In 1974 with 36.1% of oil from foreign sources, President Richard Nixon said, “At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need.”
In 1975 with 36.1% of oil from foreign sources, President Gerald Ford said, “We must reduce oil imports by one million barrels per day by the end of this year and by two million barrels per day by the end of 1977.”
In 1979 with 40.5% of oil from foreign sources, President Jimmy Carter said, “Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 – never.”
In 1981 with 43.6% of oil from foreign sources, President Ronald Reagan said, “While conservation is worthy in itself, the best answer is to try to make us independent of outside sources to the greatest extent possible for our energy.”
In 1992 with 47.2% of oil from foreign sources, President George Bush said, “When our administration developed our national energy strategy, three principles guided our policy: reducing our dependence on foreign oil…”
In 1995 with 49.8% of oil from foreign sources, President Bill Clinton said, “The nation’s growing reliance on imports of oil…threatens the nation’s security…[we] will continue efforts to…enhance domestic energy production.”
In 2006 with 65.5% of oil from foreign sources, President George W. Bush said, “Breakthroughs…will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.”
In 2009 with 66.2% of oil from foreign sources, President Barack Obama said, “It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs.”
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Goldman Has Zero Trading Loss Days In Last Quarter
If you ever wanted to see what monopoly looks like in chart form, see this:
In the quarter ended March 31, Goldman made money on every single trading day. The firm did not record a loss of even $0.01 on even one day in the last quarter. That's 63 days profitable out of 63 trading days. The statistic probability of this event is itself statistically undefined. Goldman is now the market - or, in keeping with modern market reality, Goldman is the house, it controls the casino, and always wins. Congratulations America: you now have far, far better odds in Las Vegas that you have making money with your E-Trade account.
Adding to the alice in wonderland insanity of this announcement, the firm made over $100 million daily on 35 different days. Of Goldman's $9.7 billion in total Q1 revenue, 76% came from trading. Forget investment banking, forget underwriting, forget advisory: over three quarters of the firm's value is based on being the house to the biggest corrupt casino in existence. Ever.
If you ever wanted to see what monopoly looks like in chart form, see this:
In the quarter ended March 31, Goldman made money on every single trading day. The firm did not record a loss of even $0.01 on even one day in the last quarter. That's 63 days profitable out of 63 trading days. The statistic probability of this event is itself statistically undefined. Goldman is now the market - or, in keeping with modern market reality, Goldman is the house, it controls the casino, and always wins. Congratulations America: you now have far, far better odds in Las Vegas that you have making money with your E-Trade account.
Adding to the alice in wonderland insanity of this announcement, the firm made over $100 million daily on 35 different days. Of Goldman's $9.7 billion in total Q1 revenue, 76% came from trading. Forget investment banking, forget underwriting, forget advisory: over three quarters of the firm's value is based on being the house to the biggest corrupt casino in existence. Ever.
How serious?
The US government spent $175 million investigating the Challenger space shuttle disaster.
It spent $152 million on the the Columbia disaster investigation.
It spent $30 million investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
It authorized only $15 million for the 9/11 Commission.
And how much has the government authorized for the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission? You know, the commission charged with getting to the bottom of what caused the financial crisis?
Just $8 million.
You can tell alot about the questions which the government is truly interested in finding answers to by the amount of money it authorizes for the various investigations.
It spent $152 million on the the Columbia disaster investigation.
It spent $30 million investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
It authorized only $15 million for the 9/11 Commission.
And how much has the government authorized for the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission? You know, the commission charged with getting to the bottom of what caused the financial crisis?
Just $8 million.
You can tell alot about the questions which the government is truly interested in finding answers to by the amount of money it authorizes for the various investigations.
