THE woman behind a man is half the reason why he is where he is today.
Therefore, it is highly important for me to list down the traits I need to find in my future wife.
Numerous examples I have read affirmed the idea that who you will be spending your rest of your life with will determine how successful you are.
That is to say, it is important for a man to find a life partner. That's what nature designed us to be, two halves make one whole. But it is even more important to find the right half.
Love is an emotion that could possibly be cultivated. A certain amount of ingredients from the two subjects plus a little X-factor here and there can brew love.
There is a law of mutual attraction. But just because humans mutually attract more than one counterpart, it doesn't mean we have to be together with every one we are attracted to. I believe that we should not jump at anyone we find attractive or "statistically" good.
More often than not, love can sometimes be rationalized. It is the media that is inculcating the idea that once you are in love, you have to hold on. This often spells downfall for many couples when they could not find their happily ever after.
I have the strong believe that out there somewhere, there will be someone whom you will be mutually attracted to and have the correct factors complimentary to you. Break ups are not meant to be painful but a celebratory occasion. It means that you have one less option to worry about.
I'm sure there will be readers disputing what I've said so far. I have to declare that what I've written are rational thoughts. Of course, there is no way to predict what we will do for the person we love.
Now comes the traits that are desirable for a successful person
A disclaimers: This section has been modified from a book that was written by a very successful man. I regret not listing the title and author down the moment I copied these traits. But I'm tracking the source.
1. Frugality - The first and most-looked-out-for trait. Wealth is obtained by accumulation. If your outlet is faster than your inlet, you can say bye-bye to wealth. But you cannot be frugal if your spouse is the one spending your money, she will be your outlet, an uncontrollable one if you love her.
Bad part? She might get upset if you buy her a really expensive present to thank her after she just saved your business from bankruptcy. And you thought you would make her happy.
2. Systematic - I really admire woman who takes the time to plan stuff. They appear desirable and organized. She can makes sure that I find my socks in pairs. She can also inspire or nag me to keep my stuff organized. This will compliment my want-to-keep-neat-but-cant-do-it-myself habit.
Only set back I can think of for this trait is that, it could evolve into a pandemic of nagging in later years. But I guess it is nature.
3. High Self-Esteem - People with high self-esteem gives off an aura of confidence. It makes them easy to interact with and gives them the bonus trait of being positive. High self-esteem contributes to a desirable trait called the winner attitude. Winner attitude is highly sought after but man who wants to be successful. Winners seek out winners. People with high self-esteem also do not jump to negative conclusions, this builds the trust a couple needs for one another.
However, it is also challenging to find girls with self-esteem who are single and available. Either they are career driven or already attracted someone way better than your current status. Either way, it makes them more worth while when you actually succeed in winning their hearts.
4. Independent - Strong women are naturally independent. They can stand on their own even without men. When the reliance of man on woman or vice-versa is based purely on emotion instead of physical, it creates a mental burden. Same goes for the other extreme. Man and woman needs to be a support for each other in both mental and physical needs. A balance as I would call it. When two independent people come together, the emotional and physical need is reduced to only the necessary level, leaving enough room for constructive developments for both relationship as well as career. Independent people tend to be more trusting as well.
But it leads to the inability to determine when to settle down. Both could be searching for a better alternative when they already have each other. The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill.
5. Physically attractive - This is extremely subjective. Currently, I'm going for intelligent-looking, slender, slightly or full hour glass figure. No less than 170cm, cos I'm 1.86m tall, it makes doing lots of stuff difficult, haha. I'm quite attracted to girls wearing glasses, maybe because it makes them look studious. I detest girls who smoke no matter how pretty they might be. I'm against dying of hair, what a waste of money and time. Long straight hair is the standard I guess, but I'm slowly getting used to slight perms, I was against it once. Lol. Features wise, its really really hard to describe, I cant really stand heavy make ups, perhaps a little to cover up certain flaws would be fine, but not extremely obvious make-over, time and money is the factor here.
