Invisible hand or imaginary hand?

This is probably one of the funniest things I've heard this week. Watching Bill Maher, he asked Bill O' Riley why he thought the rich were worth roughly 27% of the wealth in the US, where in the beginning of the 80's they only owned about 9%. O'Riley's response was that this was an effect from our technological advancements.

But anyway, I have been learning and reading a bit of "Capitalism and Freedom", which is a book by Milton Friedman. Seemed like an interesting book and let me say first that I am a true supporter of capitalism and all it has done for humanity. Having said that, I have to say I believe there is a fundamental difference between capitalism and free market. In some ways I feel Friedman uses the word capitalism when he is really referring to free market. So that was a flag right away that I wouldn't really agree with a lot of his ideas.

Friedman claims that humanity's biggest achievements were a result of individual genius and not as a result of governmental directives. He uses examples such as Newton, Shakespeare, Bohr, Edison and Ford. While those are examples of what he is trying to argue, I would mention the involvements of governments in the development of more recent achievements such as the understanding of nuclear physics, space exploration and the internet as being some of the most important achievements of the 20th century, all only possible due to governmental support. I know most of these examples are recent, but I would argue the progress in politics and the improvement in the way nations are runned are also part of the reason for that. Putting all that aside, I would also like to bring up that the quality of life should be seen as important as well, and that technological progress should not be used as the sole way to measure human achievements.

"Free market, not government, ensures the protection of individual rights and standards of quality and delivers extraordinary prosperity to those who seek it." I don't even know where to start on this statement. I think I may instead just mention, Sweat shops and social alienation that are clear consequence of greedy corporations doing anything possible to increase profits. These two examples illustrate how free market is able to exploit social and economical disparities between countries, lacking ethics and taking away work that could actually benefit the people of their countries of origin by providing more reasonable wages at the cost of increased profits. This fits a concept I always fall back to, that nothing comes from nothing. Increased profits come from the exploitation of less fortunate people to benefit those who don't need it.

Friedman also believes free markets are the basis of personal and political liberty. Friedman goes as far as saying that a healthy private economy naturally provides a check on the power of the state. While I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, I believe a free market with too much power doesn't stop at providing checks on the power of the state but at some point they begin to influence the state into making decisions to benefit those with too much power. I don't think there is much arguing that powerful corporation in many sectors spend a lot of resources on lobbying to make sure the state doesn't anything too drastic that could negatively affect their business. That's part of what makes me believe it is imperative to have a strong economy based on capitalist ideals, but a sustainable economy that benefits the people and is monitored by the state. I believe it is just as important for the state to keep checks on the power of the corporations as it is for the corporations to keep check on the power of the state.

In Capitalism and Freedom, the author also talks about the great depression. He says that the view it as a failure of the markets is false, arguing the depression was largely a failure of government. His argument is that the failure of the government to increase money supply in the wake of bank collapses is what caused the depression. However, and this may be just me, it sounds a lot like Friedman is blaming the government for the great depression for not doing something and saying at the same time that governments shouldn't try to control the economy. I know I have the perspective of someone living in a recession after the great depression, where a lot of funds were injected into the economy from federal funds in order to minimize the impact of the recession and seeing its effects. As much as I think the money allocation for the most part was a half ass response to what was wrong and continues to be wrong, I can't deny the effects it had on the economy. A lesson was definitely learned from the great depression, and that lesson was not to let it work itself out. I think the only aspect of this topic I agree with Friedman is that the money spent as stimulus packages are mostly inefficiently allocated.

Lastly, Friedman talks a lot about governments controlling people to act against their immediate interest to promote a "supposedly general interest". As much as he does have good examples of bad regulations that originated from governments in the past, I would always argue that his examples are clearly the error of the people in charge at the time but not of the government as a whole. The same way markets are highly modulated by individuals in good and bad ways, the government is also subjected to "bad calls" from the people in power. People are bound to make mistakes, but the error of the few should not invalidate the value of the whole. In the same manner influential individuals have the ability to destroy their company, individuals can also destroy their own political parties and open the way for a change in power. As I said there were some good examples of what he calls unjustifiable government regulations, there are many I'd like to say I strongly disagree such as relation of banks, pensions, minimum wages and public housing. Friedman claims minimum wage implementation simply increased unemployment; he says public housing concentrated poverty in pockets and social security created dependence for people who might have otherwise contributed to the economy. I feel most of his examples are circumstantial and simply point out flaws in the implementation of good policies rather than weaken the value of the policies themselves.