Cul-de-sacs are killing our community
The Harvard Business Review has a piece this month on research by Lawrence Frank, Bombardier Chair in Sustainable Transportation at the University of British Columbia, on the effects of cul-de-sacs (thats 'dead ends') in neighborhoods in King County, Washington. To summarise the findings, as pros and cons
Pros
Residents in areas with the most interconnected streets travel 26% fewer miles by automobile than those in areas with many cul-de-sacs.
The higher a neighborhood’s overall walkability, the greater the amount of walking and biking— which means a drop in per capita air pollution, fuel use, and body mass index.
Cons
The theory behind cul-de-sacs was that they lessened traffic, since they change the primary function of local streets. The problem is that this design inherently encourages car use, even for the shortest trips.
It also limits the growth of communities and transportation options.
The argument that cul-de-sacs increase safety because they limit traffic is also misguided — the more empty and desolate a suburban (and often affluent) street is, the more likely crime is to occur.
It’s much harder for emergency vehicles to reach these homes if they’re sequestered in the belly of a web of disconnected dead-ends.
Effect
As more and more direct evidence piles up that these dead-end developments are doing no one any good, the cul-de-sac tides are beginning to change: legislatures are passing laws limiting cul-de-sacs in future developments.
More efficient streets that are cheaper to maintain, as well as other savings from not having to widen arterial roads that otherwise were overburdened by cul-de-sacs.
Are we having too many cul-de-sacs in our life? If yes, are we freeing them up? And allowing life to flow through?
Pros
Residents in areas with the most interconnected streets travel 26% fewer miles by automobile than those in areas with many cul-de-sacs.
The higher a neighborhood’s overall walkability, the greater the amount of walking and biking— which means a drop in per capita air pollution, fuel use, and body mass index.
Cons
The theory behind cul-de-sacs was that they lessened traffic, since they change the primary function of local streets. The problem is that this design inherently encourages car use, even for the shortest trips.
It also limits the growth of communities and transportation options.
The argument that cul-de-sacs increase safety because they limit traffic is also misguided — the more empty and desolate a suburban (and often affluent) street is, the more likely crime is to occur.
It’s much harder for emergency vehicles to reach these homes if they’re sequestered in the belly of a web of disconnected dead-ends.
Effect
As more and more direct evidence piles up that these dead-end developments are doing no one any good, the cul-de-sac tides are beginning to change: legislatures are passing laws limiting cul-de-sacs in future developments.
More efficient streets that are cheaper to maintain, as well as other savings from not having to widen arterial roads that otherwise were overburdened by cul-de-sacs.
Are we having too many cul-de-sacs in our life? If yes, are we freeing them up? And allowing life to flow through?
History of Facebook privacy settings
A very interesting graphic of Facebook's privacy settings by Matt McKeon illustrates how Facebook has, over the years, tightened privacy settings. Its an interesting presentation of a concept, with outstanding visualisation.
Its very good when seen in animation. Link below
http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/
Its very good when seen in animation. Link below
http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/
Friday, May 7, 2010
Dus hazaar thadthadate toofan! Tintin in Hindi
Om Books International has acquired rights to release Adventures of Tintin in Hindi. The popular comic strip has had over 40 translations, including languages like Zulu.
Tintin’s dog Snowy will be called Natkhat and detectives Thomson and Thompson will be christened Santu and Bantu. Black Island is 'Kaala Dweep', Cigars of the Pharaoh is 'Misr Samrat Ke Cigar', The Broken Ear is 'Tuta Hua Kaan', and the funniest is this - 'Sunehre Panjonwala Kekda'. I need not tell you which one that is.
Tintin will gasp 'Baal ki khaal' instead of 'Great snakes'. And imagine Haddock saying 'Ten thousand thundering typhoons' in Hindi: 'Dus hazaar thadthadate toofan'. See this interesting link to a list of Captain Haddock's curses - http://www.tintinologist.org/guides/lists/curses.html
Waiting to lay hands on the treasure of funny translations!