That pretty sums up my fantasy.
Looks is really secondary, its only for me to boost my ego so that I can be more confident when I'm going about my business stuff. It is not really important but I think its neccessary to get my interest.
6. Punctual - This is a trait I shall close one eye for, as far as my experience tells me, woman's idea of punctual is often more than 15min after the meeting time. I believe that I'll be extremely lucky to find this trait in a woman who possesses the previous 5 traits.
Time is money. Saving time is also another form of frugality.
7. Understands and Embraces Delayed Gratification - This is a characteristic trait. I do not want a wife who only knows how to save money but is too afraid grow it. This is a hard-to-come-by trait. This trait will be the deciding factor of all traits. Delayed gratification is such an important concept to me that I believe any woman who can't understand it will not be able to understand me.
A simple test would be:
(A) Work 8 hours a day, get $20 per hour
(B) Work 10 hours a day, for 2 years get approximately $0. After 2 years, possibly starting to receive $5 an hour equivilent, but the amount doubles every year onwards. Working hours decrease as time passes until there's no need to work but the money still keep coming in.
If you feel that B is the better choice, next ask yourself if you can really endure the 2 years or even more of working but not getting paid. Once you understand and embraces the concept of delayed gratification, I would really, really like to meet you. No matter whether we have a future or not, it is still my wish to meet as many like minded people as possible. Do drop me an email @ wei_ge_1989@hotmail.com
I look forward to receiving your mails.
This is not about who I want somone to change for me. You should always be who you are. I'm sure a girl out there will possess all these traits. And I'm also sure that you are unaware of them. It is up to me to find you and win your heart. Every girl deserves romance and I will not deny the one who is most important such entitlement. I humbly thank all who show(ed) concerns for my future, but everyone is entitled to their version of justice and opinion. =D
Bad habits are negligible as long as they are not the direct opposites(spend-thrift; untidy; poor self-esteem; extremely-reliant; abnormal; totally no concept of time; spending whatever earned the moment it was received) of any of the above traits. I understand and will embrace the concept that no one is perfect and a relationship has to be built on the ability to tolerate one another's shortcomings.
My future is in my own hands and I'll not ruin it in the hands of the woman I love. I prefer to hold her and walk towards our future together, giving each other support whenever one of us fall. My life journey will be tough, and I strongly believe that the one who can endure it till the end with me will be the true love I can ever find.
The "Loser" Mode
SO LONG since my last post. I apologise if there were people looking forward to my posts. Fact is, I'm suffering from a special mental illness called the Loser Mode. This illness happens to all humans, just that the duration and occurance differs.
In brief, here are the symptoms:
1. Lost of Motivation - The most obvious symptom to diagnose whether you have the Loser Mode is your lost of motivation to do anything. Even if things that you know you need to do them, you just can't find the mood to do it.
2. Lost of Confidence - Self-doubt would be a better description. Things that you thought ypu could handle with ease before now seemed impossible or frightening to do. Basically, you dare not do things that are relatively simple.
3. Lost of Will Power - Endurance significantly cut, resulting in a rise of Give-Up rate. Your attention span decreases as well. Hyper-restlessness and impatient.
4. Lost of Judgemental Accuracy - You tend to find fault in almost everything and anything except the only perfect person - yourself. Your ability to correctly judge whether who or what is at fault falls so low that you will always think that its not your fault that things went the wrong way. This causes an increase in the ability to generate excuses for you to avoid responsibilities.
5. Feeling of Loneliness - This is the not-so-obvious symptom as it's just an empty feeling that you don't know what it actually lacks. However, it's the most painful of all symptom.
Why did I say that this illness happen to all humans? Because it is in the human nature to doubt. Some people doubt their whole life, giving them the label: Losers. Some people suffers mild doses of this illness throughout their life but managed to put up a strong front to avoid detection. Some people who are aware of this illness stay clear away from the cause but sometimes inevitably fall victim to it.
