Oil Qaeda

Why did the CEOs of Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell both say, just last month, that US$70 oil is not supported by industry fundamnetals?

This was reported by Ng Weng Hoong, editor of www.energyasia.com, in The Straits Times, Friday October 19 2007, on why: "High oil prices are here to stay."

http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_168332.html

I'm going to assume that the two CEOs are well-informed on the oil industry's fundamentals, so today's US$88 oil prices must include a risk premium to cover uncertainties. To summarise, although the article is worth reading, Ng says that these uncertainties are

1. Supply/demand imbalances; especially predicting demand from China, India and Brazil.
   
2. Politics that prevents oil-producers from responding rapidly to higher prices.

The article does not expand on the second point and I'll take a stab at it here. American foreign policies, dominated by the "war on terror" makes it difficult for the American oil industry to participate in exploration and production-sharing opportunities arising from higher prices. This applies not just to purchasing concessions but the nitty-gritty engineering of exploration and production where American know-how and equipment is excellent.

The uncertainties are real but the premiums charged depend on perceptions of the power and influence of Al Qaeda, or, more accurately, Salafi Jihadists. Since power and influence are themselves perceptions, these premiums are perceptions of perceptions. No wonder I'm confused but at least I'm in good company.

Bottom line? Try to use less energy, especially when driving. It's boring but make lists of errends and shopping and try to combine them on each journey.

Who are the disadvantaged?

Affirmative action is well-intentioned; no one can easily argue against helping the disadvantaged. It's a plausible principle that just doesn't work out in practice. Here's what always happens:

The "disadvantaged" group is mobilised by leaders so as to gain legislative support for their aims. The argument is always a variation of the "historical forces" argument. Who will articulate this argument in a persuasive way? Who will organise the meetings and manage the media? In other words, who will lead? These will, almost always be well-educated and not "disadvantaged". Who will receive the bulk of the benefits once affirmative action is legalised? The leaders of course!

This has happened with African-Americans and, subsequently, with the Malays in Malaysia. At least in the USA, the affirmative action laws apply to a minority. Not so in Malaysia where the children of the aristocracy and civil servants have received premium scholarships and the inside track to business and political success, thus perpetuating the giant fraud on their own majority community which takes foolish pride in this national theft!

It is difficult but possible to define "disadvantage" in any society. The definition will not be the same in every society nor will it remain the same over time. Some of the more obvious criteria from moral philosophers and sociologists are:

1. Irregular income i.e. no permanent work.
2. Lack of education.
3. Physical or mental impairment.
4. No physical security e.g.violent family members, violent neighbourhoods and genocide.

There are others which aren't so obvious but can be revealed through better studies. My point? Correcting "historical disadvantage" is not about race. That was Adolph Hitler's thesis in "Mein Kampf." Malaysia NEP is more correctly understood as its Nazi Economic Policy and will have the same result.

Ministers, markets ...

.... and their pay.

The debate over Cabinet salaries is evidence of transparent and, by implication, good governance. What isn't so transparent are the bonuses also paid to Ministers. Okay, it's probably not a good thing to publicly humiliate a Cabinet Minister by revealing his low or zero bonus.

But, it seems that the size of the bonus is closely connected to hitting GDP growth targets. And, according to an impeccable source: Minister Mentor Lee no less, hitting the upper target in the predicted range of 4.5% to 6.5% depends on US consumer spending! Isn't that supposed to be the result of brilliant policy making? From million-dollar ministers?

Surely, then, if we want to be more certain of this beneficial outcome, we should pay the salary of US Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Bernanke. And also the members of the Open Markets Committee that decide on interest rates and money supply.

Let's set aside about S$15 million to be paid to these US Fed executives if they "help" us hit 6.5% GDP growth by keeping down US interest rates, thereby stimulating consumption!

Being cool ...

... isn't always easy. It's a bit more than having a great hair stylist, Armani jeans and a polyglot accent. Really intimidating people aren't that easily impressed. Like ... it's gotta come from inside:

1. Don't sweat the small stuff and, in my experience it's mostly small stuff. You'll gain a lot of loving, funny and creative energy.
2. Try not to be an ass, but when you are, quickly admit it, apologise and make restitution. You'll gain a lot of loving, funny and creative energy.
3. Keep your eyes and ears open for selfish and stupid actions that need to be stopped at the start. It helps to keep your mouth shut. You'll gain a lot of loving, funny and creative energy
4. If you have the misfortune to encounter not just the stupid, selfish and arrogant but the truly malicious, you'll have a lot of loving, funny and creative energy to deal with them. Forgiveness may not be an option, Allah may have to do that.

Too late for me ...

... but it might benefit others. Here's a really useful checklist from The New York Times :

Questions Couples Should Ask (Or Wish They Had) Before Marrying

Published: December 17, 2006

Relationship experts report that too many couples fail to ask each other critical questions before marrying. Here are a few key ones that couples should consider asking:

1) Have we discussed whether or not to have children, and if the answer is yes, who is going to be the primary care giver?

2) Do we have a clear idea of each other's financial obligations and goals, and do our ideas about spending and saving mesh?

3) Have we discussed our expectations for how the household will be maintained, and are we in agreement on who will manage the chores?

4) Have we fully disclosed our health histories, both physical and mental?

5) Is my partner affectionate to the degree that I expect?

6) Can we comfortably and openly discuss our sexual needs, preferences and fears?

7) Will there be a television in the bedroom?

8) Do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another's ideas and complaints?

9) Have we reached a clear understanding of each other's spiritual beliefs and needs, and have we discussed when and how our children will be exposed to religious/moral education?

10) Do we like and respect each other's friends?

11) Do we value and respect each other's parents, and is either of us concerned about whether the parents will interfere with the relationship?

12) What does my family do that annoys you?

13) Are there some things that you and I are NOT prepared to give up in the marriage?

14) If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other's family, are we prepared to move?

15) Does each of us feel fully confident in the other's commitment to the marriage and believe that the bond can survive whatever challenges we may face?

Divisive diversity

Robert D. Putnam, a distinguished political scientist and Carter administration official, waited for five years to release his research findings that ethnic diversity decreases trust and co-operation in communities.



In the presence of [ethnic] diversity, we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity
is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust
people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust
people who do look like us.

—Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam

Could this American research apply to multicultural Singapore? Perhaps the overarching "Asian" identity helps to overcome our cultural biases. Using English as the common and neutral language almost certainly helped. Still, Professor Putnam does make some strong arguments.

Steve Sailer's article in "The American Conservative" also has some politically incorrect observations on trust and how its built. Not easily.

Fragmented Future

powered by performancing firefox

Theism and its antonym.

Strangely enough, the antonym of theism is a-theism. So, the religious and their leaders should try to understand clearly what "theism" means, especially to themselves, before they get too excited at "a-theist" arguments.



Of those who seem not conventionally religious or attracted to organized religions, many would deny accusations of being irreligious. They aren't, and religous leaders could, with mutual increases in understanding, make more serious attempts at dialogue with prominent atheists like Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins.



On Faith: John Shelby Spong: Human Definitions of God Need Revision



Technorati Tags: theism, religion,

powered by performancing firefox