Tintin’s dog Snowy will be called Natkhat and detectives Thomson and Thompson will be christened Santu and Bantu. Black Island is 'Kaala Dweep', Cigars of the Pharaoh is 'Misr Samrat Ke Cigar', The Broken Ear is 'Tuta Hua Kaan', and the funniest is this - 'Sunehre Panjonwala Kekda'. I need not tell you which one that is.
Tintin will gasp 'Baal ki khaal' instead of 'Great snakes'. And imagine Haddock saying 'Ten thousand thundering typhoons' in Hindi: 'Dus hazaar thadthadate toofan'. See this interesting link to a list of Captain Haddock's curses - http://www.tintinologist.org/guides/lists/curses.html
Waiting to lay hands on the treasure of funny translations!
Monday, March 22, 2010
Beatles, 50 years of mediocre nonsense
The Beatles are 50. They started in 1960. And all the papers and magazines have dedicated scores of articles on them, Beatlemania, how influential they were, and how they changed the world. I was brought up with no great exposure to pop music of the 60s and 70s. All my hearing and understanding of pop music was acquired quite late in life. And to tell you the truth, I'm not and have never been too impressed with The Beatles. That, I can tell you, is blasphemous, to say the least.
I remember a time about 10 years back, when some of my friends, one evening, were discussing about how great The Beatles were. And I certainly wasn't contributing to that view. They mistook that I hadn't heard them, or had no clue of what they were talking about. I confess I haven't had a great understanding of their music. All that I have is a basic hearing. And, I reiterate, they aren't too great. They certainly don't deserve the hype that surrounds them.
But my friends took it personally, and attacked me. They couldn't defend their point for too long, but they still won because of a simple majority. At the end of the argument I realised that they had a lesser understanding of their music.
I beg to add a point, a disclaimer. John Lennon, individually, a few of his songs, were okay. He wrote well, but all of that was his solo attempt. Not the Beatles as a group.
I scoured the net to find if there was anyone who held the same view as I had, I'm sure there are. But I couldn't find much on this, just a few blogs, here and there. Why are people afraid to confront long-held beliefs? Why is it blasphemous to say the truth. That the Beatles were not great.
Listen to their greatest hit, 'Love Me Do'. Its not very impressive. In fact its quite unimpressive. Or 'Hey Jude'. Except the interlude and close, there is nothing very great about the song. 'A Hard Day's Night' was immature and insipid. And 'Yellow submarine' is utter crap, sheer nonsense.
Talk about 'U2' or John Denver and you have my attention. But that can be the subject of another discussion, another day.
Let me present my case:
1. Their music is not revolutionary, not engaging. It doesn't move you, doesn't affect you. Its just some words and music thrown in to average effect. Their music is over-rated.
2. They were around only for about 7-8 years, I understand. And they did not perform many live shows. They were more of a studio group. So if you haven't been a 'live' band, I wonder how they could engage so many in so little time.
3. They may satisfy the definition of cult, but not the spirit. Having teenage girls who don't understand life going around is not 'cool', and certainly not mass appeal.
4. Just because there are a million or billion fans who faint when they hear you, doesn't make you great. Its merely a reflection of the large-scale mediocrity that is prevalent in the world.
5. What about their songs was about world peace or love? Nothing at all. They couldn't stay together as a group for long, despite being love gurus. And they conveniently sidelined George Martin.
6. They won Grammies, 7 of them I think. But since when did winning Grammies make you great?
7. Most of all, their music is not timeless. Like Bob Dylan or John Denver whom you can listen to even today.
To all those false Beatlemania victims, I say 'Move on'
I remember a time about 10 years back, when some of my friends, one evening, were discussing about how great The Beatles were. And I certainly wasn't contributing to that view. They mistook that I hadn't heard them, or had no clue of what they were talking about. I confess I haven't had a great understanding of their music. All that I have is a basic hearing. And, I reiterate, they aren't too great. They certainly don't deserve the hype that surrounds them.
