Don't Lose your Faith to your Lost Naivete

"The fight of our live's been drawn to this undying love." Viva La Gloria, Green Day

In the nearly three years that I have failed to write on this blog - in fairness, most of my writing is now done with The Edge and covers a lot of what I would have written here (Edge articles) - I think the topic that has captured my head and, if I'm being honest, my heart the most is that of inequality, specifically inequality of luck.

To be clear, I still view inequality as a societal, national and global issue. I should say, I have never once thought that there should be equality of outcome; the socialist argument that, "From each based on his abilities, to each based on his needs" has never convinced me. The need to reward innovation, hard work, and sometimes downright nerve is very important.

When I was younger, perhaps during College days, I was more persuaded by equality of opportunity. Let everyone have the same opportunity to show what they can do. What the final outcome is is less important. If we think of a 100 meter race, equality of outcome means everyone finishes the race at the same time - and therefore, finishes the race at the slowest runner's pace. Equality of opportunity - back in College - I took to mean, everyone - rich, poor, man, woman, transsexual, straight, gay, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist - starts at the same starting line and they all race from there.

I held this view until I came across the Veil of Ignorance and John Rawls during the course on Justice by Michael Sandel in the Fall of my Senior year at Harvard. In it, I was forced to confront the fact that my initial view was horribly naive; life, as it turns out, gives different people different starting positions. And even within those starting positions, the equipment that the runners used was different, the training that each of them received was different. Isn't it abundantly obvious that some people had a starting position for the 100 meter race at the 50 meter mark, with a professional coach and the best shoes money could buy? Wasn't it also abundantly obvious that others were not so lucky; some had to start at the 0 meter mark, with no training, and running barefooted? In my earlier conception of the race, I naively thought that - hey, everyone starts from the same place, let's just give everyone the opportunity to run. I still believe everyone should have the opportunity to run, but equality of opportunity, in this more nuanced - and I believe more accurate - view was still unjust.

For many years after this realisation, I did not give too much thought for this. I mean, I learned that the appropriate contextualising of events is important and that affirmative action was the right policy, even the optimal policy, under certain circumstances. Where the principle behind affirmative action often gets clouded in policy debates is when affirmative action is invariably linked with race and other forms of generalisation of under-privilege. Perfect discrimination (in the Economics sense) for affirmative action is impossible in the policy world given imperfect information; after all, not every African American needs affirmative action to succeed and some White Americans do need affirmative action to succeed.

Where I think I really doubled down on this topic in recent years is my deeper reading on 'luck.' I have now come to the belief that something like 95% of all things in life is down to pure luck. I should be clear. I see luck as just another word for chance. I mean, think of the confluence of events that would have happened in your life for you to have met your spouse or your best friend. If you think that you are lucky to find that person, just think how much of that luck depended on their (and your) parents meeting at the right time, choosing to have the child in the right time, and all the experiences that led that individual to meet you at the right time in the right place. It boggles the mind.

The same is also true of your birth. If you believe, like me, that birth is not pre-ordained by some Higher Power, then the parents to whom you were born is pure luck. I could as easily have been born to a poor family in Malawi, or to the King of Spain, or to my own parents. I did not get to choose and here I am. I got lucky. And that is just parents. You can have the best parents in the world, but if you were born in some god-forsaken village in the middle of the Indian deep jungles, how likely would you be to achieve whatever you achieved in life? So, for me, I was born to great parents, who managed to ride the wave of economic development to a life of middle-to-upper-middle class, in a country which is relatively peaceful, with no natural disasters and lots of great opportunities. How's that for luck?

Many billions of others are not so lucky. And you know what's the cherry on the cake? Good fortune or good luck is highly correlated with parental wealth (or initial good luck). It's really like an exponential function and where you start on that function (whether before x = 1, or after x = 1) will really determine a lot of the good luck you get in your life. Good luck here just means being in the right place at the right time for an opportunity to fulfill.

So, my take on this issue now is as follows. I think the largest reason for inequality of wealth or income (the hot topics today) is really the inequality of birth, and therefore the inequality of luck. I see it as the moral imperative of society and of individuals to distribute that unequal distribution of luck. The primary purpose of government, to me, is to redistribute luck (normally in the form of income but it should be more). Tax luck, not innovation, not effort. Of course, determining which portion of an income is luck-based and which is innovation- or effort-based will be tough but we need to start. For individuals, if you buy this argument, then the imperative is to try, as best as possible, to follow the Transversality Condition of Macroeconomics (basically a fancy term for, at the end of time, your net debt must be at least zero). Translating this to luck, it basically means that all the luck you have received (you are therefore in a net negative state) must be redistributed to others as best as you can (therefore reducing the net negative state to zero or perhaps even positive). This, I think, is worthy to be an undying love. 

On Multiple Equilibria and What I Have Learned from Television Shows

There are several reasons that I haven't written (here, at least) for a couple of months. The first is that I now have a monthly column at The Edge Malaysia. Since some of the stuff I write there is stuff I would have written here, it does take away some of the material I have for this blog. Anyway, my Edge articles are available here. The second is school. In many ways, I find completing things for school to be way more time-consuming that completing things for work. This implies one of two possibilities - Either school is THAT consuming (with problem sets, readings, projects, generally-trying-to-understand-material) or I didn't have enough things to do at work and was a complete slacker. Some combination of the two is probably true.

Anyway, in fairness, I think I have learned quite a bit so far through this first semester, in terms of economics. And by this, I mean both facts and models (ways of thinking). Whether I will be able to successfully apply those facts and those models into something tangible and useful is a different story. But anyway, I just thought I'd discuss my favorite economic concept I've learned this semester. 

It comes from a paper by Nathan Nunn, a Harvard economist, called, "Historical Legacies: A Model Linking Africa's Past to its Current Underdevelopment." In it, he states that the reason historical events can have significant effects on present day development is if the historical events caused a move from one equilibrium to another. He develops a model which shows that a period of severe extraction in the Acemoglu-Robinson sense (where colonists, for exaple, simply extract resources from a given area without building institutions and infrastructure for long-term habitation) can cause a permanent movement to an economic equlibrium with significantly lower income levels. 

Basically, a large negative shock to an economy could move the economy from a 'good' equilibrium to a 'bad' equilibrium. And, if a country is in a 'bad' equilibrium, only a massive positive shock to the economy could get it out of that equilibrium to a 'good' equilibrium. Policies or events that aren't quite as massive will not help a country escape the 'bad' equilibrium which might explain a fair bit of why Malaysia, for instance, has been in a middle-income trap/equilibrium for ages.  Interesting, huh? And, if you think about it, this applies to many things in life too. For instance, if a given television show has settled into a nice equilibrium where it can write variations of the same jokes without overhauling the storyline or character lineup and still gain good ratings, then we can't really expect it to completely wow us with new material unless something exceedingly shocking happens - the death of a main character comes to mind easily. 