Its interesting to read Friedman's ideas and note that his right winged views are still used in politics today. I think he does bring a lot of interesting ideas to the table and he points out a lot of flaws in social programs and government regulations. It is important however, to look at his views with the knowledge that he lived in a different time without a lot of the advancements we've had in the understanding of economics in the last 30-40 years. It is similar to reading the works of ancient Greeks in the natural sciences and admiring their ingenuity for their time.

Instability hits the stock market

Interesting development in the stock markets yesterday, as most people know by now the TSX had a historically bad trading day yesterday which resulted in the loss of all gains in 2011, the situation south of the border was much better either. I've been waiting for our next recession for a few months now, but I didn't think we would see another crash for at least another year or two. What happened yesterday showcases that the recovery over the past two years may not be based on the actual stability of markets. Investors are turning away from North America and Europe as the two are now having to deal with serious debt issues. Unfortunately emerging markets like Brazil have also been having some slips as well, meaning even some of these options are starting to look less appealing. I may be thinking a bit negatively but I do believe we should get ready for another recession, I don't believe it will come from the housing market this time but I have no clue where it will come from, perhaps the energy sector? I don't know. But we will be seeing gold prices rising in the next while, the Canadian Dollar will finally drop a bit (which isn't terrible really) and we should see interest rates go down a bit.

Bandwidth test: Rogers (Toronto)

Hello, this is just a small post I figured might be useful for someone maybe. I just tested my Rogers internet connection and figured I would share with the interwebs in case people are curious about Rogers. I live in Toronto and I have the "ROGERS express internet" which is supposed to get up to 12Mbps download and 512Kbps upload with 60Gb of monthly bandwidth.

I tested this at 10:15AM on a Wednesday:
9.96Mbps download
505knps upload

 Wed/18:04 - 10.5M/490K
Wed/18:29 - 5.0M/503K
Tue/09:10 - 7.2M/499K

I'm using a cable so no wifi interference here. Just for kicks I also tested my neighbors wifi which is Bell and got:
414kbps download
372kbps upload

I'm curious to know how come I get such good upload speed on their wifi in proportion to my numbers, I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact the wifi signal is not 100%

jsyk I tested my connection using bandwidthplace.com

So what is existentialism?

Unlike a lot of the titles of my older posts, I didn't just arbitrarily pick a title for this blog. In recent years I've been trying to explore a few complex questions and I really liked a lot of the ideas from thinkers often labeled under existentialists. Existentialism is a word you probably hear every now and then but might not know exactly what it means, so I'm going to probably post a few times about what existentialism means to me, and why I find it a very comforting way of looking at life.

Perhaps a good way to start is to explain what existentialism involves and what it doesn't include. Existentialism is a philosophical school of though that includes certain views on human free will, and often philosophers talk about people becoming better when struggling against their individual nature and fighting for life. Existentialists believe that decisions are often difficult and have consequences, so personal responsibility and discipline is important. It is viewed that society and other social constructs are arbitrary and a lot of things are not rational.

Above are some of concepts that existentialism involves. It does not however involve the value of wealth, pleasure or honor in life. Social values and structures can serve to control the individual. Existentialism does not preach the idea that people should accept things for what they are and that this is enough in life, it doesn't include the idea that people are basically good but tainted by external forces. It doesn't believe that science will make things better. You should also never say "but I wanted X and Y" or "it's not my fault".

Maybe I'm just being confusing, so here is one definition of what existentialism is:

"Existentialism is a 20th century philosophy that focuses in the analysis of human existence from many angles. It focuses on humans as individuals, each one spending a lifetime changing their essence. Existentialists are concerned with finding themselves and finding meanings in life through choices and personal responsibility. Personal choices are unique without the need for an objective form of truth."

I love most of the ideas involved in Existentialism, but I just wish to note that I don't agree with everything in it. I suppose a true existentialist wouldn't :). In particular, religion is often dismissed by existentialists, and a lot of these philosophers happen to be atheists. However, religion and existentialism to me are very much complementary to each other, so much so that the father of existentialism was the christian philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard. I also don't necessarily disregard of the general need for methods to control people, as these shouldn't be seen as constraints for personal development, but they are just part of the environment presented to the individual.

Warming the kettle

It's not very difficult to blame global warming for the natural disasters occurring every year in the world. The fact that this years seems particularly bad in terms of tornadoes and floods just adds fuel to debates on the validity and severity of climate change. The problem is, that simply looking at small scale trends in temperature changes that include only a 100 years of serious measurements can produce unreliable data, prone to statistical insignificance on the account of outliers and natural trends. To me it seems that evidence is essentially being ignored by our leaders anyway, it's always something people like to discuss, but rarely real commitments are made.

