Money - or ambition? - and the City

A friend of mine pointed out last night that, in the last year in New York City, he has been shocked by the way his female friends have discussed their human relationships. To quote,

The typical American 'Sex and the City' girl [sees] the boyfriend as a 'deal', and going out together as 'a return on investment', and so forth... The city sport for these girls is to capture the richest guy.

Although I was quick to denounce the so-called 'Sex and the City' girl, this morning I found myself reconsidering the topic, mainly as a result of my own realised habits. What exactly is the thought process behind this typified girl, and how prevalent and common is it? (Note: all 'he' and 'him' written below are interchangeable with 'she' and 'her')

To be sure, it only took a second to mentally create the image of what my friend labeled as the 'Sex and the City' girl: she is the shopper at sales (because no branded item is clearly worth more than $50), the occasional mani-pedi client, the yoga- or pilate-enthusiast after work, who has at least a bachelor's degree from a reknown university and a decently paying job, who attends the sunday brunch with the girlfriends, and then, over a cosmopolitan or a martini or a glass of red wine, talks about her recent (and most likely, failed) date with a man of similar social status, background, and mentality. The immediate topic of discussion becomes his occupation, his firm, his income bracket, and his interests.

Like I said, I was quick to tell him that I'm increasingly weary of people who describe human relationships in market terminology, and that my humble opinion was that while human psychology has much to do with the way the macroeconomy functions, macroeconomic theory and the world of finance can only help explain a small aspect - albeit a crucial component - of human behaviour.

To be fair, I noted, for the longest time men have commodified women, perhaps not necessarily in market/financial terminology but through other means. Only with the rise and subsequent radicalisation of feminism - subversively through media outlets like Sex and the City, Calvin Klein adverts, and maybe more officially through political activism of sorts - did women start commodifying men, at least in the western world, and hence you get stuff like dinner or gifting as a "return on investment" and by proxy, the whole obsession over who pays the bill at the end of the evening, etc etc. So in this way both parties are at fault for the mass commodification of genders.

The primary reason why I'm weary of relationships being described that way is because it glosses over all the important stuff about human relationships (whether it's familial, friendship, mentorship, etc) and prioritises all the stuff that really doesn't matter. They take the icing and forget about the cake. And it's quite mediocre and unfortunate that the 'cake' falls by the wayside.

And one more thing - people who care so little to put their relations into such terms often have little respect for others, let alone for themselves, constructing this false sense of security. And that really bothers me. "Who do you think you are?" becomes the imminent question.

But then, if you 'strip' the 'Sex and the City' girl, so to speak, you come down to a simple, naked fact: we always weigh the costs against the benefits, and take in the pros with the cons. The questions we ask ourselves make a pretty long list: Does he have a good job? Is he good at what he does? How much does he earn? How does he dress? Where does he live? Where did he go to school? Will he really call? Will he call back? Where will we go for our date? Will he pay the dinner bill? And so on and so forth, you get the idea.

Surely this decision-making process isn't such an abominable act?

After some thought I came to the conclusion that there are at least two ways of looking at this. On the one hand, we may all just be obsessed with someone's job title or income bracket or their material assets residing in their apartment. Perhaps after a few years of failed, disappointing, or somewhat mediocre human relationships (friendship, romantic, mentorship, or whatever) we may find both security and solace in someone who shares similar values. Even better would be a situation in which the benefit outweights the cost - they supplement whatever you lack, be it money, status, etc.

On the other hand, maybe everyone actually realises that the less-monetary characteristics are crucial, and yet fail to communicate that recognition as effectively as they truly could. In short, the answers to the aforementioned list of questions merely become indicators of non-monetary characteristics. The fact that he has a good job at a good company, earns good money, and is good at what he does could just mean that he is ambitious. The fact that he calls back, has chosen a restaurant for the date and will pay the bill at the end of the night might indicate roots in chivalry and consideration for their partner.

