The worst (legitimate) profession: investing?

Highly controversial statement indeed. But first of all let's set the boundaries of what we're talking about here. In this post, we're exploring the moral and ethical side of legitimate occupations. Or rather, one legitimate occupation. Forget about your drug cartels and street thugs. We all know how these people bring harm to society. What I would like to ponder about is how legitimate professions might just be less than beneficial to society. I hope this post will be insightful to you.

Now, why do I say that investing is the worst profession? In my opinion, a profession has to contribute to society in order to be considered a "good" profession. We might not be aware of it, but yes, almost every legitimate profession contributes to society. Companies produce goods that are needed by society, and that is how they earn their revenue. The more society craves for the company's products, the more revenue the company earns. This is evidenced from the rise of technological giants like Microsoft and Apple, which propelled their founders into the "billionaire dictionaries" like Forbes. Factory workers, by being part of the manufacturing process, indirectly contribute to the welfare of society by being a "cog" in the whole factory "machine". In short, the more in-demand goods you supply to the society, the more you contribute to society, and the more you get paid. Income becomes proportional to contribution.

But what do investors do? Well, one for sure, there are many forms of investing. Perhaps, investments in stocks and shares might not bring about as much of a damage to society. But let's look at my argument first. Investors are unlike the people mentioned above. They do not produce tangible goods. They do not produce ANY good, in fact. Their job is to make a profit by being somewhat a "middleman" at convenient times, buying goods or stocks at low prices and selling them off when they are able to provide the investor with a profit. But what do we all learn in the first lesson of micro economics? Resource is scarce. There's only a finite amount of resources on our planet. What investors do, is to simply get these resources from doing nothing for society. They produce nothing tangible in replacement for what they take away. They get something from nothing. The good still stays on the market, but they reap a profit for just holding on to the good.

In fact, it has come to my attention that much of the world's turmoil is further aggravated by the actions of investors. With the looming fuel crisis, many have started investing in crude oil, reaping profits while pushing up oil prices, causing a fall in what can be termed as "real income". In countries experiencing rapid economic growth, most notably China, investors have been blamed for pushing up the prices of housing in major cities. In China, there were even reports of "ghost towns" where entire stretches of apartments are left empty after their construction is complete, simply because they are being bought as an investment. In the commodity market, which has made many worked up over the ever increasing food prices, investors have been blamed for stockpiling, leading to a shortage in food, and rapid increase in food prices.

With all these in mind, perhaps, investing isn't such an honourable profession, is it? But of course, many of the world's riches men have donated much of their wealth to the various charity organisations around the world. But that doesn't change the nature of the job. Perhaps, it is just a way to atone for the sins which brought them their wealth.

Are humanitarian efforts unnecessary?

We're all familiar with this as well. Whenever a disaster occurs, everyone rushes to the scene to help out, regardless of nationality, race or religion(well of course, we all know it's for building relations). But with all this "goodwill" going around, it has lead me to wonder if it really helps for people to intervene with what is arguably the course of nature.

Perhaps the first paragraph wasn't that clear. So let's put it in a context that is easily understandable. If a country faces perpetual low crop yields despite high population growth(which is prevalent in many poor sub-saharan countries and developing nations), most developed countries would intervene and provide food aid to these countries. Most non-government organisations would as well. This is the scene we are seeing. The ones that make the righteous feel proud and happy.

But let's take a step back. Imagine if all everyone does is to manage their own countries. These countries would be left in their dire situations, and their citizens would end up starving, with many dying of malnutrition. Cruel? Then let us think of what that leaves us with. In a "ideal" (ideal conditions where all assumptions hold true, not morally ideal where everyone lives in wonderland) situation, the population would immediately shrink back to the maximum size it's crop yields can support. From time to time there would be fluctuations in the population, but the population remains at the largest possible size for that given crop yield.

What that leaves us is a relatively stable population in the world, and the population explosion we have experienced would be slowed down significantly. With rising sea levels threatening to devour our land space and crop production, this might just solve the problems we are expecting to see in the future. No donations required. And perhaps, nature would select for us people who survive with lesser food (if there's such a gene)?

Of course, many would object to such a idea. Even I had to think things through before making this post. But this is just a free zone to shoot any thoughts I have right? But anyways, the question here to ask is, are we ready to desert our feelings? Many of us think of ourselves as the a higher order being because we act differently from animals. We think that humanitarian efforts are what distinguishes us from animals, who merely act on instinct.

So, are we willing to give up on what we think has "made us humans" all these while? I wouldn't be expecting that. Perhaps, not while we haven't grown desperate enough from climate change to discard our morals and turn on ourselves.

Education: perpetuating inequality in society?