So, with that nice segue, I am going to discuss some of the main life lessons that I have learned or at least realized more concretely from television shows I have watched. These television shows do not need to have finished (in fact, for at least one of them, the fact that their run is still going is a good life lesson), they just need to be things I have watched before. And, certainly, not every show has a good life lesson (or at least I fail to understand what that life lesson is from that show) so while I've watched shows like, for instance, The Big Bang Theory, I am not quite certain what I have really learned from that beyond, "We all need a comfortable go-to no-need-to-think show", which I suppose could be an important life lesson.

1. How I Met Your Mother - Don't overstay your welcome

The Mother sits on Ted's right. This show is in Season 9 of a 4 season show. It makes no sense that Ted needs 9 fricking seaons to tell this story. It means, his story has covered (at least) 8 years! Dafuq, bro.

2. South Park - Satire is a great way to send a message

In response to any given serious current issue, topic, event, whatever, there are usually four responses - two unproductive and two productive. The two unproductive responses are apathy and irrational anger. The first productive response is to give a reasoned serious argument against it, which works well in cases which arise from rational reasons (say, GST). But this response is not so well-suited to irrational events. There is no reasoning with irrationality. For instance, "Apa Lagi Cina Mahu". There are two responses to this. One is to go down the serious route which, to me, is kind of underwhelming because you then give irrational stuff like that serious recognition. The second productive way, and the better way to deal with this (and even rational events, in my mind) is through making a mockery out of it. See, this tumblr. 

South Park consistently does an amazing job in top quality satire. See, for instance The Jeffersons, Douche and Turd, World War Zimmerman, Make Love Not Warcraft, Raisins, All About Mormons and Britney's New Look, just to name a few. Basically, if someone is being an idiot, don't take them seriously, mock the crap out of them.

3. Friday Night Lights - "Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose" and what it means to have a life partner

I've covered the second part elsewhere. The first part is straightforward and a general good motto to living life. If you have clear eyes - i.e. you are aware of what's going on with you and around you - and you have a full heart - i.e. you believe in what it is you're doing wholeheartedly - then you'll be fine. Most of the time, when we think we've failed at something, it really is usually due to lacking "clear eyes" (not thinking through a situation) or lacking "full hearts" (not having enough conviction). 

4. Mad Men - So many things, all captured here

The two main lessons are, first, that people do things. People aren't all good and neither are they all bad. They just do things because that's what people do. In terms of understanding people, sometimes that is just the best explanation. The second is that people will show you who they are, but we ignore it because we want them to be who we want them to be. 

5. Glee - Social commentary is good, but there is a line between subtlety and beating people over the head with it.

Topics Glee covered well in Season 1 - Difficulty of being a gay kid, teenage pregnancy, what it means to be a "loser" in high school. Topics Glee tried to cover after Season 1 without any subtlety whatsoever - Bullying, Surrograte Parenthood, Guns, Spousal Abuse, Teen Drinking, Teen Marriage, whole bunch of other stuff I'm probably forgetting. Lesson: Take things easy. It is better to explore 2 or 3 things in depth than 15 things broadly.

6. Angel - Doing good is an end in itself.

I love the way Angel ended. It's a good way to say that while you can accomplish one mission, if your goal is much larger than the mission - say, redemption or "doing good" - the fight never ends. Just because you achieved one victory doesn't mean you're done. Because, doing good is an end in itself. The road to redemption is an end in itself. Doing good for the sake of doing good is a, well, good thing. This is best described by this conversation between Gunn and Anne (a character who runs a homeless shelter). Anne was, at that moment, trying to transport things from one shelter to another.

Anne: It's not so bad. We've had some really decent donations, and it's helping. We actually have a part-time paid psychiatric staff.

Gunn: What if I told you it doesn't help? What would you do if you found out that none of it matters? That it's all controlled by forces more powerful and uncaring than we can conceive, and they will never let it get better down here. What would you do?

Anne: I'd get this truck packed before the new stuff gets here.

That's life, in a nutshell. If you're fighting the good fight, with clear eyes and a full heart, even if you can't ever win the fight, the fight is worth fighting and you really can't lose. 

The Price I'd Pay for Concerts or the Top 10 Gigs I Would Pay a Minimum of $100

In my lifetime, I haven't really attended too many concerts despite the fact that I lived in the United States for 4 years. For the ones that I paid money for, I've been to Iron and Wine, Taking Back Sunday and most notably, Oasis. For the ones that came to campus, I've seen Sara Bareilles (who is brilliant in person), Ben Folds, Third Eye Blind and quite brilliantly, the Wu Tang Clan.

There are, of course, bands that I'd pay money to see and bands who I'd go to see if it were free. Similarly, there are gigs I wouldn't go see even if I was paid - Gym Class Heroes, Black Eyed Peas, Pink, Soulja Boy, Nickelback, Miley Cyrus, Simple Effing Plan (for the record, I hate Simple Plan most of all).

The bands who I'd pay to go see for free don't really matter - there are a whole host. You could get me to go see Sixpence None the Richer, the Biebs, Maroon 5, the Backstreet Boys, Good Charlotte, Snow Patrol (who are apparently coming to Malaysia pretty soon), Lifehouse, Bruno Mars. The list goes on. Neither do the bands/artists who I'd be willing to pay a little bit of money to see. Those don't matter too. What's interesting are those for whom I'd be willing to shell out a fair bit of money to see.

And so, this is the list. The Top 10 Gigs for which I would pay a minimum of $100 USD (entrance), along with caveats, if any for each gig. This is not really saying that these are my 10 favourite artists - they are not. These are just the gigs I want to attend whether it's for the music or for the quality of the show. Also, non-existing bands and/or bands whose gigs I've been to aren't included. Naturally, this is ranked.

T-10. Bob Dylan

Price I'd pay: $100
Songs I would Scream For: Like a Rolling Stone, Blowin' in the Wind, The Times They are a' Changing
Overall Song Familiarity: Very shallow
Caveats: Only if I get pretty good to really good seats. It'd be great to see a legend but I don't really know most of his songs and so, I'd be paying just to hear those 3 songs. Thus, the seats better be good.


T-10. Beyonce

Price I'd pay: $100

Songs I would Scream For: Single Ladies. Duh. Crazy in Love. Duh. Any Destiny's Child song she might bust out, particularly Jumpin' Jumpin'.
Overall Song Familiarity: Moderate
Caveats: I'm actually not that big a fan of Beyonce's. I like Destiny's Child better. But I think Beyonce would put on a great show, and sometimes, it's worth just shelling out money for a great show.

8. Lupe Fiasco

Price I'd pay: $120
Songs I would Scream For: The Show Goes On, Superstar
Overall Song Familiarity: Well, I bought the Lasers album but not the others so, relatively shallow.
Caveats: I really like Lupe Fiasco because he does this whole social issues discussion thing in his songs and on a bad day, "The Show Goes On" goes on loop for me. But I wouldn't pay too much because of a lack of song familiarity.