This latter view would mean that even though we suck at communicating it, we are all actually just attracted to the causes of the effect - the underlying characteristics that result in a good job, a nice apartment, and fabulous style. Of course, all these indicators could also be negative. They could be indicative of greed, immaturity, selfishness, disrespect, etc. But that's not the point. Because more importantly, the fact that we hope that a good job, good pay, and a good apartment are all indicative of ambition, chivalry, or whatever, speaks to the underlying values of the judge (i.e. us). We want someone with ambition, intelligence, compassion (to take chivalry more broadly across both genders), consideration, respect, and then if they have a good job, good pay, good apartment and fabulous style in addition, well, that's just great, isn't it?

What has happened is that, at some point in time, the way we communicate all these things that we want became warped, so that we now convey our preference for certain indicators - the money, the sex - first, before we convey our preference for the relevant characteristic.

This may have been a result of a historically and socially implanted positive relationship between a good job and good values, even though the wiser in us all inherently know that that's a very flimsy correlation. Maybe it is exacerbated by the stresses of the daily life, the pressures of the working world, the jade that comes with age, and the insecurity we feel at the end of the day. Maybe we just want it all - the job and the pay with the ambition, the intelligence, the respect and compassion combined with the great body and style. And I'm not about to speculate on why we want all these things. But regardless of whether this is inevitable or preventable, admirable or dispicable, it's certainly something to be aware of.

And maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge the 'Sex and the City' girl/boy as a pebble in a pile of rubble - it may just become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Read more!

The world needs a little bit of the English

Reading this post's title, you may gasp and whinge at the colonial undertones, and bemoan, "Oh no you didn't!" But, contrary to a glancing moment's thought, a little bit of appreciation - and maybe, adoption - of the English mindset may do a bit of good in a world increasingly full of radicalisation, the so-called 'clash of civilizations', and fear.

I was brought to the attention of a particular article in the Guardian this morning. My flatmate (or, roommate, in North America) forwarded me the article, written by one of my favourite comedians, Dara O Briain. Dara, if you've never seen him in action on Mock the Week or Live at the Apollo, is a broad-chested, tall (at least from what I can tell on BBC iPlayer) Irishman who, despite casual allegations that he looks like a member of the Russian mafia, to me looks like a very huggable bear. An innocent one at that.

In this particular article, he's collected his conclusions about the English, their country, their behaviour, their habits. Like Dara, England and its largest city, London, were both foreign to me before 2007. My image of England pre-2007, which consisted of Princess Diana, the Beatles, Blair, David/Victoria Beckham, Hugh Grant and Bridget Jones' Diary, was as warped and bizarre as Dara's image of England derived from That's Life! So, when I did arrive that nippy September morning at London Heathrow, dragging my way to the Picaddilly line with all my luggage, one can only imagine - and I'll be honest here - the reality check, the disappointment, and the wonder as to why I chose England, over all the other countries in the world, to spend the next half a decade in. In the weeks that followed, I became more than just privy to the drinking, the smoking, the dirty streets, the packed buses and unventilated (and un-air conditioned!!!), tardy or broken down tube trains, and of course, the shock that not all English men had posh accents and looked/acted like Hugh Grant. And it was all too different from the England I had imagined.

Yet, the price I paid for the damn-expensive piece of paper from one university did have some effect on my merciless, and probably naive, judgment on England. I became acutely aware that the world is a complicated place that is becoming unimaginably convoluted with the process called globalisation. The knooks and crannies of what such a process entails, I won't get into here. But I will say that, with that complication comes a lot of fear and uncertainty. We fear resorting to relativism, because that could undermine the 'core' values we stand for. But at the same time, we fear the radicalisation and the fundamentalism that stands at the other end of the spectrum, because that, too, would only serve to undermine, rather than support, the long-standing values of the Western world.

So what can one do? How do we deal with it all? Take Dara's joke about how Londoners reacted in the wake of the July 2005 bombings:

The media reacted as if the attacks would, or should, be greeted like 9/11 had been in New York. Of course, the attack was nothing like 9/11 and besides... this is London.

They've had the Blitz and then there was the IRA...

In fact, the response in London to the attacks was much more: "There's been a bomb on the Piccadilly line!" (Long, thoughtful pause and then, like a problem being solved...) "Well, I can get the Victoria line..."

It's this comparatively non-chalant attitude about the things that happen in the world around us that I think is increasingly important to foster. While Dara's joke and the reality it points to may be an exaggeration, it's the sense of being reasonable, and realistic about events and people that perhaps, we should all learn to adopt.

