The Defintion of Definition

Quote from one of my favourite blogs, Beat The Press,

'As I have pointed out endlessly, NAFTA did not free all trade -- Mexican professionals still face substantial obstacles to working in the United States, so the deal did not free trade in professional services. It also increased protectionism in the form of copyright and patent protection. So, let's save space and trees -- just refer to a "trade" agenda.'

Right, North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is not a free trade agreement in a sense that not all trades in North America are completely free. BUT by saying that a million times it is a free trade agreement, the general public will believe that they have free trade within North America, or at least believe that the terms as stated in the agreement can already be regarded as free trade.

This is a social phenomenon called, 'social constructivism'. Many terms often used are not objectively defined. Unlike physical objects like, a pen, or paper, most of the terms used in social sciences cannot easily be defined. What is accounting? What is jounalism? Everybody might think they know what these terms mean. However, their definitions can be hijacked by interested parties to re-create a society and influence people behaviour, espeically when the public thinks those terms are objectively defined and act accordingly.

For example, accounting equation suggests 'revenue - expense = profit and profit the bigger, the better'. Because accounting, in the broadest sense, means tracing responsibility for individual behaviour, a good project proven by the accounting equation will unavoidably become a project regareded as responsibility being already fully traced (i.e. accounted for). Nonetheless, this is only the case if 1) private revenue and expenses are the sole consideration and 2) environmetal and social impacts of the business on the society value nothing --- an entirely capitalism idea. As such underlying assumptions are never explained, followers of such accounting equation are turned into capitalists without themselves knowing that. Such equation (or any other principles), after used by many in the society, eventually turns itself into a social norm and the society converts itself into a capitalist societly unconsicously (and maybe unwillingly).

Thus, by simply defining social terms, norms can be created to benefit certain social groups. In the 'free trade' case, professionals whose jobs are protected by NAFTA and politicians who gain their support are benefited as long as the general public believes trade is free within North America and never challenged that notion.

Think again when you think you really know what a social term means.

No Re-distribution to Heaven/Hell

This blog, in fact, will not be updated as much as I would like to because of the time I will have to spend to rigorously discuss serious issues. Nonetheless, I feel obliged to clarify one of the concepts of mine (even I don't think I have built up an audience yet. As I said in Preface, this blog is never intended for readers) that why nobody should have sacrificed their lives for anything. It is, surprisingly, a strictly economic concept.

To start with, the fundamental concept of Pareto Improvement has to be explained.

A) Imagine a situation of two people A and B, trading with each other. IF

The trade can result in a position that both A and B are better-off (or feel happier),

Then the trade results in a Pareto Improvement. This is the simplest situation.

* * * * *

B) Now, imagine A is doing some damge to B (e.g. A kicks B's ass). IF

1) B has the legal right to have his ass unkicked AND,
2) A by paying B some money (or other kinds of economic benefit, like a kiss, or a one-night-stand) can get B to agree that A can kick B's ass AND,
3) A is willing to make such an offer so as to kick B's ass,

Then there will be a Pareto Improvement when A makes an offer to kick B's ass and that B voluntarily agrees to the offer. Because everyone will be happier.

* * * * *

C) Now, imagine A is still kicking B's ass, IF

1) government knows perfectly what A and B want (economically, their marginal valuations),
2) government orders A to compensate B for kicking B's ass,

Because government knows everything, so the ultimate result will be exactly the same as B) and everyone is still happier. So it is still a Pareto Improvement.

Therefore, we come to a rather unconvential and unpopular economic conclusion: as long as party A can compensate party B in a way that party B will agree, party A can do anything on party B and it will still result in a Pareto Improvement (i.e. everyone is happier than before). And by anything, I strictly include anything, like kicking ass, slapping, molesting or even raping EXCEPT (by now) killing the other party.

(This kind of conclusion partly explains why economics is not a subject that can be understood by all --- it gives inhumane, immoral conclusion. BUT to clarify, the analysis is strictly and only based on economics AND it is not suggested that we should not consider anything else before applying such conlusion, no economist would have made such a claim that only economic principles should be followed while making decisions)

Simple and sensible, it is just not possible to compensate the other party satisfactorily if the other party is dead.

On the other hand, government can (economically) also order anyone to do anything (that derives a benefit) if at the end of the day the derived benefit can be re-distributed in a way that everyone is happier since there will still exist a Pareto Improvement.

But again when anyone is dead, there is no way to re-distribute anyting to him/her anymore and not strictly everyone will be happier and it will not be a Pareto Improvement.

There is, however, one empirically rare exception. It is when party A values party C's benefit so much that, even by re-distributing the derived benefit to party C, party A would have felt happier (well... in heaven/hell) even suffering the loss of life. Such a case only happens when someone voluntarily sacrifices his/her life for someone else's life (Titanic, maybe?). But the emotional impact from the Titanic movie somehow sends us a message that this REALLY does not happen so often, if at all.

Thus, it comes to a conclusion that

I) nobody should have sacrificed their lives for anything (but economically acceptable if stricly voluntary),

II) no government should have ordered their citizens to sacrifice themselves for anything because re-distribution is close to impossible as the exceptional case proves to be really rare empirically.

( conclusion II should be more strictly followed than conclusion I, because in I, individual makes his/her own decision and it can be comfortably presumed that any result is voluntary, not so much in case II)

So war for high-moral-ground values, slower poverty reduction (which kills) to preserve cultural heritage? No way as long as the Titanic kind of movie can still touch everybody's heart.

Preface

This is the second blog that I have (the first one being www.xanga.com/holikhang). I normally talk about my daily life or interesting experience in the first blog, not so much about what I think primarliy because the audience involved seems to be not so much interested. Also I very often perceive myself as a person who doesn't take sides on any issue as long as I can understand the reasons behind the scene. But more and more so, I take sides, even I can understand perfectly the reasoning of the side I don't agree on. And I want people to listen to what I say because I sincerely believe that my opinion will help make the world a better place. As is every other outspoken person I guess.

And my interests primarily include any and every important economic, social and political issues, among all, poverty reduction is my main concern. I genuinely (and perhaps naively) believe that in a world with so advanced technology and so much wealth, no one should have died because of starvation, no one should have died because they are too poor to stay alive (while more than 8 million of people do every year --- The End of Poverty, by Jeffrey Sachs ). I believe that nobody should have sacrificed their lives for anything, by anything I broadly include wealth, love, religious belief, moral values, cultural heritage and so forth and so on because there is no way the extra benefit derived can be re-distributed to the people who lost their lives. The only condition that sacrifices may become acceptable is if more lives can be saved. Life, in my point of view, is the most important asset, among all, one can have and the least that one should be deprived.

A friend recently told me that he was described to have a passion about development issues similar to his passion about chocalate. My concern about poverty, or development issues in general, on the other hand, is fuelled mainly by my anger about the unreasonable and nonsense ways that many life-at-stake issues are being dealt with. Yet I believe that this anger will not affect my judgement. It will only push me to pay more attention on and eventually drive me to contribute to the developing world (when I become qualified).

That explains my purpose of having an additional blog, to express my thought, my view and my opinion on things that I do not feel right or more often I feel angry about. As simple as that.