7. Britney Spears

Price I'd Pay: $135

Songs I would Scream For: I really like Womanizer and 3. But Toxic's a solid shout too.

Overall Song Familiarity: Pretty familiar. I don't really know the lyrics but I'm familiar with most of her top hits. 

Caveats: Again, I'd only pay that much for a good area. But, I know it'd be a good show, assuming she makes a comeback. The entertainment charts, intentional and unintentional, should be off the charts.

6. Taylor Swift

Price I'd Pay: $150
Songs I would Scream For: I'm probably already going to get murdered for this one, so I don't think I should list these songs...
Overall Song Familiarity: ...and neither should I list this.
Caveats: I'd pay that much only for a pretty good to really good area. I may also get slapped a restraining order after the concert, so there's that to consider. Also, I think she'd put on a good show, if not necessarily a good concert.

5. Red Hot Chili Peppers

Price I'd Pay: $200 (We're getting into rarefied territory)
Songs I would Scream For: A shitload, in all fairness. But Can't Stop always gets my blood pumping. And Californication is probably my favourite RHCP song.
Overall Song Familiarity: Good working knowledge, with detailed lyrics for a fair bit of them.
Caveats: Not many, really. I'd pay $200 as long as I didn't get a crap seat with an obstructed view. The Peppers are one of the acts I'd really want to see, both from musical and entertainment perspectives.

4. Kanye West

Price I'd Pay: $250
Songs I would Scream For: All of the Lights, Stronger, Monster, Gold Digger
Overall Song Familiarity: Medium. I don't know too many of his songs, but the ones I know I can follow the rap bits fairly well.
Caveats: $250 is fine as long as the seat is okay. I think the show will be great. And there's a chance he might just lose it, which would make for a great story.

3. Jay Z

Price I'd Pay: $250, $350 in Madison Square Garden or Brooklyn
Songs I would Scream For: 99 Problems and Empire State of Mind especially if performed in New York City
Overall Song Familiarity: Not very deep, in all fairness.
Caveats: I've always wanted to see Jay-Z in New York City, where he's from. I'd pay a shitload of money for that. And I know the show will be good even if the music might not necessarily be so (he doesn't always sound great live).

2. Green Day

Price I'd Pay: $500
Songs I would Scream For: Plenty, from old to new. When I Come Around, Redundant, Deadbeat Holiday, effectively the entire Jesus of Suburbia story (particularly Homecoming's "The stems and seeds of the last of the dope").
Song Familiarity: Super duper familiar.
Caveats: None, really except an unobstructed view. I don't mind if it's far back. I just want to be in the show. And Billy Joe is great live.

1. Blink 182

Price I'd Pay: $2000 (you think I'm kidding)
Songs I would Scream For: I know every Blink 182 song. Every single one. If I were to choose, it'd be my favourites - Dammit, Untitled, Dick Lips, Pathetic, Adam's Song, All of This, After Midnight, The Rock Show, Down, I Miss You, the list goes on and on. Actually, eff that. I'd be screaming through each song.
Song Familiarity: I know every lyric to every Blink 182 song.
Caveats: None. If I had an obstructed view, I'd just bowl my way sideways till I get a good view. Eff this. I just need to be in the arena (If you couldn't already tell, Blink 182 is my favourite band). Look, if I had to pick seeing only Blink versus seeing all the other artists from 2-10, I'd still pick Blink. 

The Sacredness of Things

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose you run a daycare center. Let's say you are in charge of caring for 15-20 children on a daily basis. At the end of your center's hours, you expect parents to pick up their children on time. And if they don't, well, it's not like you can leave. You have to wait until every last kid is picked up by their parents. After all, you can't abandon the kids alone outside the center. Now, let's also suppose that out of these 15-20 children, half have parents who are consistently late in picking them up, maybe an extra 15-30 minutes each time. This pisses you off because, well, you spend an extra 15-30 minutes waiting for these parents instead of doing whatever alternative that you intended to do. How would you remedy the situation?

If you're like me, you'd think, "Let's incentivise these parents to be on time." Cards on the table, I tend to think in a very economics-y type of logic construct. The basic principle underlying this construct is that oft-cited tenet of economics - People respond to incentives. And so, I would attempt to solve this problem by charging a fine to parents which gets progressively higher for each quarter of an hour that they're late. What I expect would happen is that parents are now disincentivised to be late (they have to pay the fine) and therefore, they would be punctual.

Sounds rather straightforward right? But here's a twist. What if a given parent who is consistently late does not think of it as a fine but rather as a fee to be paid for the convenience of being late? In other words, that parent is willing to pay the extra amount just to be able to be late. Assuming the parent feels guilty about being late before the implementation of the fine, the parent might think, "Ahhh...By paying this amount, I no longer need to feel guilty about being late." Sounds plausible right? Well, this is exactly what happened in a daycare center in Israel, according to Michael Sandel's latest book, "What Money Can't Buy - The Moral Limits of Markets."

For someone who is pretty much a market fundamentalist, this book is an eye-opener. In essence, I generally believe that if two people freely choose to enter into a transaction together, there should be no moral judgment placed on that transaction if it does not harm any external parties. This means that if I choose to pay you X dollars for your kidney, and you're willing to sell me your kidney for X dollars, this transaction should be allowed to happen. I guess, one of the attractive things about a market form of construct is that there is no external judgment placed on a transaction.

But is that necessarily a good thing? The market allows for essentially anything as long as there is a matching of supply and demand. Let's take for example the case for pollution, a quite standard example. Everyone agrees that pollution generates external costs that affect third parties (secondhand smoke, CO2 emissions, Sulphur emissions etc). Economic theory states that these externalities should be internalised. This means that the people who are causing the pollution should also pay the costs incurred by third parties as a result of that pollution. One such way is the trading of pollution permits. Under this system, a government selects how much pollution it is willing to have (say Y tonnes of CO2 emission per day), enforcing a quota. It then allows entities to buy and sell pollution permits, which give the holder the right to pollute. If you plan to emit a lot of CO2, then you would buy more permits, thereby paying for the external costs. If you don't need that many pollution permits, you would sell it, thereby giving you revenue. At the same time, no one overpollutes because the number of permits sold are capped.

From a market perspective, this kind of works right? The allocation of pollution is distributed to those who are most willing to pay for it (those who value it most) while giving some form of revenue to those who don't value it as much. But, is this the right message? Should the message be, "If you're going to pollute, you better be willing to pay for it?" rather than, "Cut down pollution." You can argue that by virtue of having to pay a higher premium for polluting, a company would try to switch towards a more environmentally-friendly form of production. But suppose the cost of switching is too high or at least that the cost does not justify the switch. Then the company would continue paying for the right to pollute. If there is no moral judgment on pollution, then this is fair no? Everyone kind of wins. Except the environment, of course, because the quota doesn't change. Pollution isn't being reduced. It's just being controlled and redistributed.