But my friends took it personally, and attacked me. They couldn't defend their point for too long, but they still won because of a simple majority. At the end of the argument I realised that they had a lesser understanding of their music.
I beg to add a point, a disclaimer. John Lennon, individually, a few of his songs, were okay. He wrote well, but all of that was his solo attempt. Not the Beatles as a group.
I scoured the net to find if there was anyone who held the same view as I had, I'm sure there are. But I couldn't find much on this, just a few blogs, here and there. Why are people afraid to confront long-held beliefs? Why is it blasphemous to say the truth. That the Beatles were not great.
Listen to their greatest hit, 'Love Me Do'. Its not very impressive. In fact its quite unimpressive. Or 'Hey Jude'. Except the interlude and close, there is nothing very great about the song. 'A Hard Day's Night' was immature and insipid. And 'Yellow submarine' is utter crap, sheer nonsense.
Talk about 'U2' or John Denver and you have my attention. But that can be the subject of another discussion, another day.
Let me present my case:
1. Their music is not revolutionary, not engaging. It doesn't move you, doesn't affect you. Its just some words and music thrown in to average effect. Their music is over-rated.
2. They were around only for about 7-8 years, I understand. And they did not perform many live shows. They were more of a studio group. So if you haven't been a 'live' band, I wonder how they could engage so many in so little time.
3. They may satisfy the definition of cult, but not the spirit. Having teenage girls who don't understand life going around is not 'cool', and certainly not mass appeal.
4. Just because there are a million or billion fans who faint when they hear you, doesn't make you great. Its merely a reflection of the large-scale mediocrity that is prevalent in the world.
5. What about their songs was about world peace or love? Nothing at all. They couldn't stay together as a group for long, despite being love gurus. And they conveniently sidelined George Martin.
6. They won Grammies, 7 of them I think. But since when did winning Grammies make you great?
7. Most of all, their music is not timeless. Like Bob Dylan or John Denver whom you can listen to even today.
To all those false Beatlemania victims, I say 'Move on'
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Disparities in confidence
As the world progresses, with growth comes disparity. It is impossible to consistently achieve growth without compromising on equal distribution of wealth and opportunities. And this is because of basic human nature. Every human being, by his very nature, would seek the advancement of his progeny, his clan, his blood. That's the way the world evolves. It's your instinct. People generally try to boost their children's chances in various fields to succeed in life.
Education is one of them. Children of affluent parents would get opportunities to study in the best of universities. We can't imagine that all the industrialists' sons and daughters are smart enough to get into the Whartons and Harvards of the world. Whether they deserve this or not, or whether they make use of it or not is an entirely different matter. So, obviously, they are assured of a good label as far education is concerned.
Social connections is another area. By virtue of moving around and being associated in elite circles, you are naturally exposed to a higher citizenry, or rather, a citizenry that is in an advantageous position, compared to the masses. You can't get that otherwise.
But above all, it is confidence. The confidence that comes from having more money at your disposal, having more wealth, having a fallback in case you don't succeed the first time around, having a higher springboard in life. And this confidence is reflected in all actions and activities of life. Right from driving a car to talking to a group of people, they are less restrained and more natural. That confidence is really the clincher, the key differentiator.
You can't reduce disparities in confidence!
Education is one of them. Children of affluent parents would get opportunities to study in the best of universities. We can't imagine that all the industrialists' sons and daughters are smart enough to get into the Whartons and Harvards of the world. Whether they deserve this or not, or whether they make use of it or not is an entirely different matter. So, obviously, they are assured of a good label as far education is concerned.
Social connections is another area. By virtue of moving around and being associated in elite circles, you are naturally exposed to a higher citizenry, or rather, a citizenry that is in an advantageous position, compared to the masses. You can't get that otherwise.
But above all, it is confidence. The confidence that comes from having more money at your disposal, having more wealth, having a fallback in case you don't succeed the first time around, having a higher springboard in life. And this confidence is reflected in all actions and activities of life. Right from driving a car to talking to a group of people, they are less restrained and more natural. That confidence is really the clincher, the key differentiator.
