puublic,well,it would be credited favourably as being socially responsible.
Qouting a company in the stock exchange offers the organisation achance to become better recogonised by prospective investorsboth locally and internationally.Shareholders get to bear the risks associted with the firm.True ,but what does the investor get in return?Sure you may stock,wealth but how many realise how the stock market operate?How many have done reserch on the firm,on the ooffer at hand,on the process.
Many would be investors at times of offering IPOS or Rights Issues will rush headon.They are encouraged by stock brokers to buy ,and promised to sell two days after buying,because of the higher prospects.At times they are encouraged to buy on margin.Regardless of this person not knowing how to follow the trends as indicated by the price indices of the market,even.Redgardless of this person not knowing that it's actually cheaper to have his money in stock rather than liquid form,he quickly wants to sell.The investor is drived by speculation,which the broker fuels.
The result is what happened in the 1929.The severe depression caused America to recover their losses onl;y after 26 years.It was then that the people came to realise how derugalion and transparency of the market was important for their benefit.
Patrick L.Young ,in his book,The Capital Markets Revolution He says "disintermediation the firmament of every single existing marketplace".It is true we need brokers .But all the same some of them out there are rogue,if one of the examples is indicated above.Others have taken upon it themselves to trading on their clients' shares without authorisation in order to increase their operating capital.
I think the money market is a sensitive industry,requiring trust.If a stock broker realises that they are mediators/chief link between the lay people and the Stock Market,why not use trust positively to make both parties gain,including himself?
Let me know what you think.
Do Women Invite Servitu` Involontaria?
03.19.08 (3:09 am) [edit]The other day I came across an old movie. A female teacher who is out to change the beliefs of a certain culture. Yeah, not my kind but it was an afternoon with nothing better to do, so what the heck.
You see the message was like this: this female teacher who taught in the Art Department taught in an all-girls institution. The common notion was that, yes, girls supposed to get their education; but also their life-long purpose was to get married. The story is told through one student who I gathered at the end must have ended up as a journalist.
Mona Lisa Smile was the movie. Acted with strong actors, yes actors, I thought that was one of the greatest movie ever made. Kirsten Dunst is the narrator, sort of, of this movie. She acts as Betty who is the main opposer of the teacher. She gets married, misses a couple of weeks on her honeymoon, and comes back expecting the thread of school-life to pick up from where she left it.
I have decided to use this storyline of Mona Lisa Smile for illustration. I remember when I was in university. We had a few female students who were married. The remaining advertised the marriage objective as their intended position in life.
Our group work was always affected by the females. Reason?
“I can’t stay to discus this and that assignment because I have to rush home and prepare dinner for my husband”/
“My husband prefers for me to be there when he comes home, so I have got to rush”/
“My husband insists that with the baby coming, I should take it easy”
You get the drift. Someone has to be there for the hubby so the guys had to finish the assignment and paste the ladies’ names; write notes; forge our comrades’ signatures et cetera.
I never used to give a consideration to this kind of behaviour, because I’m a trooper. Furthermore I admired the fact that these ladies realized that education is important, more so for a bargaining position in life. But then I got to see this movie and something just kind of over-clicked! What does it say about the society?
I think women are so much stereotyped into certain roles it becomes discriminatory. They should cook, clean and look after the house. No one shows this better than a certain scene in this movie.
Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts) who acts as the Art Teacher angrily directs her concern of these roles when she asks: “when you leave here (Oakland State University) will you use your education to iron your husband’s shirts; or your physics to know how many pancakes to put on the table and pirouette in a girdle”.
Watson actually did show four ads to drive her point home. From them she used the above quotes, some of which are paraphrases, but they convey what I do mean. Do we as men expect that when we educate our women they shall only use that education as advancement in their housekeeping duties? Do women not realize that by becoming educated they increase their stakes of proving their intelligence and at times become superior to men?
As if by coincidence, a colleague recently confided his dilemma: he hates going home early from work. If he does, his wife after serving him begins drilling him about his day at work. Not the surface stuff, no; the technical details. She knows this because they graduated in the same class and also did the same course.
He describes his ordeal as one of “a daily interview session before a one-woman panel”. This normally goes on uninterrupted until he has to feign work exhaustion so that he can tire to bed.
Personally I think it’s wasted to be so educated only to end up as a housewife or be subservient to someone else. Does it kill love if both spouses have their own careers? I think we torment our partners when we restrict their paths in life all in the name of love. Madleine de Scudery couldn’t have put it any more better of this servitude nature of love when she said: “love makes mutes of those who speak so fluently”.
Women have always had it rough, haven’t they? They work hard and no one is ready to acknowledge that, (me included).Culture is a necessary aspect of our lives but I think it is too stagnant at times.
Yeah, the Mona Lisa Smile was meant to depict the 1953 culture, but the theme still carries on today. In certain girls are only to be educated at a certain level- lower than boys -then get married. Their goal, as culture warrants, is to pay their parents back through dowry. Isn’t this a form of servitude, I do enquire?
I think the old adages of having a man dominating over a woman are out the window. The world today is developing to a more democratic leaning. How else do we claim to be developed?
But then again I challenge women.Just like Lisa Gherardini,the original Monna Lisa ,women seem all the more passive.They try to be the "ideal woman" and let culture walk over them;rather than protest at certain injustices.They smile at everything instead of casting a frown at certain irregularities.Who says why you can't be committed to your obligations as an individual and independently declare your stand!Looking at it all lies in the painting.Leonardo da Vinci ,playing the role of culture directs Madam Gherardini to sit patiently,with arms folded,so that he can achieve he achieves the appropriate visual composition.Musn't it have been purely painstaking for Monna Gherardini to sit there day in, day out-just to make da Vinci a great artist.?Women endure so much in their lives, though ever smiling,yet suffering under all the pressure!
