Friday, July 24, 2009

Some new definitions - evolved with the times.

Diplomacy - The art of making the most unjustified actions, the most
unspeakable of crimes, and the most unfair of demands sound extremely
fair and reasonable.

Culture - The presentation of unquestioned collective habits and
rituals as something to be proud of.

Government - The mechanism we can blame everything on after we put
every effort into setting it up to solve all the problems we had in
the first place.

Democracy - The only way we know right now to slow down the fast, dumb
down the intelligent, weaken the strong, and feel good about
mediocrity replacing excellence.

Society - The best way to make an individual who hates the mob become
part of it.

Nationalism - Same as goondaism, but with a flag.

Goondaism - Same as nationalism, but without the hypocrisy.

Patriotism - The umbrella under which all crooks, thieves, murderers,
rapists, hypocrites, shenanigans, and other low life can be forgiven
for their wrongdoings.

Decency - What you need to put on when others are watching, especially
if it is against your nature.

Peace - What ensues when nobody has the balls to stand up and fight.

History - What was written earlier to show us how well our ancestors
hid their mistakes.

Freedom - What is always yours but can still be sold to you. It is
also what you have in plenty when nobody cares about what you do.

Nation - A land mass with borders denoting the extent to which we can
identify with others stuck on the same land mass.

The National Anthem - A filtered, presentable account of how blessed
we are with all the great things about our country that we can fight
over, pollute and trash.

National bird - A bird that actually knows what nation it belongs to.

National game - A game we would love to be good at.

Education - The process by which your intelligence can be subdued,
your originality killed, and you can be made willing to exchange your
greatness for grades.

Higher education - The process by which you can show how much your
intelligence has been subdued, your originality has been killed, and
how much you were willing to exchange your greatness for grades.

Military - The honourable institution that we set up to do our killing
for us. Consumer base of the weapons industry.

Police - The less honourable institution that we set up to threaten
and bully and beat before they do their killing for us. Unrealized
consumer base of the fitness industry.

War - Weapons industry clearance sale.

Doctors - The most qualified and effective salespersons in the
pharmaceutical industry.

Lawyers - People who know the law so well they can show you ways to
get away with breaking it.

Religion - A way to get close to God that God would never approve of.

Faith - Something you can lean on when you have no knowledge.

Politicians - Those we create to exploit us, so that we can use them
as excuses for our lack of development.

Progress - The term used to describe how much better we feel today
about being just as screwed up as we were yesterday.

Conscience - What would make you really angry if you had it.

Justice - What you can get if you are willing to fight, faster if you
are willing to bribe.

Integrity - The hardest thing to maintain, the easiest thing to let go
of, and the biggest impediment to bliss.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

The Asset Management Scam

Over the years I have met a few. Quite a few I might add, of these
Asset Management types - people who have absolutely nothing to lose if
you lose, and quite a bit to gain if you gain - IF they are managing
your assets that is. In other words, the smartest business types wear
the garb of asset managers. It is your hard earned money, and their
confidence in managing it, for you of course.

Think about it. You need someone who knows what to do with your
money, and that's fair enough. A lot of factors need to come together
to make your money work as hard for you as you have for it, and
chances are you need some guidance. But WHO are these asset managers
who claim to be able to manage anybody's "portfolio"? How qualified
are they? What is their claim to be able to manage YOUR assets?

Here are some primary reasons for you to worry about who is managing
your assets:

1. They have never owned their own business.

Would you trust a guy who has never driven a car to drive you, in your
car, with your family in it? So why would you trust a clown who
claims he can help you manage your assets when he has neither been
part of your effort to earn it, nor has a track record of taking pains
to build a business? Duh!

2. They have nothing to lose.

More often than not, Asset Managers are notoriously well paid for
being educated "professionals", who don't have to deliver anything
while merely "handling" your assets. If they are going to take
chances with your money, they better not be getting paid if they're
not making you any money. If they tell you that is a risk you have to
take, you can take those same risks without paying these fools,
couldn't you?