For me, this illness lasts about 1 to 2 weeks occasionally. The loser complex this time was still mild but nonetheless damaging to both my commitments and daily life. I have yet to find a perfect cure. Since its a mental illness, nothing I consume will resolve though chocolates can temporarily relieve the pain.
I'm not sure if I'm fully recovered, but judging from the fact that I could find the interest to type this blog entry, I'm on my road to recovery. Hopefully, I can find back my motivation, confidence, will power, judgemental accuracy and get rid of the pesky loneliness feeling(it sucks).
In brief, here are the symptoms:
1. Lost of Motivation - The most obvious symptom to diagnose whether you have the Loser Mode is your lost of motivation to do anything. Even if things that you know you need to do them, you just can't find the mood to do it.
2. Lost of Confidence - Self-doubt would be a better description. Things that you thought ypu could handle with ease before now seemed impossible or frightening to do. Basically, you dare not do things that are relatively simple.
3. Lost of Will Power - Endurance significantly cut, resulting in a rise of Give-Up rate. Your attention span decreases as well. Hyper-restlessness and impatient.
4. Lost of Judgemental Accuracy - You tend to find fault in almost everything and anything except the only perfect person - yourself. Your ability to correctly judge whether who or what is at fault falls so low that you will always think that its not your fault that things went the wrong way. This causes an increase in the ability to generate excuses for you to avoid responsibilities.
5. Feeling of Loneliness - This is the not-so-obvious symptom as it's just an empty feeling that you don't know what it actually lacks. However, it's the most painful of all symptom.
Why did I say that this illness happen to all humans? Because it is in the human nature to doubt. Some people doubt their whole life, giving them the label: Losers. Some people suffers mild doses of this illness throughout their life but managed to put up a strong front to avoid detection. Some people who are aware of this illness stay clear away from the cause but sometimes inevitably fall victim to it.
For me, this illness lasts about 1 to 2 weeks occasionally. The loser complex this time was still mild but nonetheless damaging to both my commitments and daily life. I have yet to find a perfect cure. Since its a mental illness, nothing I consume will resolve though chocolates can temporarily relieve the pain.
I'm not sure if I'm fully recovered, but judging from the fact that I could find the interest to type this blog entry, I'm on my road to recovery. Hopefully, I can find back my motivation, confidence, will power, judgemental accuracy and get rid of the pesky loneliness feeling(it sucks).
Economical Ideas
ECONOMISTS that I've met since 2 weeks ago included Adam Smith with his invisible hand, Thomas Malthus the Doomsday prophet, David Ricardo and his Corn Law, John Maynard Keynes and his General theory, Karl Marx the self pitying fool, Alfred Marshall and his Principles, John Stuart Mill and his Principals of political Economy, Jean Baptiste Say and his Say's Law.
From this encounter, I confirmed several concepts about money that I had, as well as changed some that were erroneous. Here, I must stress that I'm going to make corrections to what I might have implied in my previous posts.
First thing to correct on the list, hard work is absolutely important in order to sustain any economy. The error I made was to assume that someone who has seen the way can get away with not working. Work is after all the basis of all creation. Only when things are in motion, will there be work done. The factor that separates rich people from poor people is the level of work they do. And the level of work they do is differentiated by the level of desire each class possess. Rich people has strong desire to be rich while poor people's are weak. Desires drive people to do things naturally. It defeats reason and makes accomplishing a certain task seemed less foreboding. Therefore, instead of avoiding work, I shall now embrace it, bearing in mind the differences.
Next thing is my discouraging speech on not having a job. I realize that its not something I should be preaching. Having a job is the essence of human purpose. Many people grew up trying to find a purpose finds it in a job. Discouraging people from having a job is an extremely dangerous notion. I shall modify what I've said. Have a job to find your purpose in society, but do not be so bogged down by your job that you forget the reason you exist. You do not exist so that you have a job and serve others, you exist so that you serve your own purpose. The most important thing to bear in mind is to do things that you are most comfortable with. That's common sense but its surprising how so many intellectually-able people are suffering because they are in jobs that are good only in others opinion, not their own.