Alexis de Tocqueville did touch a raw nerve when he claimed: “democracy seeks equality in liberty” .I think women should also put their feet down and realize that they should not allow for culture to dictate to them what is right. They should strive to adopt a more democratic approach in order to become more developed - for “democracy attaches all possible value to each man (and woman)”.
Is the Media truly the Message?
03.14.08 (9:54 am) [edit]But soft!what light through yonder window breaks? It speaks and yet says nothing When Bill Shakespeare used these lines on Romeo and Juliet he never expeceted that centuries later a man would use them as a foundation for his analysis on the channels of communication; and not on love!. Marshall Mcluhan suggested these lines from the love tragedy to illustrate his point that light on its own was useless and only needed speed to make it facilitative. True, this might have been:through electromagnetism and the telephone and telegraph were discovered and their speed facilitated communication from local and international distances like never before. McLuhan speaks of the "Medium as the Message".He disputes that unlike in the days of Schramm where the channel was used to carry the message to the reciever,in the 1960s to 1970s; the media was the the message and not merely he transporter. He gives deep examples.One I liked was the Napoleonian one.The latter said that he feared three hostile newspapers more than a thousand bayontes.Imagine that. I could go on......But I will let you read it yourself.Ultimately, Mcluhan suggested that one does not look at the content when confronted by the media;but ratherthe effect of the medium itself is much stronger. That was the view then.Does it hold now,today?Perhaps it is so.Look at the way we marvel at the latest media technology .The latest Nokia,Samsung,Motorolla mobile phone is ours for the taking;never mind that the phone communicates the same message as would the older version. I have a freind who upon heariing of a computer exhibition will rush there to see what type of software that isn't on the mass market. In a way it is good to keep up with what is happening.But I am of the school of thought that the content of the message is still important. It is easy to write a letter with a Word feature.But rarely do we compare what we have written with the accurate diction,grammar and syntax.Why?"The computer did it for me@! The media truly does play an important role in the society:that can never be understimated.It informs ,persuades and entertains.In itself however the media just like light is a shell.IT needs the source and an accurate message. It is a shame thatjournalists relegate their training to accomodate a politician who speaks jibberish rather than invite a common man to speak about the suffering he encounters in his everyday life. It should be that the message has to influence the medium,not vice versa.People have to use central processing in interpreting information.We should remember that the content of writing or print is speech and be aware of it. But alas people have always relied on others and by the look of things will continue doing so.That's why marketers pull off huge campaigns when use celebrity strategies to advertise their products. Yeah we would rather have a celebrity with a wardrobe malfunction than continue watching the SuperBowl uninteruppted! Have an uninterrupted day,won't you.
EVERY CLOUD HAS A SILVER LINING
03.12.08 (9:23 am) [edit]He didn't like the evil that existed.So He decided to drench all Mankind in the Great Flood.In the midst of this thought,He remembered a righteous chap:Nuh. Nuh ,to Him should be saved.Then He instructed Nuh to architect the Ark for His masterplan.It was to accomodate Nuh's family and all animal representatives.
I marvel every time I read or hear this. You may find it in the Genesis book of the Bible's Old Testament;or in the Qu'ran's Surah.I often fantasize that Martin Luther King,Jr must have read the same story when He came to the following conclusion:"At times we may feel that we don't need God ,but on the days when the storm of diappointment rage,the wind of disaster blow, and the tidal waves of grief beat against our lives,if we do not have a deep and patient faith,our.... lives will be ripped to shreds."
Back to my purpose:Nuh's Ark is a religious story of how an ordinary chap saves the world.Nuh,to me seemed like the ordinary fellow -uneducated, and simple in his ways.Yet He was able to build a vessel that was able to float atop the Flood for 150 days!!
That brings into sharp focus another point of view.The much hyped ocean liner -the English RMS Titanic -touted as the "the pinnacle of naval architecture".This was due to its affable appearance ,its double bottom hull,the powerful steam engines as well as other technologically advanced material that seemed too advanced for its period. Yet,for all the proffessionalism that went into it(the best naval architecture and marine engineering)-it sank!!
For example a certain citizen baffled many.In August 1997 in a far flung country of the world,an act of terrror caused a building to collapse.A stone mason atop the adjacent building was able to capture this image in his amatuer camera.He became an instant millionaire as local and international media paid him whopping amounts of money for his exclusive photos ;that the most trained photojournalist only "salivated" over.This was a chap who had neither learnt what photojournalism entailed but his hobby of capturing still photos,well ,it paid off.
Speaking of masons,it is not fair to leave out Socrates.One of the graetest philosophers ever.A simple man who went around Greece inquiring from the people of their own knowlegde.He extinguished the Sophist way of thinking by challenging them on their own teachings.He never wrote anything -and still he influenced Western philosophy.He was killed- but his seeds continue to be plowed and harvested, century after century.
In conclusion , my focus on simple but amazing people closes on one other fellow.He is a bit controversial but was nevertheless influential.An Austrian by birth,Adolf Hitler was truly a unique individual.He proffessed not even a basic degree but was a true revolutionary.
I make the claim that Hitler to date has no equal.This man had the most undying faith that he was the saviour to the German people.A junior officer in the army went on to eliminate Socialism and Comunism in way never done before.Whe he spoke, the en masse would seem as if hypnotised under Houdini's spell.
As a communicator ,well,I think even Arisitotle would be breath-taken by Herr Hitler.
So do you know of any other characters who fit within this theme?Comment on anything and leave nothing to chance on this piece: it is allowed.
Thanks for visiting!!