January 2008

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2008.

The Age of Turbulence

January 27, 2008 in Cinema*观文读影 by Nina | No comments

One friend exclaimed after reading The Age of Turbulence: as the Fed's chairman for 18.5 years, Alan Greenspan's insights are unparalleled. Another friend, however, refuses to read the book. The Federal Reserve, as a semi-government body, lends money to the government and charges interest rates. What a ridiculous rip off – he exclaims.

the_age_turbulence.jpg

I came to the book decidedly with no admiration or prejudice. Now after finishing the 500 pages, there are more questions than answers. First, my ambiguity toward the Fed and Alan Greenspan remains. Second, I find it hard to agree with many of Greenspan's solutions and judgments. Finally, he successfully raised many questions that I did not think of before.

The book consists of two parts. The first is a chronicle of Greenspan's life. The second part, where the meat is, includes essays on major economic issues the world faces today: corporate governance, China, India, Latin America, Russia (where is Africa?), energy, current accounts and debt, income inequity and retiring work force.

My biggest question is how can people reach opposite conclusions using the same method – logic? Greenspan's method is meticulous, but his conclusions are far from consensus. It may be more important to examine what one is bringing into the equation than to check the arithmetics.

The book's strength is clarity: Greenspan used simple language to explain complex issues. Often, he is incisive. The book also used large amount of data. Leaving out the trivia details, Greenspan concentrated on the critical points.

I'm keeping the book for future reference, especially on Greenspan's predications of the economy in 2030. For now, I walk away with his very Republican, pro-market, pro-democracy, laissez faire viewpoints with a big question mark.

Tags: , ,

Brokeback…Broken Dream

January 25, 2008 in Cinema*观文读影 by Nina | No comments

The first time I watched Brokeback Mountain was in 2006. I was flying somewhere. Bored, I turned on the movies and saw these two guys in a tent – and I never turned my eyes away. The last scene made me cry like a baby. BrokeBack since then became my dream of the greatest love story ever told on the silver screen.

11.jpg

Second time watching it feels completely different. Not much endured except the superb cinematography.

4.jpg

21.jpg

Tags: ,

Maximus The Hero

January 18, 2008 in Cinema*观文读影 by Nina | 1 comment

I long disliked Hollywood blockbusters. So when I fell in love for The Gladiator and its main character Maximus, I felt it necessary to subject my strange reactions to logic.

The movie itself is beautiful. The reconstruction of Rome, the provinces, its transportation, religion and war fares brought people back in time. It tells a great and convincing story (though there are some less well-thought details, such as how could Cecilia reasonably tell her 7-year old son about her secret plans; and why did the guards not offer Commodus a sword at the final fight).

1.jpg

What most interests me is the reason of my falling in love for the hero, Maximus. I come up with a list of virtues that pull me into his charms: he is the best at fighting, he is honorable, he is handsome, he is widely respected and loved, – in descending order in terms of their importance. The fact that I value his fighting ability strikes me as revealing. Do women still feel an innate need to be protected in twenty-first century when sword fighting is no longer a much valued skill? Are the genes that favor strong men still in our blood, or do women still feel weak subconsciously?

As I continue my reasoning at work today, I realized that if there is a men who is as good as Maximus in sword fighting today, say a professional GongFu master, women will probably not jump at him today. In our time, a strong man means different things because the threats are different. The battles are not fought against tigers in the Colosseum, but against job loss, insecurity, or maybe loneliness. Women today are still seeking protection from men, but less so physically, more so mentally or even financially. This form of protection is certainly more mundane and far less glorious than what appears in the Gladiator.

Why am I attracted to Maximus' honorable conduct then? Even though I have a vague sense of morality? What exactly is honor? As demonstrated by Maximus in the film, they would be holding on to one's word, devotion, true heart, courage and purity. Why are these qualities attractive? Maybe it is valuable because the demand for them is so high but the supply so low? But this could not be, because why aren't people attracted to the other extreme in which the same supply/demand relation exist also?