3. They want to "diversify your portfolio".

Wait a minute. Sure it makes sense to invest in the stock market with
this philosophy, since it is a lottery beyond a point anyway, and
you're playing with money you can afford to lose. But with your
assets? If you made your big money in agriculture and you would like
to explore opportunities in IT, for instance, you will not be
successful until you understand IT to some extent.

You should always have an understanding of any domain you are going to
do business in. You think your Asset Managers know everything about
every domain out there? Think again. They want you to diversify,
because they know nothing about any domain, and would like to play
safe for their own skin, not yours. If they know how to make massive
profits for you doing one thing, why wouldn't they suggest that one
thing to do?

4. They talk about "domain experts" they have.

Why would an "expert" in some domain want to work for a management
company? Wouldn't he be busy making his own business work better?
What are the chances of finding a genius working for a company that
merely manages somebody else's money? Why would any productive
professional ever want to be part of an Asset Management company?
This is a total scam. If any such professional is working as a
consultant, he is getting paid for merely lending his ear and giving
some oral advice, not for taking an interest in any activity in any
business in that domain. In other words, this AM company has one more
useless appendage you will end up paying for.

5. Their worst case scenario is never a complete loss of all your money.

There are extremely high risk businesses, where your money may quickly
be worth less than when you started your investments and worth nothing
shortly after. Such businesses, like motion picture production for
example, are not for everyone, even though they might bring back very
handsome returns to some. If your Asset Manager is not prepared to
tell you you might lose all your money in a certain direction, he
doesn't know what he is talking about. It doesn't matter how great
your actual domain experts may be who drive such investments, and it
doesn't matter how great a job they may do on your projects - you
might very well lose everything, and this is a business reality, not a
doomsday scenario. Your asset manager is an illiterate fool if he
doesn't know this.

6. They mention big names, and other such "credibility indicators".

Their portfolio is full of famous, big, well established companies
that they "worked with". Yeah, right. If they mentioned as many in
their portfolio that didn't go right, you'd not be very impressed.
So, stop thinking that your asset manager has dealt only with success
and big names and trusted companies. The few deals that they
negotiated that did go right doesn't qualify them to be the best
people to advice you on your next business move, either. It is one
thing for a team of seasoned Chartered Accountants to get together and
estimate the worth of a company's shares, and entirely another to grow
that company to a successful position. If you hear only big names and
big companies and success stories, you're being taken for an idiot.

7. They are never under any sort of pressure.

The most important thing for any investor is to be excited about an
opportunity that he can automatically and quickly sense. If your
AssMan company is dragging along happily, taking you to meetings,
setting you up with presentations, and not putting any pressure upon
themselves to deliver for you quickly and efficiently, they are not
worth being anywhere near you. If some business direction doesn't
make any sense to you, and your asset manager cannot recognize it when
you couldn't care less, you're wasting your time with him. He has to
feel and react to the pressure when you're not jumping into his ideas.
If not, you're being taken for a ride.

If you see any of the above in your asset manager, or your Asset
Mangement Company, you need to step away. Kick them out immediately.

Ultimately, it is your business, and it is your drive that will take
you places in whatever line of business you choose. If you need help,
take pains to find someone who will give you the insider's view on the
business you might think of entering - not some fancy "company" that
gets fat off your hard work.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Not racism, just plain old superiority complex!

Are we barking up the wrong tree with racism? Are people really
capable of hating people of another race, purely based on approval or
disapproval of skin colour? I don't think so.

Beneath the surface of anything racist, or any kind of prejudice is
not hatred, but a feeling of superiority. Maybe we should call it
"superiorism".

The Nazis felt that way towards Jews, white people in South Africa
felt that way towards black people, and the history of humanity is
lavishly painted with examples where one group felt superior to
another and treated the lower group just so. This doesn't have to do
with judging on appearance alone, it has to do with feeling superior
to people of a certain collective, in this case, appearance.

It is very unlikely that a homeless smelly white man would really be
able to offend a suave, well to do black man by being racist towards
him. It would just be absurd. But a rich white man who calls a
homeless black man a "filthy nigger" would come off looking very
racist indeed. Where is the question of race here, when the
predominant perception comes from economic status?