One new concept that I discovered is that the world has to be in constant non-equilibrium. There can never be a balance. No such thing as everyone rich and happy at the same time. That's foolish etopian mindset that past economist and socialists tried to achieve. They fail miserably because they underestimated human nature. Not to say that I'm an expert in human nature, but no one can declare that they are a human nature expert. Human beings are too complex to be put into a equation as a constant. It is this inconsistency that allowed humans to be at where they are now. I still stand firm to the thinking that only those who has seen the way will find wealth. Money cometh to those who can manage it well. Those who stumbles upon wealth but do not understand its worth will lose it in the next instance.
Another thing I realized from the debates these economist had against one another, the concept of money is extremely subjective. There's no right or wrong, only whether its feasible or not. An economist can be extremely logical in explaining a certain cause and effects, but it will remain just an idea unless its put into test and proved that it works. So the most credible economist is not some musty old man who spends his whole life struggling with money. The best person to go to for advice on money is the richest person. Don't only say, do and show it.
From this encounter, I confirmed several concepts about money that I had, as well as changed some that were erroneous. Here, I must stress that I'm going to make corrections to what I might have implied in my previous posts.
First thing to correct on the list, hard work is absolutely important in order to sustain any economy. The error I made was to assume that someone who has seen the way can get away with not working. Work is after all the basis of all creation. Only when things are in motion, will there be work done. The factor that separates rich people from poor people is the level of work they do. And the level of work they do is differentiated by the level of desire each class possess. Rich people has strong desire to be rich while poor people's are weak. Desires drive people to do things naturally. It defeats reason and makes accomplishing a certain task seemed less foreboding. Therefore, instead of avoiding work, I shall now embrace it, bearing in mind the differences.
Next thing is my discouraging speech on not having a job. I realize that its not something I should be preaching. Having a job is the essence of human purpose. Many people grew up trying to find a purpose finds it in a job. Discouraging people from having a job is an extremely dangerous notion. I shall modify what I've said. Have a job to find your purpose in society, but do not be so bogged down by your job that you forget the reason you exist. You do not exist so that you have a job and serve others, you exist so that you serve your own purpose. The most important thing to bear in mind is to do things that you are most comfortable with. That's common sense but its surprising how so many intellectually-able people are suffering because they are in jobs that are good only in others opinion, not their own.
One new concept that I discovered is that the world has to be in constant non-equilibrium. There can never be a balance. No such thing as everyone rich and happy at the same time. That's foolish etopian mindset that past economist and socialists tried to achieve. They fail miserably because they underestimated human nature. Not to say that I'm an expert in human nature, but no one can declare that they are a human nature expert. Human beings are too complex to be put into a equation as a constant. It is this inconsistency that allowed humans to be at where they are now. I still stand firm to the thinking that only those who has seen the way will find wealth. Money cometh to those who can manage it well. Those who stumbles upon wealth but do not understand its worth will lose it in the next instance.
Another thing I realized from the debates these economist had against one another, the concept of money is extremely subjective. There's no right or wrong, only whether its feasible or not. An economist can be extremely logical in explaining a certain cause and effects, but it will remain just an idea unless its put into test and proved that it works. So the most credible economist is not some musty old man who spends his whole life struggling with money. The best person to go to for advice on money is the richest person. Don't only say, do and show it.
Job Equals Just.Over.Broke.
THIS is a common acronym used in the business world among people of true financial standing on those without. In essence, it meant that if you have a job, you are just inches away from being broke.
I've been pondering about it ever since I first heard of it. There must be a reason far more profound than a simple taunt to stop people from working. To call jobs as just over broke, it would ring some sense to the working class. Because for most of the time in this competitive economical age, wages will have to be kept competitive as well.