What if global warming is indeed something that humans are creating this time around. What if the consequences of it are and will be catastrophic in future years? And what it by the time real measures are taken it will be too late? Sometimes I wonder how bad things would have to get in order for our leaders to take real action in this matter. When does climate change becomes as serious of an issue as the health of the economy? 

It doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to think that a warming planet would have more thermal energy to evaporate and hold more water. Holding more water equates to higher amounts of stored potential energy which can be unleashed in violent weather events. It really isn't rocket science, so you wouldn't think ivy league types would be so unsure about the consequences of a warming Earth.

When Obama first got elected, he seemed very active in addressing climate relate issues, since the mid-term election however his actions speak louder. In march 2011 he opened new areas in Wyoming for coal mining, in April he removed restrictions in mountain top removal practices. In May his administration put on hold restrictions on pollution in industries like paper and refineries as well as speeding off permits to drilling for oil in Alaska. This showcases what the priorities really are for Obama, and not much more is done in other nations. The bottom line is, a lot of these needed changes will be politically unpopular but in the end the difficult decisions have to be made by the elected man in power. This would be a great opportunity for leaders to be remembered for making a difference, yet I believe we'll have to wait for another term see that.

New antivirus and anti-malware

After some significant frustrations with my computer in recent days I decided to looks for different ways to protect my machine. I was basically using Norton Antivirus and just whatever comes with windows in terms of firewall and stuff.

 On my desktop now I have been running Microsoft Security Essentials and I have had a good experience so far. I is only using 2.1k of memory compared to the 15k I was using with NAV.

http://download.cnet.com/Microsoft-Security-Essentials/3000-2239_4-10969260.html
http://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/security_essentials/default.aspx

I am now also using malwarebytes to get rid of unwanted malware that isn't picked up by MSE. This is a great little program, that you can use for free if you get a version without live protection. It's not a big deal to use the free version as long as you do regular scans imo.

http://www.malwarebytes.org/

Lastly, I've also been using the Microsoft Safety Scanner on a weekly/biweekly basis. It is a backup way to look for unwanted software and scripts. It helps remove viruses, spyware and other malicious software in conjunction with the AV. It works similarly to malwarebytes, where you have to do scheduled scans, but I've had quite a bit of success using it to get rid of some of those really really annoying ad-wares. Here is where you can pick up a free copy:

http://www.microsoft.com/security/scanner/en-us/default.aspx


*note that this one is updated often, and the software expires in 10 days since it will be outdated already by then. I tend to use this one twice a month or so.

Hackers R Us

There have been a lot of hacker attacks in the news lately, it seems like it's happening more and more frequently now due to an increase in the number of hackers and interest in these services from advertiser and marketing people around the world. We do after all live in the age of information and information is money. Sony was one of the bigger attacks recently, causing PSN to shut down for a while and costing the company a huge stain in their image as well as millions in law suits. Now I hear Honda Canada has just been attacked as well, and I'm not even mentioning Air Miles and all the other North American databases that have had their networks breached for customer data. So what can companies and customers do to prevent being victims of these crimes?

I have been hearing about the end of human biological evolution for a while now. It is believed that biological evolution is too slow to compete with the technological evolution that humans have been experiencing for the past centuries. The mechanics of this evolution in this age of information is way too complex and fast for nations to overlook and control. Networks are faster and more integrated then ever and the trend is not changing anytime soon, and just like copyright issues we've been seeing for a while, privacy is going to continue to be a major area of discussion in the future years. These are issues that will not be countered by governments fast enough and the ignorance of people in these matters will eventually cause one of two things. Governments will enforce much more regulation on networks then necessary just to prevent issues such as these to propagate, or they will attempt to educate people more about vulnerabilities and corporations will eventually see that more attention needs to be paid to hacking and data theft.

I'm not a hacker, but I do find a lot of what hackers do fascinating. For years I've been learning just how vulnerable we really are to people that want to people with knowledge of networks and computers. The best thing to do at this point is to play safe, corporations should not be storing unneeded information and they should invest more in network security. In the end the consumers pay part of the price and companies are damaged as well. More and more technologies like this will be areas heavily explored for crimes and I am still waiting to see a digital act of terrorism. Unfortunately, much like flying nowadays, the Internet may very well be changed for the worst with cyber terrorism, this may be inevitable however.