Just like dogs evaluate other dogs, and humans, as either "top dog" or
"bottom dog", humans do to a certain extent, understand who is on top.
When we perceive ourselves to be the bottom dog, we're highly
unlikely to be "racist" towards another group that is clearly on top.

From the times of slavery to the modern day racially sensitive issues,
it isn't that hard to see the element of superiority expressing
itself. To fight against "racism" without confronting the perception
of superiority would be naive and fruitless.

It is no secret that white people in the USA perceive themselves as
being superior to black people in that country. After all, white
people are the dominant race in any social context in the USA. They
own the most wealth, control most political affairs, and are clearly
in the driver's seat.

Black people on the other hand, are disproportionately represented in
jails! If Rodney King had been white, it was very unlikely that the
Los Angeles Police Department would have thought it wise to whack him
like they did. If Barack Obama had been fully white, he would have
breezed through the nomination and election process to become
President.

Some feeling of superiority is bound to be natural. After all, there
are arguably NO wealthy people in the USA who are not white. There
are indeed several rich black and brown people, but all the truly
"wealthy" people who have no worries at all about their material
empires for generations to come are invariably white. Nobody needs to
offer any excuses or apologies for this. It is just the way things
panned out and it is just the way things stand now.

Black people were initiated to life in the USA through slavery -
that's very unlike people from India getting masters degrees in
Harvard and Kellog's business schools and joining Wall Street
companies with six figure salaries. It is socially and culturally
ingrained in white people to see black people as inferior beings. Why
is it so hard for people to understand this?

It isn't as if black people need to feel victimized for history
playing such a cruel part in the way they are perceived. But they
need to be cognizant of the fact that they are not fighting against
anyone hating them, but indeed, perhaps, against others genuinely
thinking of them as inferior beings! What is to stop people from
simply using a yardstick that puts one group over the other?

If we're watching sports, we all know most white people can't do much
against most black competitors in most sports, and this is
particularly obvious in basketball, track and field, and American
football. The only reason white guys are so good at ice hockey is
because black people haven't taken to it yet. Are we being racist
here? Of course not! From race to race we do carry genes in us that
make some us better at some things.

Most Asians are very good at racquet games, with their supple bodies
and fast hands. Watch Leander Paes play incredibly close to the net,
right in front of his body and you will know that is a special ability
when he connects with the ball and is able to place it accurately,
just because his hands are bloody fast. No wonder he dominates in
doubles tennis.

This is not to say that a person of a certain race can never be good
at something traditionally dominated by people of another race, but
statistically evidence clearly shows Kenyans and Ethiopians are far
better than Swedes and Germans when it comes to running marathons!
This has very little to do with India not finding representation in
the Winter Olympics, but on a race vs race level, there isn't much one
can do except admire the traits of a certain race in what they are
really good at.

On the street, the weaker you are, the more are the chances of being
beaten. Young Australian males probably feel very superior to brown
skinned Indian males there, who aren't physically capable of defending
themselves, stick to themselves and look like good candidates to get a
bit of bashing. What fun it must be to intimidate them and get some
money in the bargain! Is this racism? Not quite. If the Australian
government had different laws for Indians, if Indians had no right to
complain, that would be superiorist, racist or discriminatory. But
these attacks are just attacks on brown skinned vulnerable targets,
and beyond the point of identifying the victims, race doesn't have
much of a role. The same Indians would have got robbed by hoodlums in
Jamaica as well, and I'm not sure if Jamaicans care what colour your
skin is.

I love the fact that some Indian students in Australia have turned
vigilantes. They are forcing a correction of perception, nothing
more. If they can change the perception that they are easy targets,
good for them! What kind of morons sitting in air conditioned offices
are busy telling them that is a wrong thing! And how dare they?

There was this rather aggressive street dog that would bare its teeth
at me every now and then. One day it was in the way when I rode past
it on my motorcycle and kicked him square in the face when he showed
his teeth. He tucks his tail between his legs and makes the most
apologetic noises when he sees me these days, and usually gives me
atleast a hundred feet.