The 'realism' I note here can also be seen in English soap operas. As one flatmate recently pointed out to me, whereas North American soaps are full of slim, relatively good-looking people with perfect white teeth and glowing skin who've all had the lucky genes of also-relatively good-looking parentals and thus - here's the key - only represent a very small portion of the North American population, the cast of English soaps are all ordinary people. Sure, there may be a few over-the-top glamourites in there, but on the whole, they look like normal people. And there's something comforting in that.

In writing about the appreciation of the English, one cannot purposely overlook the undersides: the binge-drinking culture. This is where my North American health-conscious mentality kicks in. Binge-drinking can't be good for you. It just can't. Consuming that much alcohol in that short period of time, regardless of how many alcohol-processing enzymes you've cultivated over generations, simply cannot be conducive for the health of your liver. And cholestrol levels.

Or the subtle ignorance that comes with the blurbs that come when an English team is beaten in football: "This, in a sport we invented." As Dara rightly points out, the English never invented football (and the Americans never invented basketball or baseball) - "They codified it, which is a different thing altogether":

You didn't invent football because you didn't invent the ball, or kicking, or fields. We should only be grateful that the Victorians didn't gather together in a room and write the first rules for the use of the wheel, or fire, so that you can claim credit for them as well...Villages have been dragging, pulling, kicking and running against each other for millennia; you just happened to be the ones with an empire when the upper class took an interest.

Well put, Dara, well put.

England once had an empire, a vast one at that, and that historical fact cannot be erased. But as Dara says, the superiority-complex that arises from a historical - not present - fact can't do much good in the complex world that is the present-now, and the English should "snap out of this" (as should other countries, too). But there is something to be said for the humility and realistic spirit that lies on the flip side of that coin. The ability to carry on without being enraptured by the effects of a bombing (although this begs the question as to what would happen if Big Ben suffers an attack not from an alien invasion but from another country), or to be truthful to reality in representing human drama (although perhaps 'truth' is not exactly the objective of American shows, and is questionable as to 'truth' can be used in the same sentence as 'soap opera' to being with) can be indicative of other elements of society and human behaviour. It really comes down to keeping things in context and perspective. And despite all bemoanings, it's a mentality modern societies need, and there's no harm in turning to the English for that.
Read more!

Property rights: overrated?

A friend of mine posted on an interesting topic, and I thought it might be worth actually posting a response to theoncominghope's most recent post, "Piracy: Capitalism at work."

While I agree that piracy involves stealing and violating rights, remains a major concern amongst almost all sectors, and for the person whose product has been pirated the experience is far from pleasant, I'm not sure if one can make the leap from 'piracy' to the 'annihilation' of property rights.

For example, in the context of pharmaceuticals, I think you have to look at why piracy occurs to begin with - that is, the unavailability of certain pharmaceuticals. If everyone had access to most drugs when they needed it for a reasonable cost, I don't think you would have the same kind of problem of 'piracy' (or in this case, violation of intellectual property rights). On the one hand, such a situation would virtually nullify any incentive to reproduce a drug because it wouldn't make economic sense; if you can purchase it at a reasonable price/cost, then why spend the time, effort, and money to reproduce it? On the other hand, the same situation would also incentivise those who think they can reproduce the drug at a lower cost, supply it at the same price as the original, and make a profit.

In either of those scenarios, property rights aren't completely annihilated, because while pirated products do tend to find themselves distributed widely, the market for the original product continues to exist (albeit arguably in a less dominant manner than in previous generations). The products and processes used to create that product have been adapted. And for all intents and purposes, until a new form of technology comes along (which is probably more just a matter of time), or the downsides of a less-quality product are heartfelt by its consumers, the effects of one act of piracy are quite temporary.

This, of course, is not to say that the various consequences of these actions are any less significant, and I will get to this point shortly.

Either way, whether or not property rights are destroyed in either of the abovementioned scenarios is a mull point, because neither of those situations currently exist in the pharmaceutical sector. Certain pharmaceutical products are either unreadily available because the cost of production is too high for mass production, or are mass-produce-able but supply is limited, demand is uncontrolled and unsatiated, thus artificially pushing up prices, allowing companies to make a large profit. My humble opinion is that, given the political economy of pharmaceuticals, a little bit of piracy might actually do some good.