You can't reduce disparities in confidence!
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Charity or Save the world; be politically correct!
After a short day at office yesterday I was leaving home soon since I had to go to the bank to foreclose my car loan. I was at Vikhroli station in a hurry, when I was stopped by a young girl, about 20, who represented Greenpeace. And she asked me politely whether I could listen to her for a few minutes. I agreed.
She briefly described what Greenpeace was and what they were working on. I told her I knew quite a lot about Greenpeace, but didn't tell her that one of the projects my company was working on was delayed because of activism by Greenpeace.
I asked her how I could help, the response to which she delayed, continuing her script to conclusion. I was getting impatient, wondering what was it that she wanted from me. I thought of asking 'Do you expect me to save the world here?' but I blurted out 'How can I help?'. She had to come to the point. Contributions begin at Rs 250 a month, conveniently chargeable to my credit card.
She almost concluded that I would save the world, sorry, contribute. I said I can't decide contribution standing here at the station at an odd hour. I asked for their website and details and said I'd update her whether I contribute or otherwise.
I wondered what was it that drove this young girl of 20, possibly, to stand in the afternoon sun and promote a cause which may or may not benefit her. And thats not enough, lest I sound like a irresponsible citizen of the world. I'm sure this girl doesn't understand the complete story, nor does she know whether she is on the right side of the world.
I concluded that she was doing it to earn brownie points. Maybe she was going away to America for further studies. Maybe she needed the experience on her application.
Is this is a good cause to be associated with for that? With all the controversy surrounding such activist organisations, it may not be a safe bet. I mean, someone opposed to this idea, with a reasonable understanding of the scenario (which this girl lacks) will be able to win an argument.
I had never had the need to be associated with any such cause for brownie points, so I can't comment on the appropriateness. But this led me to think whether one should choose a safer alternative, such as an old age home, women's issues, children in orphanages or the like, where you could only be right. After all, most in the world choose to play safe.
That would be so politically correct!
She briefly described what Greenpeace was and what they were working on. I told her I knew quite a lot about Greenpeace, but didn't tell her that one of the projects my company was working on was delayed because of activism by Greenpeace.
I asked her how I could help, the response to which she delayed, continuing her script to conclusion. I was getting impatient, wondering what was it that she wanted from me. I thought of asking 'Do you expect me to save the world here?' but I blurted out 'How can I help?'. She had to come to the point. Contributions begin at Rs 250 a month, conveniently chargeable to my credit card.
She almost concluded that I would save the world, sorry, contribute. I said I can't decide contribution standing here at the station at an odd hour. I asked for their website and details and said I'd update her whether I contribute or otherwise.
I wondered what was it that drove this young girl of 20, possibly, to stand in the afternoon sun and promote a cause which may or may not benefit her. And thats not enough, lest I sound like a irresponsible citizen of the world. I'm sure this girl doesn't understand the complete story, nor does she know whether she is on the right side of the world.
I concluded that she was doing it to earn brownie points. Maybe she was going away to America for further studies. Maybe she needed the experience on her application.
Is this is a good cause to be associated with for that? With all the controversy surrounding such activist organisations, it may not be a safe bet. I mean, someone opposed to this idea, with a reasonable understanding of the scenario (which this girl lacks) will be able to win an argument.
I had never had the need to be associated with any such cause for brownie points, so I can't comment on the appropriateness. But this led me to think whether one should choose a safer alternative, such as an old age home, women's issues, children in orphanages or the like, where you could only be right. After all, most in the world choose to play safe.
That would be so politically correct!
Does Twitter make money?
I've been fascinated and intrigued by whether website companies make money. Google may have 'non-intrusive' and 'relevant' advertisements, but I can't imagine they making any decent margin. Just think of the costs that they incur, maintaining these huge servers, the electricity costs, the airconditioning required to keep them cool, all for storing stuff that is at least 90% junk and unwanted. (In a separate post, I would like to discuss how much of junk the world might have created).