Instead of fighting againt superiorism, let's try and acknowledge that
it exists, and just like in the animal world, let's figure out
survival tactics, instead of yelling ourselves hoarse about
eradicating something as natural as our instinctive weighing of who is
boss. (I am!).

- BSK

Saturday, July 4, 2009

A major(ity) problem.

I have a problem with democracy. Not the idea of it, which is not terrible, but the power of the majority in any cause.

Looking around the world, the majority in any cross section of humans are underachievers. The majority of athletes running in a race are losers, the majority of workers in a company are not geniuses, and the majority of us do not achieve anything great in our lifetimes. Ergo, if you belong in the majority, you are probably mediocre.

So, why does the majority get to decide things in a democracy, unless this is a blatant attempt to keep out geniuses who are bound to be in the minority? This is the best way for a lot of people to have to listen to a small group of very intelligent people, and this is a great way for dumbasses to feel good about themselves, having won in numbers what they could never win in merit.

But, the leaders we elect are also in the minority! There are very few leaders to a very large group of people and those few leaders are supposed to effectively "represent" their collectives. I must say, at least in politics, they do, to a magnified level of inaction and ineptitude, not to mention abject incompetence in most cases.

It is strange that the majority by an overwhelming margin, once believed the earth was flat. The minority was proved right then, and more often than not, I worry about what the majority believes. Even God doesn't have much of a standing with the minority, since the majority have major investments in their beliefs in such an entity.

Why is it that cold rational thinking eludes the majority, and only the minority musters up the courage to go up that alley? Would it be wrong, fundamentally if there were more people who were agnostic or atheistic, and the minority believed in all kinds of Gods? But the flat earthers and the God believers both being overwhelming majorities, I wonder what would happen if it was conclusively proved that there is no God. The minority would go, "Aha, we told you so", and the rest of society would create mayhem, just because they hate to be wrong.

The majority was the reason slavery was legal in many parts of the world, and the majority is usually guilty of the most stupid courses of action that humanity has taken. It is not a matter of pride to belong to the majority in any collective, and a win by numbers can most of the time, only be a mandate that we love to belong to the group most likely to be the dumber of the two.

So, how did we manage to pull off this con on the minority? Truth is, we haven't. The minority most of the time has enough mental resources to think clearly, manage their way around the stupidity of the (m)asses, and they don't really care about having power of intelligent, rational thought over the majority. The minority watches with pleasure as the majority kills itself with its own stupidity.

The richest people in the world are a minority, the most successful people of the world are a minority, and it runs across the board, the ability to stand out and strike out on their own. It is very rare that people who simply do as others do climb out of the majority mass. It is always those who "do not belong" in the collective that get the opportunity to fly higher and on a different plane.

Now, imagine the competition we would have on our hands if the majority was capable of excellence, and only a few were falling behind. It would be unbearable, and we would quickly up our standards so only a few of us would continue to stand out. So, is that where the buck is - in the standards we set? Of course it is. The communities, the countries, the collectives that have prospered and improved their standards of living are those that took the examples of the minority and quickly applied them to the majority.

There are a few people in India who actually use dust bins, do not spit randomly, do not break rules, and do not cause chaos in everything they do. The majority does not even notice. They're too busy following other fools.

So can we apply that to political choices we make, and declare the BJP the more capable, intelligent party that has been denied the opportunity to excel by the majority? Most definitely not. The BJP succeeded in scaring the majority and created a mass fear of them. Fear of this nature spreads rapidly in the majority, since there are many carriers. Rational or not, fear has momentum, just like stupidity. So if you want to lose traction with the majority, cause them some fear.

The BJP should have kept it benign and comforting to the majority who wants to be in a slumber. Manmohan Singh is the more accommodating of a slumber compared to LK Advani. That guy might stir up something that we may have to really deal with. So, the majority chose the party that would give them the less to be bothered with. What a lovely thing this democracy is! And we have analysts for masturbating over thousands of details as if the majority really uses a fraction of human intelligence to make its choice!

The minority of humans actually produce, while the majority merely reproduces. The minority finds solutions, while the majority simply comes up with resolutions. The minority gets rich, while the majority gets to bitch.