How to get rich without much repercussion

Previously,

Get the Green Card,

Join a major "nationalized" bank.

Work your way up.

Invest using banks money in extremely risky assets etc.

Pocket fat bonuses and perks if the investments turn out well.

Ask government to use taxpayer money to aid the bank if the investments incur heavy losses.

Either way, you will not lose much...

It will not work now since everybody is aware of the situation.

Wait for 4 years, when the economy recovers, then you try your luck again.

GOOD LUCK....

and look out for taxpayers hunting you down by means of golden bullet envelop threat, stabbing you from behind with penknife etc..

Sincerely,
Shengjie - "Small fry Economist"

The Blind Side of Blandishment

To those who had a religion,

At times, you were (or still are) surprise(d) or truly amaze(d) at how "obstinate"(subjective) some people can get when you tried to tell the good news of your religion to them.

Some people may give you the friendly nod or (Duchenne) smile, some may brush you off, some may even reverse the process by telling you about their own views.

I've experience many of such encounters and I come to a realization that there are certain issues that were never brought on the table.

First - Some people simply do not believe in external life. I've many friends whom when probed(asked), told me that. Death, is just like sleeping. 75% of my non believer friends told me that.

Note: Before I continue, I wish to clarify that what you encounter may differ from mine.

Now, imagine that you are an insurance agent. You are trying to sell a saving plan to Mr X. This saving plan requires him to set aside $500 per month, and continue to commit to do so for 25 years (Total commitment = $500 x 12 x 25 = $150,000). In return, he will get one lump sum of money at the end of the 25 years, and this sum is greater than $150,000. Once he signed up for the plan, failure to commit(perhaps due to financial crisis), will incur a penalty fee and may end worst off than his initial position.

Will he buy?

Going back to my point, if Mr X did not believe that he will (or have a high chance) live beyond 10 years, persuading him to take up the plan due to the higher pay-off is not going to work. In fact, in real life, I've come across insurance agents enticing me with this carrot of high payoff.

Instead, the agent should try to convince Mr X that he will live for the next 25 years or more.

How to convince? Well, that is the difficult part....

One thing for sure though, try sleeping without breathing, and I think sleeping may not be pleasant after all.

Second - Social forces are more visible and evident than "religious forces".

Try telling Mr X that God will hunt or punish (angrily/lovingly/benevolently) him for his sin by striking him with a bolt of lighting or sending an earthquake with the epicenter directly below his feet. Mr X will label you as "off-the-mark".

Telling Mr X that the mysterious incurable disease that he had was due to God's punishment or even that God is sending his 'crusade' from Country Y to kill him have a higher 'impact' than the natural forces.

(Some) people tend to look at the olden history of religion and associate them with the natural forces. It is understandable. Ancient people worshiped many natural elements of the earth. And a good portion of ancient people also worshiped God that control such forces. In olden days, people could not understand why natural disasters happen to them and how it happen.

Nowadays, people studies and know why and where is can occur, so they can be "unreachable".
Which may explain why no one or perhaps(more optimistically), some still worship the Sun in the modern day.

The notion 'almost everything is in our own control' is a difficult barrier to break...


Third - The negative/false impression of religious leaders.

I understand from some, that is also one of the barrier that they had.

Inevitably, quite a number of non-believers create some sort of money "flowchart" - people do offerings -> religious institution gets the money ->religious people who control the institutes get the money-> religious leaders needs more money -> preach and ask people to give more/be faithful -> Repeat cycle. Admittedly, this is a generalized and perhaps narrow view and there may be a better flowchart to incorporate a wider range of views.

(Some) people expect religious leaders to be frugal, humble etc... somehow similar to Muhammad Gandhi, Mother Theresa, _________(fill in the blank).

But, sorry to disappoint.

Leaders do have the freedom of using the money that was given to them. But if the religious leaders, especially those that are earning directly from the offerings of the people, have the wrong motive and use religious reasons to cover up or (sugar) coat such motives, then I believe it is not right.

It is hard to discern and distinguish between the white and black sheep...