I found the answer I was looking for. Make a guess from where. Society can basically be classified into 3 classes. Worker, capitalist and landlord. If you have a job, congratulations, you belong to the worker class. Capitalists are business owners who have workers working for them. They are job creators. Landlords are the people business owners have to pay for using their facilities.
Before we look into the situation, I'll like to digress and look at the food chain system I have learn in primary 3.
The Food Chain
At the bottom of the food chain, there are Primary producers e.g. grass. They are the ones that can be found almost any where and in abundance.
Next, we see the Primary consumer, for e.g. Rabbit(not following diagram). Rabbit's main food source is grass, so as long as there's grass, rabbits can thrive and multiply.
Next up is the Secondary consumer, they feed on Primary consumers or other Secondary consumers to live, they are usually predatory and carnivorous.
Now at the top of the food chain, we have the Tertiary consumer and Quaternary consumers. They are top predators and they exist in small numbers, but to sustain them, there needs to be a high amount of food.
The Economical Chain
In human society, we resemble the food chain.
Natural resource, land, energy and raw materials resemble Primary producers.
Refineries, generators, farms and their workers resemble Primary consumers.
Business owners of those things resemble Secondary consumer.
Landlords resemble Tertiary consumer.
Government resembles Quaternary consumer.
When there are lots to go around, the economy goes up and the pay increases a little. But the number of workers will also increase as there's enough to support more of them.
With increase in labour, price of hiring becomes cheaper, so wages go back down again.
( Labour /\ = Wages \/ )
With increased employment and spending capacity, businesses bloom and business owners expand to hire more workers.
( Employment /\ = Spending /\ )
With more business owners to pay the rent, landlords are able to jack up rents to collect more returns from their investments, prices remain competitive.
( Tenants /\ = Rent /\ )
As investment returns become so lucrative, more people joins the buffet. They buy, fix up and sell high.
( Returns /\ = Investors /\ )
Then as the rents spirals out of control, and investment properties changing hands at increasing prices, the entire chain soon becomes unstainable.
( Prices /\ = Stability \/ )
The high amount of rent puts pressure on the business owners, operation cost becomes so high that business owners have to cut wages, there goes the little money workers receive.
( Expense /\ = Wages \/ )
Soon, business owners have to let go of their workers to save themselves. More and more people lose their jobs.
( Business \/ = Employment \/ )
Spending capacity decreases and the feared economically depression occurs.The cycle restarts with the worker class forever being preyed on.
( Employment \/ = Spending \/ )
So, there will never be a time when a job can pay you the amount for you to be not broke. Your boss is not stupid. If he paid you too much, you will not need to work anymore and the one who suffers will be him.
Having a job is not everything. Understanding this might make your life less miserable.
I've been pondering about it ever since I first heard of it. There must be a reason far more profound than a simple taunt to stop people from working. To call jobs as just over broke, it would ring some sense to the working class. Because for most of the time in this competitive economical age, wages will have to be kept competitive as well.
I found the answer I was looking for. Make a guess from where. Society can basically be classified into 3 classes. Worker, capitalist and landlord. If you have a job, congratulations, you belong to the worker class. Capitalists are business owners who have workers working for them. They are job creators. Landlords are the people business owners have to pay for using their facilities.
Before we look into the situation, I'll like to digress and look at the food chain system I have learn in primary 3.
The Food Chain
At the bottom of the food chain, there are Primary producers e.g. grass. They are the ones that can be found almost any where and in abundance.
Next, we see the Primary consumer, for e.g. Rabbit(not following diagram). Rabbit's main food source is grass, so as long as there's grass, rabbits can thrive and multiply.
Next up is the Secondary consumer, they feed on Primary consumers or other Secondary consumers to live, they are usually predatory and carnivorous.