And to quickly address the profit-making incentive: government subsidies for R&D coming out of taxation, and removal of any taxes in the production of pharmaceuticals.

I suppose the problem is that from my macro perspective, piracy, or the infringement of (I)PR, or whatever you want to call it, is actually not such a 'big deal', for a lack of a better phrase. The reality is, much like financial services regulation, people will always find new ways to produce something for a lesser cost. Not even the prospect of the death penalty, or national deportation, will stop them; in fact, the higher you raise the stakes, the more profitable, and more criminal, of an industry it will become. If you really wanted to address 'piracy', you have to look at what incentives are, either by chance or purpose, in place that are driving certain people to forge a product.

The other issue I have with the violation of IPP/property rights in general from a more philosophical standpoint (wince!), is our continued obsession with the territoriality of material things. It's not that I've turned into a materialism-hating hippie overnight, but that the obsession itself is unsustainable. The reason why I take issue is because the world is changing. The best example is media. In about two or three decades, there will no longer be CD's - in fact, they will be super-expensive to produce and buy. Around the same time, broadsheets will disappear, as will consumer magazines, books, concert tickets, and flyers. My not-very-well-thought-out but gut-feeling is that the pulp and paper industry will actually turn into a consumer discretionary sector from the non-cyclical industrial sector it is now. This is to say that paper will become a luxury item, and there will only be a select few companies that will produce it. In fact, it's already starting. A Canadian newsprint company, AbitibiBowater, filed for bankruptcy in April this year, because newsprint consumption in the US fell off the cliff by 29%.

The music industry has already changed in this way. We went through a period where music became a hotly demanded commodity, and it was a ludicrous business on the production side to enter as long as you were at the right place at the right time with the right shit. On the consumer side, before MP3's became rampantly distributed, we all had to buy CD's or tapes, which we then developed the technology to copy at home and then re-distribute to our friends. But with the advent of MP3s and other alternative digital sound files that are easily distributable, CDs, tapes, and records became massively expensive to produce, and hugely inconvenient to purchase. The demand for music hardware (CDs) from consumers went down, pushing down supply (as well as the incentive to supply), while the production side of the music industry wanted to maintain the same level of income and profit. The business model is completely unsustainable. Something has to give.

Unfortunately, it will remain unsustainable until the music industry figures out a different way to fix the imbalance, or else the economy will do it on its own by scrapping the current music industry-model all together. Most likely - and this is where I stand with theoncominghope - not only will musicians have to be more creative in the way they produce and distribute their work, but their expectations for profit will also have to come down, especially given that the advertising industry will also undergo a massive change in the next few years. What the greater implications are of such changes - well, I'll leave it to your imagination to speculate.

Now, to address the more tangible issues arising from piracy: the micro perspective. Even though I basically say above in a more nuanced way, that property rights are somewhat overrated, the protection of individual rights to property ownership is quite important. In the far, tiny land of East Timor, one of the major obstacles to infrastructural development and peace, no less, is the lack of a legal framework about property rights. During its conflict with Indonesia, the Timorese underwent a series of uprooting from, and redistribution of, land the people formerly lived on. In post-conflict Timor-Leste, people continue to fight - physically and legally (in the latter case, as much as they could) - over ownership of certain pieces of land. It doesn't help that the country had been in conflict for so long that not only are 'official' records unavailble, the people themselves don't exactly have matching accounts of their ownership. The cases are also exacerbated by each party's familial (read: ancestral) attachment to the land and are wrapped up in many layers of tradition and practice with regards to conflict resolution. Many NGOs and IOs working on consultation programmes, therefore, have unilaterally pointed to the lack of property rights law as one of the most signficant obstacles to peace in Timor-Leste.

So at the micro-level, property rights are far from overrated. However, whether they are implicated in the music industry or in a small, undeveloped, post-conflict country, the importance of active regulation of property rights should be emphasised. But, that's not to say that you can just overburden them with regulation. The question to consider is the type of incentives, to place where, and when, and also recognising that even with adequate incentives, people will find ways to get around it. The fear is not underregulation, but overregulation. Some freedom - read: leniency and ability to change - will be key.
Read more!