Let's consider another scenario - gift-giving. During Christmas or Birthdays, people tend to give each other gifts. Some well-thought out, some not so much. But in any case, it's difficult to imagine a case where there is perfect information and everyone knows what each other person wants most for a gift. Let's suppose I have a girlfriend, let's call her Emma Charlotte Duarre Watson.

Economics allows for awesome assumptions.

Now, it's her birthday. I want to get her something. Let's say I get her a book on Economics because a) I'm an idiot that way, b) I'm a nerd that way and c) I know she's been meaning to read up on the subject. And let's suppose I spend $200 on the book, just for example. Rather unsurprisingly, it's not the gift she most wanted for her birthday. It's still a gift she wants, just not the one she wanted most. Let's suppose she values it at 20% less than what its value is (which is what the average generally is for gifts received). I clearly have not maximised the value. I don't have perfect information. Let's assume I couldn't have known that what she really wanted most was a Tyrannosaurus Rex model replica (In a perfect world, where she's my girlfriend, this would happen. You can't deny me her hypothetical favourite gift in my own hypothetical world!).

So, now, instead of buying her the Economics book, I give her the money instead, all $200 of it. She then goes and buys the T-Rex replica. From a markets perspective, this is fully efficient. She knows how to best use the $200 for herself, maximising her satisfaction from the $200 way better than I could. The economist in me says, "Way to go! Way to optimise utility given the budget constraint!" But, something's missing, isn't it? Who the hell gives cash gifts to their partners (or family or close friends in general) for birthdays or Christmas? Yet, from a market standpoint, this works! Emma gets a gift, I gave her a gift, everything's optimised!

So, what's wrong? Well, for starters, there is generally a stigma on cash gifts. But then people go out and buy gift cards from people's favourite stores. The value is there for all to see - a $100 gift card to be used at Amazon or something. But, somehow, it's different from a cash gift? Huh? My take is that is really is the middle ground between giving someone a gift and giving them the cash outright. It sort of removes the guilt that one feels when facing the stigma on cash gift. "Hey, at least I thought of the place you could spend it." But, not everyone wants that particular gift card. In fact, there are websites that buy and sell gift cards based on what people want and don't want. For example, suppose I was given a $100 Coach gift card. I'll be all like, "Wtf bro?" So, I take it to the website and sell it for $87. The website then sells it back for someone who wants it at $93. Good deal all round right? How is this different from giving me a gift then? Why not just give me the $100 in the first place?

Though Emma could give me whatever and it'd be gravy.

The next problem - If I gave a cash gift, I'd have a pretty pissed off girlfriend on my hands. Unless she's a through and through economist of course, fully invested in market fundamentalism. In which case, maybe I should get her a Milton Friedman Economics book. Hmmm.. But anyway, imagine if you gave a cash gift to your partner. You're pretty much screwed right? And not in the way you'd like. But why is this?

Let's consider a third example of where a perfectly fine market transaction sounds super fishy. Consider a queue for tickets to a one-night-only, no-online transaction, performance by, say, The Beatles. Basically, since you can't go buy tickets online, you'd have to go line up at the ticket counter, wherever that counter was. When would the line start? 5 days before? A week before? Who knows? But point is, you have to wait. It's the laws of the jungle right? First come, first served.

But, now, let's throw a little market fundamentalism at it. Let's suppose Person X is a super busy person with a high time cost (meaning the opportunity cost of Person X lining up is very high). And so, Person X looks for someone with a low time cost, let's say Hobo Y. Person X then tasks Hobo Y to go line up for him, paying Hobo Y an agreed-upon fee. Hobo Y lines up for Person X. As Hobo Y approaches the ticket counter, Person X steps in and buys the tickets. Let's consider the various beneficiaries. Person X wins because she gets her tickets without having to line up, allowing her to do whatever else she needs to do. Hobo Y wins because she gets some extra cash without giving up anything really important with her time. Nobody else loses because it's not like Person X is cutting the queue. Person X is just replacing Hobo Y in the queue. But, something feels astray right? Beyond the notion that the rich can just pay for people to line up (there are actually professional queue-rs) which therefore segregates them from those who can't afford it, what else is up with this scenario?

Before reading this book, I would have argued that, yes, from a markets point of view, all of this - pollution permits, cash gifts, paying for queue-rs - totally made sense and was, therefore, okay, even if I found something uneasy about all of it. There are 3 concerns I have, all of which I can now articulate better because I read this book.

Concern 1:- What, if anything, is sacred anymore? If people can pay to pollute, pay to get someone to queue for them, pay for organs, pay to speed on highways (In Iceland, people can buy a permit to speed for a day. They speed all the want and don't get fined), pay for sex, pay to name a stadium (Ettihad Stadium, The TD Garden), pay to be late (daycare center example), and so on, what can't people pay for? And if anything and everything can be bought, what then is left sacred? Are certain things too sacred to be bought and sold? And if they are, what are they and how do we determine that?

Concern 2:- Framing things/incentives properly. This book has not, in any way, changed my mind that people respond to incentives. People respond to all sorts of incentives, whether monetary or otherwise (public service, relationships, guilt, pity etc etc). The key is finding the right incentive, thereby not assuming that everything is monetary. That's all well and good. But perhaps a key ingredient I had been missing is that, even if an incentive is monetary, there are different methods of classifying them. Let's take the pollution permits problem. The trading of pollution permits implies that pollution is okay as long as you're willing to pay for it. That's the message it sends. Now let's consider a pollution fine or a pollution tax. Yes, people will still pollute if they can pay. But that's not the point. A sin tax or a fine says, "This is bad, and this is why we're charging you more." The effect might be the same, but the messaging is different.

Concern 3:- The Corruption argument. In all the examples I raised, the main fishy thing that made us, or at least me, uneasy was something I could not articulate before. But this book has given me a way to think about it. The reason those things made me feel uneasy, even if they made sense from a markets perspective, is that they corrupt the meaning of the items traded. I don't mean corruption as in bribery, nepotism and all that stuff. By corruption, I just mean the degradation of value. Giving a cash gift corrupts the notion of gift-giving to loved ones because it removes the personal touch. Trading pollution permits corrupts the notion of environmentalism because it does not signal negatively against pollution. Paying someone to stand in line corrupts the purity of a queue, where everyone has to wait their turn regardless of background, ethnicity, religion, creed, whatever.

There is a commonality in all 3 concerns. If you notice and if you were kind enough to read this awfully long post, you'll see that the trait that all 3 concerns share is that, there is a sort of moral judgment placed on the traded items in a market. It means I have a preconceived judgment of what should and shouldn't be traded in the market. This arises because I have some conception of what it means to lead the 'good' life. In other words, I have some form of prejudgment/prejudice on what things are to be valued beyond money and what things aren't. The virtue of things, essentially. It's a very Aristotle-y kind of conception. But, I do think we all have some idea of what the virtue of things are, based on our moral framework. Whether our framework is based on religion or ideology or some philosophy, the point is, we do have a conception of what it means to be moral (unless you're a pure neutral or something, but even then, that affects how you think about markets).