And on a further note, I've come across religious leaders that say(somewhere along the line): In the secular world, with my qualification and capability, there are many better paying jobs that I can take up, yet I choose to work as a lowly paid religious leader.

What are they trying to invoke? It will only add more layers of barrier.......


Once again, I'll like to end off with this: What I saw or encountered may differ from yours. After all, we live in a diverse world, and you may be living in a world that is culturally/ethically etc different from mine, and you may not see or feel what I see or feel. You don't have to agree. :)

Rational Deterrence

Two days ago, I was traveling on the highway. The vehicle I was on was traveling slightly above the speed limit. During one part of the course, the traffic at my direction slowed down. To my left, I saw a police car parked at the side with its flashing lights on.

I wasn't surprised, because drivers were known to slow down in areas where there are hidden speed cameras. They would slow down near the location, and after they passed, they will continue their "beyond speed limit" speed. (Generalization here).

But what is surprising here was that the drivers, after passing the police car, did not speed up. In fact, the traffic remains within legal speed limits for quite some time before it resumed back to the "norms".

Some thoughts came to my mind.

1) Drivers were very rational and very "preemptive". A police car does not necessary mean that only that specific portion of the highway was being marked. It may just be a start of a series of law enforcements waiting for you right till the end of the highway.

(2)Traffic law enforcements may know the above point(pt 1), and hence may just employ one vehicle to achieve the effect, thereby saving on manpower.

(3) Some experienced drivers may know the above point (pt2), hence may be unfazed and may step up the gas after passing that single traffic police car.

(4) However, some drivers may not know point 2, hence they will take extra precaution and slowed down. And because of these drivers and the collective effects, it will overall, still slow down the highway speed.

(5) The law enforcement teams know all of the above, hence, their equilibrium strategy will still be - the deployment of one police car.

Does A Picture Say A Thousand Words??

Some may ponder about my previous Kevin Carter's photo. What has it got to do with the Cheetah's story?

Admittedly, there isn't much of correlation between them. It was the mentioning of the vulture that led to the derailment.

The only point I want to bring out is that because of my past experiences/encounters(though not physically up close) with vultures , my mind was "conditioned" in such a way that I formed a negative schema (ruthless, prey on weak, nasty, ugly) about them.

Therefore, when I first saw the Kevin Carter's photo, my first initial feelings were a mixture of hate and sympathy.

Many may have agreed with me that Kevin Carter's photo portrayed a situation whereby the girl was either in great pain or dying soon, and the vulture was eagerly waiting in anticipation(if you have thought of this, you may already has a schema about vulture) to devour or attack the little girl.

The sense of injustice, sympathy or the thirst to kill that vulture may well from within you. I had that too.. initially.

Looking back, reorganizing my thoughts and feelings, I would like to propose certain views, and this may not go too well with some of the readers.

First - Vultures are one of the misunderstood creature in the animal kingdom. They have this gift of spotting motionless creatures on the ground. They are able to differentiate between a sleeping animal and a motionless animal. When a motionless animal is spotted, they will circle above it, and land to further inspect and verify. In fact, some of the predators rely on this circling signal to find their food. If the animal is not injured or dying, they would take flight.

Second - This means that the vulture in Kevin Carter's photo (denoted as vulture KC) was merely inspecting the girl. Attacking/eating the girl is a possibility, but so is the reverse of this, depending on the situation.

Third - It may also means that vulture KC was inspecting some other creature nearby, but it wasn't caught(deliberately or not) by the photographer. An alternative report by Joao Silva reported that the girl was left alone briefly as the parents went to the plane to get food and supply aids, and the vulture eventually flew off. Hence the vulture may be interested in the commotion or enticed by the food supply.

Fourth - The picture shows the inequality of the world. And the people who sympathize these poor people are the people who in the first place create a social system and structured in a way that may be disadvantage to most of these people.

Fifth - Dying, may not be a bad option for the girl. I'm very sorry. But if I were to put myself in her shoe/situation, I would choose to die than suffer.

I would elaborate more on the 4th and 5th point in my coming entries...