Now at the top of the food chain, we have the Tertiary consumer and Quaternary consumers. They are top predators and they exist in small numbers, but to sustain them, there needs to be a high amount of food.
The Economical Chain
In human society, we resemble the food chain.
Natural resource, land, energy and raw materials resemble Primary producers.
Refineries, generators, farms and their workers resemble Primary consumers.
Business owners of those things resemble Secondary consumer.
Landlords resemble Tertiary consumer.
Government resembles Quaternary consumer.
When there are lots to go around, the economy goes up and the pay increases a little. But the number of workers will also increase as there's enough to support more of them.
With increase in labour, price of hiring becomes cheaper, so wages go back down again.
( Labour /\ = Wages \/ )
With increased employment and spending capacity, businesses bloom and business owners expand to hire more workers.
( Employment /\ = Spending /\ )
With more business owners to pay the rent, landlords are able to jack up rents to collect more returns from their investments, prices remain competitive.
( Tenants /\ = Rent /\ )
As investment returns become so lucrative, more people joins the buffet. They buy, fix up and sell high.
( Returns /\ = Investors /\ )
Then as the rents spirals out of control, and investment properties changing hands at increasing prices, the entire chain soon becomes unstainable.
( Prices /\ = Stability \/ )
The high amount of rent puts pressure on the business owners, operation cost becomes so high that business owners have to cut wages, there goes the little money workers receive.
( Expense /\ = Wages \/ )
Soon, business owners have to let go of their workers to save themselves. More and more people lose their jobs.
( Business \/ = Employment \/ )
Spending capacity decreases and the feared economically depression occurs.The cycle restarts with the worker class forever being preyed on.
( Employment \/ = Spending \/ )
So, there will never be a time when a job can pay you the amount for you to be not broke. Your boss is not stupid. If he paid you too much, you will not need to work anymore and the one who suffers will be him.
Having a job is not everything. Understanding this might make your life less miserable.
A Tricky but Brillant Theory
THIS theory is superb.
"Hapless, hopelessly clumsy Gilligan is washed ashore along with the competent, self-assured skipper. Two tasks must be done -- fishing and building shelters. Assume that the skipper can catch a fish dinner in 10 hours and build a thatched hut in 20, and that Gilligan usually hooks himself and takes 15 hours to catch fish and 45 hours to build hut. By Adam Smith's logic, the skipper should move as far away from Gilligan as possible, building and fishing on his own, since he outperforms Gilligan in everything. But economists still shudder with reverence when Ricardo shows that the skipper should split the chores with Gilligan!
Let's first calculate how many fish diners and huts they could build on their own, spending half their time fishing, the other half building. Assume that during a year, the skipper will work a total of 2,000 hours and his younger first mate Gilligan is ordered to work 3,600. If the skipper spends 1,000 hours on fishing, he will garner 100 fish dinners; and 1,000 hours of hut building by him will produce 50 huts.Gilligan's 1,800 hours of fishing will bring 120 dinners; and 1,800 hours of building will make 40 huts. So the total number of dinners on the island is 220, eaten in the comfort of 90 huts.
What happens if they specialize? If the skipper spends all his time on huts, he will construct 100; if Gilligan concentrates on fish, he will return with 240 fish dinners. Thus the island has increased output dramatically just by specializing, even though Gilligan was far less competent in both tasks!
Imagine Ricardo responding to Smith's hypothetical insult of the French by saying "I dislike French as much as Adam Smith did. But I do not snicker at them just because they cannot do anything as cheaply as we can. I would trade with them despite their inferiority."
The next key question is: how do we know what to specialise in? Let is return to the island. Since it takes the skipper twice as long to erect a hut as it does to catch dinner, he gives up two dinners every time he builds a hut. But Gilligan, who takes three times longer to build a hut than to catch dinner gives up three dinners everytime he builds a hut. Since building hut is a smaller sacrifice for the skipper, he shoud build huts. Ricardo showed that people and coutries should specialise in whatever leads them to give up the least. This is their "comparative advantage." And the sacrifice they make by not producing a good is their "opportunity cost." Thus, specialisation is determined by whoever has the lower opportunity cost.