What's the conclusion here? Well, I think this book has shown me that it is inadequate to only consider if things make sense from a market perspective, using only market fundamentals as the reasoning for the legitimacy or virtue of any tradable good or service. This is not to say that the market is always wrong or that a market perspective can't be used. Rather, it just means that it needs to be complemented by other perspectives, including a moral perspective. Again, this is not to say that a blind moral faith perspective is the right answer, but rather that some form of moral reasoning is also required to provide an overall more comprehensive picture. Markets and morals are not mutually exclusive, and it's just as well that we do not treat them as such.

The same way dating Aphrodite is priceless.

A Political Philosophy Perspective on why living in the World of Harry Potter would suck

The cool thing about the world is that there are so many different perspectives and viewpoints. I totally believe that two completely rational people can use completely rational reasoning but still come up with two extremely different conclusions. Or more, even! And this can help to explain why there are so many tracks of political philosophies - Rawls' Liberalism (see previous post), Kant's categorical imperative, Marx's brand of the glory of the proletariat, Locke's plea for man's inalienable rights, Bentham's Utilitarianism (pretty much whatever I learned from that one class on Political Philosophy in college).

Naturally, for me, I have a general set of views that I believe in. And I'm more of a Hayek/Nozick/Friedman kind of person. Well, more Hayek than anything. Yes, I know there's a word for it, but I try not to use the word given its abuse by some people I know who go about being very smug that their political philosophy label is that word. Here's a hint - Ron Paul.



Essentially, when it comes down to it, I believe in consumer choice. And to maximise consumer choice, you need to have as minimal a government as possible. It's like this. Suppose the government has a plot of land. My belief is that the government should provide equal opportunity for access to water, sunlight, air - the essentials, really. The government, to me, should not choose what plants or trees to grow on the plot of land. Sort out the ecosystem and whatever grows, grows.

Likewise, I think the government should be the provider of public goods - fire departments, national defense, disaster warning systems, traffic lights, primary and secondary education and that sort of thing. But, to me, it fails to maximise consumer choice when it tries too hard to regulate a particular sector. An easy example I usually use to illustrate my view is seatbelts. Should the government set a law mandating all drivers and passengers in the passenger seats to wear their seatbelts? The logic is fairly straightforward. Seatbelts tend to save lives. But should it be the government that dictates whether people should or shouldn't wear seatbelts? To me, the answer is no. If I don't want to wear a seatbelt, that's bloody well my choice. If I want to have a higher risk of getting injured in an accident, that's my choice. No one should have the right to decide what I'm to do or not do. But, you see, the caveat lies with the fact that I would totally wear a seat belt. The difference is, that is my choice. I wear a seatbelt because I'm aware of the higher risk of injury in an accident, not because I was told to. So, I believe people should wear seatbelts, but I don't believe it's the state's business to make them wear seatbelts. Big difference.


Because I choose to.

So, what does this have to do with Harry Potter? Well, in the world of Harry Potter, this form of political philosophy would be severely repressed. Take the consumer choice bit first. If I were born in the UK-ish, I would absolutely have to go to Hogwarts. I don't really have a choice. If I wanted to buy books, I would have to go to Flourish and Blott's. One bookstore?! Monopoly much?! And before there was Fred and George's Joke Shop, there was just Zonko's in Hogsmeade. Yet another monopoly. And, economic theory of the firm implies that monopolies, given a serious lack of competition, tend to operate below the socially optimal level.

Anyway, that's consumer choice. Now take the size of the Government. If you read the books, you know everyone is pretty much gunning for a job with the Ministry of Magic. How many other jobs are there? Teachers at Hogwarts, consumer shops (with high barriers of entry as is!), train conductors, newspaper journalists, Quidditch players, pub owners. Hardly any real professional jobs out there. Well, given the limited choice of job options, what does any self-respecting wizard or witch do? Join the Ministry, of course!


Unless you're good at Quidditch.

Problem: The Ministry is bloated! If the Ministry is providing jobs for like 75% or so of the people, that is a HUGE government. Why the hell do you need so many people? Anyway, think about it. Percy Weasley leaves to go work in the Ministry. Ludo Bagman, fresh off a Quidditch career, works in the Ministry. Hell, Harry, Ron and Hermione all end up working at the Ministry! So huge a government raises several problems.

First, there is bound to be massive bureaucracy. Second, the inertia to transform the government will be huge. Third, a larger government, looking for things to do, will find more and more things to regulate. And this therefore restricts consumer choice. At some point, given the monopolistic nature of most of the wizarding world's shops, there will be no room in commercial stores. So, people have to continue going to the Ministry, further bloating it. Why do you need so many people running a relatively small demographic?!

So, anyway, if I lived in the UK in the Harry Potter world, and I happened to get an invitation to pursue a magical education at Hogwarts, what would I have to do? Well, for one, I have to go to ONE particular store to buy a wand, ONE particular store to buy books, ONE bank to deposit and withdraw Galleons, TWO stores to buy novelty joke stuff, TWO stores to buy robes. How in the hell would I have any options?

Next, say I graduate from Hogwarts with decent NEWT results. As I survey the area, what would I think? Hell, might as well join the Ministry. That's where everyone goes. And I may as well. Which raises another problem. If the Ministry is the only real source for new jobs and given that the Minister needs to keep the constituency happy, wouldn't the Minister just hire just about everybody? What would that say about the quality in the place? Is there any real filter process? In any case, I would join the Ministry, further bloating it.

So, no consumer choice, too big a government, why would I want to be here? Instead, I'd go to Middle fricking Earth!



Absolute monarch? Check. Compulsory draft into the army? Check. Social mobility? Very limited. Type of Jobs? Hardly.

Crap.

Edit: I got scooped by Cracked. Their post came out probably on the same night I published first but in fairness, I arrived at this conclusion (#3) independently. And also, in fairness, I have arrived at conclusion #4 before. And #5 too, but I never posted it.

On the future of capitalism

Because of the financial crisis of 08/09 and the current Eurozone crisis, one of the hallmarks of the modern times - capitalism - has come under serious fire. So much so that the Financial Times recently published a series of articles discussing capitalism and the role it plays in the coming years.

Fascinating stuff.

Anyway, there was an article by Samuel Brittan which I particularly liked. And in that article, there was one quote which I particularly liked. It goes like this:-

“My central case for competitive capitalism is it promotes personal and political freedom. Above all, the individual is free to use his abilities in line with his own choices.”

I think the point that people generally miss is that the money gained from a market-based economy is merely the means. Money, by itself, is meaningless. What gives meaning to money is the options or the choices that is made available to you. Where capitalism gets particularly muddled is when people confuse the economic gains as the ends rather than the means. To illustrate, suppose you make 10 million dollars a year. The gift of capitalism is not the 10 million dollars. The gift of capitalism is what you can do with the 10 million dollars. If, for example, there was only one type of food available in the world, whether you have 10 million dollars or you have 10 thousand dollars is irrelevant. No amount of money in the world can get you something else.