This is my first post, so I guess I'll start with something most people are familiar with.

Education. This word has been the centre of attention in many societies past and present. The Chinese started using it as a way to select capable men to serve in the government. The Romans created the first public schools. Now, in the twenty-first century, people turn to it as a solution to break out of the cycle of poverty. But is that really the case? In the country where I live(Singapore), there has been reports that more than half the students in elite schools hail from families with at least one graduate parent, and this percentage increases with the academic performance of the schools. So it seems, the education system is only meant to serve academically inclined parents (who are most probably richer as well)!

Now, what is going on here? Few reasons involved, but I guess what I'm going to say next might not be the kindest of words one would wish to hear. The answer is simple: not everyone is born as intellectually inclined! Many assume that education provides a level ground for students of different family backgrounds to excel despite their parent's inability to perform well in the past, and their rationale is simple, that the rules are the same for everyone: everyone does the same tests, everyone studies the same chapters in each subject, the list isn't too long but at first glance, it's really convincing isn't it?

This is when nature sets in. Intellect is a heritable trait, and it doesn't change much throughout our lives. If anything, it can only decrease due to an unfortunate accident, but it will never increase. Throwing everyone into the same education system is just allowing children of academically inclined parents to continue their parents' legacy and leave the rest further behind. If this isn't enough for you to understand, I'll use the analogy of a fencing session I was watching. There were two fencers sparring, and I was watching it with a few other acquaintances. The rules governing their actions were definitely the same. They were trained under the same coach so they definitely had the same "stances" and "tactics". The scoring system for both were the same. Level playing field, no? Nope, one of them was destined to lose out. And the reason was simple, one of them was shorter, with a shorter arm that couldn't reach as far as the other. How is his sword supposed to reach the other fencer if his hand is shorter to begin with? Just the same way, even if both students have the same training, the same tests and all, the one with a higher intellect would be bound to score better than his peer. And that student who scored better probably inherited his intellect from his parents who were probably smarter than his peer's parent. It's just natural selection in the making, and education simply acts as the vehicle in which natural selection acts.

Another reason is that academically inclined parents are more likely to have a higher income, which allows them to spend more resources on their children's education, sending them to "cram school" as they term it in Japan and Korea, and "tuition" in Singapore. Other than this aspect of education, students of the parents mentioned above are able to learn other skills like music and sports, which gives them a further advantage over their peers who were born into less academically inclined families.

Of course, there are always exceptions, namely our favourite "rags to riches" motivational success stories. But the fact that we always gasp in awe when we hear such stories is in itself proof that such situations do not occur very often, and that to achieve that is out of the ordinary. I'm not saying that we should abolish former education- I believe this is one of the reasons development is so rapid in modern times. However, education has simply taken on the role of natural selection, selecting against less academically inclined students, and selecting for academically inclined students. Even without it, the same effect would have been achieved in the knowledge based economy of today's world. After all, it is impossible to stop a process that has operated for  as long as organisms have existed, to stop the process that lead to the birth of us humans. That however, would not change the fact that education has, contrary to popular belief, not lead to a more "equal" society, but a more "unequal" society where the same group of people simply continue reaping the benefits with their natural gifts- intellect.

Just about me

This is my first post so I'll just be doing some basic introductions about myself. I guess the best way to start is to introduce my personality, since the contents of the blog are largely influenced by my personality, even more so since I'm using this blog to "air" my thoughts online. I've taken two personality tests in this short span of time we all call life(even more so for a teenager like me), and the results of the two tests are pretty much accurate to certain extents. More so for one than the other. In the MBTI, the Myers-Briggs Typology index, I score as a mastermind/scientist. Basically, the description says that I'm all about forming systems internally to create a web of interconnected information that catalogues everything I know of. This makes me pretty much a systematic person empowered with all the traits required to excel in education. It is also said that INTJ My Achilles heel would be an insensitive use of words that offends people more frequently than most other personality types. Also, I've had some comments from friends that my stony personality does not really fit in with what most people want, and that it is really boring to be around me since I'm all about technical issues. As for the other personality, I guess that name itself is self explanatory? Oh, and one last thing. The term "mastermind" comes in because while my introverted character does not really allow me to stand in the spotlight and take the lead, it seems I do have some leadership potential, and I express that by manipulating the people around me to change the course of the group.

For this blog, you can expect loads of technical stuff that would overload you with information. I was told most girls won't like that, and most guys find it boring, but you can't please everyone, right? So exercise selective reading, and for those who actually like this blog after the few posts I put up here in the next few years(and hopefully even longer), hope this blog will be informative to you, and that the views aired will be insightful and more importantly, interesting!