The point of Ricardo's analysis: free trade makes it possible for households to consume more goods regardless of whether trading partners are more or less economically advanced. The point of Ricardo's Corn Law position: If French farmers are willing to feed us for less than it would "cost" us to feed ourselves, let us eat French food and spend our time doung something else."
"Hapless, hopelessly clumsy Gilligan is washed ashore along with the competent, self-assured skipper. Two tasks must be done -- fishing and building shelters. Assume that the skipper can catch a fish dinner in 10 hours and build a thatched hut in 20, and that Gilligan usually hooks himself and takes 15 hours to catch fish and 45 hours to build hut. By Adam Smith's logic, the skipper should move as far away from Gilligan as possible, building and fishing on his own, since he outperforms Gilligan in everything. But economists still shudder with reverence when Ricardo shows that the skipper should split the chores with Gilligan!
Let's first calculate how many fish diners and huts they could build on their own, spending half their time fishing, the other half building. Assume that during a year, the skipper will work a total of 2,000 hours and his younger first mate Gilligan is ordered to work 3,600. If the skipper spends 1,000 hours on fishing, he will garner 100 fish dinners; and 1,000 hours of hut building by him will produce 50 huts.Gilligan's 1,800 hours of fishing will bring 120 dinners; and 1,800 hours of building will make 40 huts. So the total number of dinners on the island is 220, eaten in the comfort of 90 huts.
What happens if they specialize? If the skipper spends all his time on huts, he will construct 100; if Gilligan concentrates on fish, he will return with 240 fish dinners. Thus the island has increased output dramatically just by specializing, even though Gilligan was far less competent in both tasks!
Imagine Ricardo responding to Smith's hypothetical insult of the French by saying "I dislike French as much as Adam Smith did. But I do not snicker at them just because they cannot do anything as cheaply as we can. I would trade with them despite their inferiority."
The next key question is: how do we know what to specialise in? Let is return to the island. Since it takes the skipper twice as long to erect a hut as it does to catch dinner, he gives up two dinners every time he builds a hut. But Gilligan, who takes three times longer to build a hut than to catch dinner gives up three dinners everytime he builds a hut. Since building hut is a smaller sacrifice for the skipper, he shoud build huts. Ricardo showed that people and coutries should specialise in whatever leads them to give up the least. This is their "comparative advantage." And the sacrifice they make by not producing a good is their "opportunity cost." Thus, specialisation is determined by whoever has the lower opportunity cost.
The point of Ricardo's analysis: free trade makes it possible for households to consume more goods regardless of whether trading partners are more or less economically advanced. The point of Ricardo's Corn Law position: If French farmers are willing to feed us for less than it would "cost" us to feed ourselves, let us eat French food and spend our time doung something else."
excerpt taken from New Ideas From Dead Economists, by Todd G. Buchholz
I think the conclusion I can make of this theory is that two heads are really better than one. Regardless of skill or intelligence, dividing work load does make some things easier to accomplish.
The Invisible Hand Of Adam Smith
"PRICES and profits signal to entrepreneurs what to produce and what price to charge. High prices and high profits sound alarms in the ear of entrepreneurs, screaming at them to start producing a certain good. Low profits or losses grab him mercilessly until he stops producing."
excerpt from New Ideas From Dead Economists
Supply and demand. High demand will grant the suppliers exclusive share of profit, but others will soon join in the fray, upping the supply. This will satisfy the high demand, making exclusive profits re-adjusted to normal, acceptable level. As supply over flows demand, consumers will be spoilt for choices. This will result in auto-filtering of weaker links in the supply chain, forcing less adaptable suppliers out of business, and re-adjusting the ridiculously low prices up to acceptable levels again.