So, what does this mean? To me, the rejigging of thinking needs to refocus on capitalism as a means to choice. More precisely, consumer choice. The awesome thing about a market-based economy is that for whatever consumers demand, producers will likely supply it. Of course, this isn't always a great thing (see subprime loans) but in general, more good comes out of it. Most of us live in a world where we can pick between 8-10 movies a week at the cinema, 4-5 different types of telco providers, craploads of healthcare products off the counter. We live in a world enabled by a system that allows producers to produce what consumers want to consume.

Is this a good thing? Well, let's take a thought experiment using pure liberalism. "Liberal" in its most original concept - the Veil of Ignorance, by John Rawls. Essentially, take everyone and put them behind a Veil of Ignorance. This Veil shields them from the world that's about to be built. Now, the people behind the Veil have to build the world and build the structure of society. The catch is that no one knows what they're going to be once they lift the Veil. It's completely random. You could be the billionaire. You could be the beggar. Anything, really. Given this, what sort of social system would you construct?

The thing that pops most to mind, given that most people are generally risk-averse, is that they would want a good social safety net system. Fine. Fair enough. But I do think that even behind the Veil of Ignorance, people would still pick a capitalist system. Not an unfettered one, surely. But, a capitalist system nonetheless. And the reason is that, no one wants to be deprived of choices in the event that they end up being a rich or powerful person.

In a capitalist system, even after lifting the Veil of Ignorance, you would always have choices, regardless of who you are in society. And while capitalism makes no promises on the equality of outcome, it enables people, in its purest form, to have equality of opportunity. And in this lies the easiest test to see if you're a more capitalist person or a more Marxist person. The question is, which system seems better to you?

A. A system that provides everyone the same outcome regardless of effort, race, religion, skill, talent, whatever.

Or

B. A system that provides everyone with the same platform to succeed to the person's own abilities.

The answer to this depends on your world view. If you think, as Marx does, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," you're going to pick A. On the flipside, if you think, "From each according to his need, to each according to his ability," you're going to go with B.

Essentially, what I'm trying to say is, if you believe in the essence of capitalism, i.e. the power of the individual, then rumours of the demise of capitalism are largely premature. It is when the means of capitalism get confused for its ends.

The Importance of History

"Professor Johnston often said that if you didn't know history, you didn't know anything. You were a leaf that didn't know it was part of a tree."
- Michael Crichton, Timeline

As we move forward into the future, it is deliciously tempting to hold the belief that everything we experience or every event we encounter (check out the massive alliteration there) is brand new and that we are at a sort of frontier point in global history. I mean, with new technological innovations in communications, transportation, household appliances, whatever, it would seem intuitive to believe that the world is unlike anything we've ever seen before.

I agree that the world is more inter-connected than ever. I agree that the gadgets and technology we have now make the world (or at least those who are not in poverty) a much more convenient place to live. I agree that financial products have a degree of sophistication that is unlike anything we've ever seen. I agree that the level of technological power in a smartphone now is unparalleled.


And may bring our inevitable downfall.

You can get me to agree on all that. But I think, while the names of people change, the timing of events change, the places of events change, events do not change. Whatever event that happens today has, I believe, at some point, happened in history before. Yes, the products are different. Yes, the diffusion of the benefits and costs are wider now. But the events are largely the same.

Let's consider first some simple examples. Take Avatar or, even, 3D movies in general. Think of the event. Huge movie using CGI that was supposedly unparalleled in history. Big-name director. Global reach. How is this any different from when Star Wars was released? Or further back, the first non-silent movies? Or further back, the first ballet show. The technology is more advanced sure, but the circumstances in which the event occured is hardly new.

Now, a bigger example - The rescue of the American financial system in 2008. The firms were over-leveraged, likely to have been involved in shoddy deals and most of all, driven by very shaky fundamentals. Yet, they were bailed out. Are the events new? Of course not. Long Term Capital Management was bailed out in 1998. The Savings and Loans Industry in the United States in 1991 was bailed out despite very shoddy dealings that involved the sales of junk bonds in order to purchase other companies. And for the fall of Lehman Brothers, there was the fall of Enron in 2001.

And, an even bigger example. During the onset of the Great Depression, one of the most, in retrospect, disastrous moves the United States made was to pass the Smoot-Hawley Tarrif Act in 1930, which increased tariff imports in the United States. This pissed off the trading partners of the United States who then unilaterally installed their own trade barriers. This whole game of one-up-man-ship resulted in a devastating drop in global trade, EXACTLY WHEN TRADE WAS MOST NEEDED, and an increase in unemployment, EXACTLY AT THE WORST TIME POSSIBLE, and from there, a further deepening of the Great Depression. Today, as the world stands at the precipice of another global contraction, the United States Senate has decided to pass a bill which would give the US Treasury power to impose tariff barriers on countries it identifies as currency manipulators (hint: China) which would, if passed into law, likely cause a global trade war. Exactly at the worst time possible. Go figure.

So, what I'm saying is this - times change. The names of people/countries change. The places change. But history repeats itself. Events don't change.

And it's because of this that it is especially critical for everyone to have an understanding of historical perspectives. History is important. In fact, it might be the most important subject you learn at school (going by the Malaysian education system). More important than Math. More important than English. More important than them all. Why? Because only by learning from the mistakes of history can we really combat the problems of the present.

Look, all of us, we make the same mistakes over and over again in our life. We consistently make poor choices even when we know these choices are poor ones. On a larger level, what makes top-level decision-makers any different from us? They are as human as we are. But we are under the delusional impression that we are all wiser than before and that every new occasion is just, well, new. So, we don't think that historical perspectives are relevant. We then, with an inflated sense of our wisdom, go on to assume that whatever has happened before won't happen again. But as we all know, history repeats itself.

Instead of recognising the importance of history, what do our history teachers in school tell us? Memorise these bits because this is what will come on the examination. Instead of actually learning history, all we perform is a rote memorisation of historical events without understanding WHY it is important. I am willing to bet that most of us didn't question the importance of history when we were studying it in school. Here's food for thought - How many of your friends went on to study "History" as a major or a minor or even took a class on history (if it wasn't a requisite part of coursework) when they left school for college and/or university? That's what I thought.

Admittedly, this is true for me as well. I will happily hold my hand up and say that I completely missed the point of history in school.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this. And I think this afflicts most Malaysians. Think about it - why can't Malaysian politicians or Malaysian political activists use the Civil Rights movement in the United States as a rallying point to all this racial politics stuff? The Civil Rights campaign was a hell lot bloodier and emotional compared to our racial politics. Never in the history of Tanah Melayu were a specific race brought over to only be slaves. So, it's obvious theirs will be more fire-crackery.