Youtube stores videos, Flickr stores pictures, and Scribd stores documents that add up to many gigabytes. So for all of this, the expense would be enormous. As I can think, any number of non-intrusive advertisements and sale of personal information cannot make up for this.
Twitter is a more recent phenomenon. It may have the benefit of being much modest in terms of size, since it restricts messages to 140 characters, has no images or videos. But with its popularity growing and the number of posts increasing at an exponential rate, it will be in trouble.
The one aspect that is different about Twitter is that it has no advertisements whatsoever. And by the language of what is written, I'm sure they can't figure out any pattern that they could use to sell your information, at least as of now.
It has succeeded in building a following of enormous proportion but hasn't done anything to capitalise on that yet. It could've easily put up advertisements, at least on its website, though many may be using the mobile application.
In the social networking world, it has achieved what very few have. To have so many tweeting away in such a short time is worthy of recognition.
I can see a few sources of income possible in the future. As for other such players, they could study patterns in tweets and generate targeted advertisement campaigns to select groups of individuals. They could be 'sponsored' tweets. In fact, they could have these sponsored tweeters following you.
As Google has reached out to the masses with their AdWords initiative, twitter could do the same. That way, you could have these small and medium businesses follow pertinent potential customers. This may work in the developed world better.
As a finance professional, I think they would securitise their future expected streams of income and leverage that to expand today, thus feeding their growth. Whether it will work, only time till tell. Whether it is desirable, I can say no now.
Since it runs predominantly on mobile applications in the developed world, I suppose they may have a tie-up with mobile service providers for a share in income generated because of tweets. This is yet to catch up in the developing world.
The interesting part in the case of Twitter is that they have a set of venture capitalists who have funded them. I'm sure they must be expecting and demanding a share of the pie when the cake is baked and ready to eat.
It'll be interesting to see where this leads. Till then, tweet away!
Youtube stores videos, Flickr stores pictures, and Scribd stores documents that add up to many gigabytes. So for all of this, the expense would be enormous. As I can think, any number of non-intrusive advertisements and sale of personal information cannot make up for this.
Twitter is a more recent phenomenon. It may have the benefit of being much modest in terms of size, since it restricts messages to 140 characters, has no images or videos. But with its popularity growing and the number of posts increasing at an exponential rate, it will be in trouble.
The one aspect that is different about Twitter is that it has no advertisements whatsoever. And by the language of what is written, I'm sure they can't figure out any pattern that they could use to sell your information, at least as of now.
It has succeeded in building a following of enormous proportion but hasn't done anything to capitalise on that yet. It could've easily put up advertisements, at least on its website, though many may be using the mobile application.
In the social networking world, it has achieved what very few have. To have so many tweeting away in such a short time is worthy of recognition.
I can see a few sources of income possible in the future. As for other such players, they could study patterns in tweets and generate targeted advertisement campaigns to select groups of individuals. They could be 'sponsored' tweets. In fact, they could have these sponsored tweeters following you.
As Google has reached out to the masses with their AdWords initiative, twitter could do the same. That way, you could have these small and medium businesses follow pertinent potential customers. This may work in the developed world better.
As a finance professional, I think they would securitise their future expected streams of income and leverage that to expand today, thus feeding their growth. Whether it will work, only time till tell. Whether it is desirable, I can say no now.
Since it runs predominantly on mobile applications in the developed world, I suppose they may have a tie-up with mobile service providers for a share in income generated because of tweets. This is yet to catch up in the developing world.
The interesting part in the case of Twitter is that they have a set of venture capitalists who have funded them. I'm sure they must be expecting and demanding a share of the pie when the cake is baked and ready to eat.
It'll be interesting to see where this leads. Till then, tweet away!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)