This single example easily proved that without a central planner to fix a price of any product, prices will correct itself. Thus proving that self-interest based community will thrive without anarchy.
Adam Smith pointed out a point that I have mentioned in my previous post but perhaps crudely expressed. I mentioned that below a leader, there must be supporters doing the "dirty work."
"A great part of the machines made use of in those manufactures in which labour is most subdivided, were originally the inventions of common workmen, who, being each of them employed in some simple operation, naturally turned their thoughts toward finding out easier and readier methods of performing it. Whoever has been much accustomed to visit such manufactures, most frequently have been shown very pretty machines, which were the inventions of such workmen."
A leader cannot be the one inventing the machines needed to improve production efficiency and reducing cost, it must be the person working to be paid a wage who understands what needs to be built. While this person who can produce such machinery of high value is worth so much more than what the leader is paying him, the person usually do not attempt to take over the leader's role. This explains why men with the best brains end up working for man of a good brain. The mindset is what sets these 2 category apart. One is a risk assessor while the other is a risk avoider. Men with the best brains usually saw too much into a risk. They decide to avoid it all together without giving the slightest possibility of success a try. In their protocol, if it doesn't succeed 100%, it's sure to fail.
Though it's not a proud thing to say that I'm not the most intelligent person, its definitely a proud thing to say that I qualify to have the most intelligent people working for me. Intelligent people play their own game, but smart people use intelligent people to play their game.
Anyway, that is another topic altogether, I might discuss it in later posts.
The book New Ideas From Dead Economists is so interesting. I'm going to read it twice and make notes like its a text book.
Anyway, that is another topic altogether, I might discuss it in later posts.
The book New Ideas From Dead Economists is so interesting. I'm going to read it twice and make notes like its a text book.
New Ideas From Dead Economist
I PICKED up a book 2 days ago from the local library. Its titled New Ideas From Dead Economist. I chanced upon this book while I was taking a last minute browsing of the business section. I did not go to the library with the intention to borrow books, I went there to read my own book and magazine I bought 2 weeks ago. After enjoying one day of doing nothing but play games, I finally started to read the book yesterday.
This book is about economics. In the first few chapters, this book touched on what economists do and problems they faced with politicians. The book presented the world of economics in a non-boring, non-chart, non-figure way. It tells stories.
It caught my interest when it offered explanations on many subjects that I have been pondering on for some time.
All the time, I've been posing questions to myself in hope that if I've answered them, my knowledge of money would significantly increase. I asked myself to fully grasp the way how money was flowing in past, is flowing now in the present and will flow in the future world.
One most significant idea that I got from this book so far which came from a dead economist Adam Smith was that: it all balls down to the self-interest of man.
It concludes that for a society to prosper, a government or any ruling body should tap into the one rich natural resource existing in all mankind. And that is self-interest.
What lies within each and every human being is the "desire of bettering our condition, a desire which though generally calm and dispassionate, comes with us from the womb and never leaves us till we go to the grave." It is also a human nature to exchange one thing for another.
These are natural drives that should be exploited to increase wealth. Charity and altruism should not be depended on for though man constantly needs help from others, it is hoping in vain "to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can show them that it is for their own advantage"
"Self-interest motivates more powerfully and consistently than kindness, altruism(the big picture, general happiness for everybody) or martyrdom. Put succinctly: Society cannot rest its future on the noblest motives, but must use the strongest motives in the best possible way."
Then, the question that will eventually be brought to mind is that, if everyone charges ahead in his own direction, won't society resemble anarchy?
The answer to that question is no. The community will not only survive but it will thrive far more than any community with central planning. It will surprisingly surpass both in output and social harmony any economic system based on altruism.
For this Adam Smith offered an explanation :" He... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting... he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisble hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
That, in my interpretation is the survival of the most adapt. The law of nature applies.
Those who like to own a copy of the book can find it at Amazon.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)