But the way in which Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks and Malcolm X became symbols of justice, one way or another, for African-Americans was a critical factor for the success of the Civil Rights Movement. Instead of creating symbols or icons, our non-you-know-what politicians just choose to become symbols of anti-ruling-coalition. It completely misses the bigger picture. They don't understand that this is all about something bigger than themselves. But anyway, my point is, why not use historical lessons to inform the movements of today.

And since we're on the topic, consider dictatorships. As we all know, 2011 was a shitty year to be a dictator. But you know what? Dictators or rather, absolute rulers, have worked before in the past to great success. Why is this being left out of this anti-dictatorship movement? And is it necessarily true that democracy always works? Of course not. Dictatorship and democracy sustain as long as the people are happy and, most importantly, well-fed. Dictatorship and democracy fall or get overthrown when people become unhappy - in part because of civil liberties and that sort of moral stuff but in larger part because of starvation.

The deep, underlying reason for most of the civil unrest in the world for 2011 was, I will contend, escalating food prices which out-priced the poor. And so, since people couldn't buy food and couldn't find more jobs (due to the financial crisis), they felt poor and so they demanded change. And dictators became the scapegoat. Using the cloak of "Dictatorships are evil", people toppled governments. And democracy reigned. Did that solve anything? Well, let's just say a couple of months after the democratisation of Egypt, the Egyptian people attacked the democracy activists. Why? All this activism stuff was preventing everyday business and reducing tourism which, of course, affected their income. And oh, food prices were still high and people still couldn't find jobs.

People respond to incentives. And if things hit people in the wallet/purse, they start to get angsty. It doesn't matter if the political institution is a democracy or a dictatorship. Hell, Lee Kuan Yew was a de facto dictator for the past 50 years. But Singaporeans, in general, are happy.

So, essentially, I think it's extremely difficult to consider a person wise if they fail to comprehend the importance of historical perspectives in decision-making. Whatever that happens now, the event, has happened before. And it is folly to ignore or underestimate the lessons of the past. And really, if you think about it, it isn't so much "history" that repeats itself, it is simply human nature that repeats itself.

Turkey Mega Post Part 2: Istanbul and Ankara – The Memory of Things Said and Done

"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity.”
-Roy P. Basler

The one thing about history for which I have most difficulty wrapping my head around, even if it is the most straightforward is that at a given amount of years ago, there were people there, living their lives, doing things, worshipping Gods, bowing to Emperors. Yes, it’s obvious that it happened but when you’re in a given spot, it’s not so easy to imagine it that way. So, when I had my Byzantine/Ottoman empire tour, it was pretty cool standing in, say, that Hagia Sophia and thinking that, damn, more than a millennia and a half ago, Christians were here, in this church, worshiping Jesus Christ.

Anyway, well, Part 2 of the Turkey Mega Post is going to be more pictorial as it’s more touristy stuff. I will post the stuff I visited in chronological order as well as some thoughts on them.

Saturday, December 10th

The Hippodrome


Source: Me
Description: This obelisk (great word) was taken from Egypt directly. Check out the super awesome Hieroglyphics. You know, I once took a class in College on deciphering this stuff. Maybe it’s time to bust out old notes.


Source: Me
Description: The Serpentine Column was brought over by the Emperor Constantine from the Temple of Apollo at Delphi (that’s right, that Temple with the Oracles). The Column was created to celebrate the victory of the Greeks over the Persians in the War in Plataea (the war at the end of 300). Basically, this thing is mind-blowingly old. What an artifact.

This was once a 40,000 to 50,000 capacity stadium. People from the Byzantine Empire (fun fact: The Byzantines never called themselves the Byzantines. The term ‘Byzantine’ was only coined in the 1800s. The Byzantines referred to their empire as the Eastern Roman Empire) used to watch chariot races in this place.

The Blue Mosque


Source: Me
Description: The Dome of the Blue Mosque.

The 2nd largest Mosque in Turkey behind the Suleyman (the Magnificent) Mosque not too far away. The stained glass displays inside the mosque are spectacular. Interesting note, I was trying to take pictures of the stained glass (couldn’t get any good ones) when I heard this one tour guide talking about the, wait for it…wait for it…ECONOMICS of the Ottoman Empire.

Immediately, I thought, “Crap, I took the wrong tour.” Basically, he described how the Ottomans moved from being producers of final goods to producers of raw materials, linking it with massive inflation in Europe from the discovery of America (European countries could afford to offer more for raw materials rather than the Ottomans and so, the Ottomans moved into raw material production). You know, I wonder if there are such tours given where the guide takes you on an economic history tour of a city.

That would be badass. And fair enough, supremely nerdy.

On the way to the Hagia Sophia, an old Aqueduct! Now all I need is an Indigo Plant or a Sugar Mill and I’m in super business. Sorry, this is an inside joke crafted for the 6 or 7 people I know who like developing economies in San Juan, Puerto Rico.


Source: Me

Also, on the way to the Hagia Sophia, KFC tormenting me wherever I go.


Source: Me

The Hagia Sophia


Source: Me
Description: The Hagia Sophia or St. Sophia from the outside. This building was around since 532. Hint: It’s older than the Prophet Muhammad.


Source: Me
Description: The word on the giant pendant on the right is “God”. The one on the left is “Muhammad”. If you look closely in the middle near the top, you’ll see a picture of the Virgin Mary. Given that Islam forbids ‘images’, don’t you think it’s super duper cool that the Ottoman Muslims were willing to leave that image of the Virgin Mary up there? And it still remains there in a nation where near 100% of the population is Muslim? Do you think that would happen here?


Source: Me
Description: From a higher level


Source: Me
Description: I like to think of this as a Quasi-catacomb. It’s the passageway to the higher levels in the Hagia Sophia. Walking in it makes me feel like Indiana Jones.

Personally, the Hagia Sophia was the most beautiful tourist spot I visited. On the J. Evans Pritchard scale, it’s beauty and significant surpasses all, given it the highest area on the curve. Also, I love the name? It’s called St. Sophia but what the name represents is not some Saint named Sophia but rather, it represents “Divine Wisdom.” So, the Church of the Hagia Sophia or the Mosque of the Hagia Sophia is really the Church of Divine Wisdom or Mosque of Divine Wisdom.

As someone whose favourite fictional character is Gandalf, I’m all for Divine Wisdom.

Central Grand Bazaar


Source: Me
Description: 4,000 stores with hard-sell sellers.


Source: Me
Description: 3 stores selling silver, side by side by side

From an Economics point of view, the Central Grand Bazaar is really quite fascinating. It can be used as a classic example of free markets as well as market failure. Since there are 4,000 shops with most of them selling essentially the same stuff, you would expect a level of perfect competition – identical prices, identical goods, none with one distinct advantage over the other. After all, if someone prices lower, you would expect that shop (assuming perfect information) to get all the customers.

On the other hand, we don’t live in a world of perfect information. Instead, we live in a world of asymmetric information. The people at the bazaar are mostly tourists – tourists who generally wouldn’t be able to tell the differences in quality of goods. So, tourists won’t be able to tell the good goods (see what I did there) from the bad goods. This allows the sellers the chance to scam tourists (like me). I did buy some stuff from here and am 99.9% sure I got scammed. Plus, the fact that there are 4,000 stalls and most tourists spend only a day in this place also works in the sellers’ favour. It is unlikely that a given tourist can identify which stall offers the best quality goods for the lowest price. Cunning stuff, really.

Over lunch, as well, I was talking to some of the other tour-mates and we discovered another form of collusion under the pretense of a free market system. So, all of us booked this tour with different websites online but everything led back to this one tour company. Was this tour company secretly monopolizing the tour trade? Were they creating fake websites to seem as if they were generating competition? Collusion is abound here, the game is afoot!


Source: Me
Description: Took this after lunch passing by a playground of sorts. Warms the heart.

Topkapi Palace

There aren’t any pictures for this place since photos were generally not allowed at the most interesting parts of the Palace. This was the main palace of the Ottoman empire, having used it for near 400 years. The coolest thing about the Palace is that it hosts the greatest collection of artifacts I have ever seen (granted, I haven’t been to Egypt, Louvre etc etc).

For example, it has the robe of Prophet Muhammad, the rod of Moses (childish giggle here), swords of former Caliphs, jewels of the Ottoman empire fitted with emeralds, pearls, diamonds, solid gold. I find it quite mindblowing that such artifacts were kept so well up to today. And the jewels were really, really sparkling.

The coolest artifact for me? The sword of Suleyman the Magnificent. To me, that’s like the sword of Elendil. Only the heir of Gondor (Ottoman empire) can wield it. And since the Ottoman royals were kicked out by Ataturk when Turkey became a republic, it is entirely possible that the bloodline endures. The heir to the throne of the Ottoman empire could be out there somewhere. To reclaim the throne and claim the sword of Suleyman the Magnificent for himself. Brilliant.

Sunday, December 11th

Spice Bazaar


Source: Me
Description: Akin to the Grand Central Bazaar but definitely much smaller.


Source: Me
Description: Chess pieces! Personal souvenir round 2 for me. I’m trying to collect chess pieces to build a collection. And right now, my collection stands at the Sherlock Holmes edition one. And well, regular chess. Yes, it’s pathetic. But now! I have the Ottomans vs the Byzantines! This purchase had me buzzing.


Source: Me
Description: *Childish giggle*

Much like the Grand Central Bazaar, the Spice Market is also a great demonstration of perfect competition in a free market as well as market failure. I probably got scammed here as well, but that’s okay. I’ll choose to trust in perfect competition.

And outside the Spice Bazaar, a scene that would scare Movie Kaki Karen:-


Source: Me
Description: They’re all screaming “Death”…

Bosphorus Cruise


Source: Me
Description: I like cities that are build on hills. And the Europe side of Istanbul is like that. Kind of like Minas Tirith and Castel Del Monte (see pictures below)


Source: Not me
Description: Even the name Minas Tirith sounds cool. Rolls of the tongue


Source: Not me
Description: (Hopefully) One of my future retirement spots - Castel Del Monte. Fell in love with it in The American movie.

Overall, a rather uneventful cruise. It was neat-o checking out both sides of Istanbul (Asia and Europe) but not really anything that would stick in memory.

After lunch, the tour brought us from the Europe side to the Asia side. I took this photo:-


Source: Me
Description: Vehicles are clogged up from Europe to Asia. Asia to Europe has less flows. JUST LIKE THE CAPITAL FLOWS! Yes, yes.

Beylerbeli Palace

Pictures for this place are limited, also due to the policy of no pictures. But my goodness, this place is spectacular. It was built by Sultan Abdul Aziz and used as a summer palace for 60 years before Turkey became a republic in 1922. The word best used to describe this place is “opulence.” It was really, really lavish.

From the mirrors, to the ceilings, to the furniture, to the chandeliers, to the rugs. Everything. But I guess, if your realm stretched across 3 continents, from, essentially Italy all the way to India, you can build such a palace. As for me, I wonder if I’ll ever be rich enough to rent a room in the stables of this place for just one night.

As we were going through the palace, my colleague and I were talking, Malaysia’s GDP probably couldn’t buy the chandelier in the main lobby. Which then turned into a discussion on whether any of the artifacts in the room could buy the state of Selangor. Which then turned into a discussion on why Greece should just sell its historical assets or lease its historical sites (Parthenon, for example) to the highest bidder. You think UAE wouldn’t bid for it? Or China? Wouldn’t this make for great television? “Who Wants to Own the Parthenon?” Yes, yes, this is what passes for jokes in the realm of economists.

From the Palace, the tour took us up this hill to get a magnificent view of Istanbul. And well, pics, so it happened.


Source: Me
Description: The left side is Asia, the right side is Europe.


Source: My camera, my colleague took it
Description 1: Me, Imaginary Emma Watson and a gorgeous backdrop
Description 2: Me, a gorgeous backdrop and a fricking literal and metaphorical lamp post.

I generally don’t take pictures of myself but this backdrop is too pretty that I just had to. Plus, I was rocking the Mather sweatshirt.

Monday, December 12th

Ankara


Source: Me
Description: From the airport to the ‘city’

If there’s a word to describe Ankara, it’d be desolate. The buildings are sparse across what seems to be a cross between grassland and desert. Visibility is poor so it seems like it is super dusty. Everything is older compared to Istanbul despite the fact that Ankara is the nation’s capital. But, yeah, I think there’s a strange loneliness I feel that seems to emanate from the landscape of Ankara


Source: Me

It seems like a very Salem’s Lot sort of place. That said, it has cities on hills.


Source: Me

And the more I think about it, the more it reminds me of Rohan. Granted, it’s not the capital of Middle-Earth but it’s much smaller, it’s mostly grassland and it’s way more backward compared to Gondor (Istanbul).

But still, I would love to explore Ankara. I love the harshness of the landscape. It reminds me a little of road trips through the United States, particularly through the Midwest. My colleague said something about travelling preferences which I thought was really quite accurate (paraphrased) – We are the sum of our experiences. The place in which we studied in university, for example, does influence what sort of places we like to visit. For her, she loves visiting castles, old country homes, with a hike in a hill and that sort of thing. She believes it’s a function of her experience having studied in the UK. And for me, having studied in America, I seek the Great American Road Trip. And part of the Great American Road Trip is to explore different terrains, landscapes that seem harsh and lonely. Adventure is exploring such places. And I think that’s why I’m so drawn to Ankara.

But anyway, that’s my trip to Turkey in a (not-so) nutshell. Thanks for reading. I plan to go back in the future (certain parts of Turkey will now crack my top travel destinations). And who knows, maybe I will explore the terrain of Ankara. And I may go deeper into Asia where, apparently, people still travel in horse carts and is severely underdeveloped. It should be quite an adventure.