2.jpg

A way of explaining this may be to compare the two extreme qualities. The opposite of Maximus' virtues would be breaching promises, volatile emotions, insincerity, cowardice and flaws. In the ancient world, people have already identified Maximus' qualities as virtues. And the ancient world was one in which people live much closer to nature. Philosophers debated the questions of nature, and the relationships between humans and nature. Looking at our two lists, it is obvious that the "evil" lists are everywhere to be seen in nature. Those qualities are what nature offers humans: unpredictable, cruel and mediocre. The Maximus' list, however, is what differentiates humans from nature.

But why do a modern day person honor the same virtues? I see most of those qualities as providing safety, stability and predictability. Even though long ago people have identified change as a law of nature, we are innately afraid of change. Everybody may have wished at some moment in life that may time be frozen. Everybody probably has wished to predict the future. Suppose there is a mirror in which everyone can see his or her future, who could resist the temptation to look into it?

3.jpg

The third attraction of Maximus is his appearance: his eyes and his beard. Yes, who could escape? Lastly, his charm lies with his leadership and his power. Alan Greenspan's greatest legacy may be his famous conclusion that power is the best aphrodisiac.

But this whole reasoning exercise is unsatisfactory because these qualities are not separate and are inseparable. Like Warren Buffett said, "when you marry a girl, is it her eyes? Or her lips? It's the combination of everything."

So my attraction to Maximus is perhaps unexplainable. He is a fictional character, he is the ideal man who people have dreamed or fantasized over many centuries. But one thing is for sure, he does not exist beyond that little television screen in our living room.

Tags: , ,

Italy: A Short History

January 8, 2008 in Cinema*观文读影 by Nina | No comments

"A concise but comprehensive account of Italian history from the Ice Age to the present day," the late author Harry Hearder declared in the preface. The Professor Emeritus at the University of Wales should have added  "interpretative." Italy: A Short History reads at times like an academic paper, a fairy tale, and at other times opinion editorials.

Italian history can be roughly divided into several phrases: the classical age, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Risorgimento, Unification and Fascism, and the first and the second Republic. With each phrases, a map is drawn to demonstrate the changes of territory and power throughout the centuries. The word Italy did not appear on the map until the latter half of the second millennium.

In accord to other history books written by Western scholars and contrary to the history books at Chinese schools, the underlying philosophy of the book is power politics. Often, the author interprets a series of events by analyzing each party's motives and strategies within the overall power structure. Similarly, the history does not appear a linear advancement from a lower level of social structure to higher ones.

The book is interspersed with commentaries on other scholars' work and historical characters. This, together with light and easy language, makes the book a fun read.

Excerpts:

"Nero (AD45-68) has survived in the popular memory for the burning of Rome and his persecution of the Christians…Religious toleration was normally one of the virtues of the Romans, who allowed conquered peoples to retain their local religions, provided they also respected the traditional and official Roman religion. The Christians seemed unique in their conviction that they had a monopoly of religious truth, a conviction which made them trouble-makers in a tolerant society."

"St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica was concerned to prove the existence of God, but to reconcile such a belief with Aristotle's respect for the validity of reason. Aquinas believed that true faith and sound reason were not in conflict, that the truth which Aristotle taught and the truth which Christ revealed did not contradict each other."

"The Medici bank in Florence specialized in exchange banking. When loans were made by physically transferring coinage or bullion, on what Fernand Braudel has called an 'unending flow of mule trains,' from one coast of Italy to another, or even from one end of Europe to another, it was clear that a great risk was involed, and the lender or investor deserved some interest."

"The accumulation of wealth, and the employment of credit finance, were no longer viewed with suspicion. The medieval condemnation of usury was modified. But the new attitude did not amount to a rejection of Christianity, only to a rejection of the medieval version of Christianity. The rediscovery of the ancient world was bound to bring pagan elements into Renaissance thought and culture, but there were nearly always to co-exist with Christian faith. The civilization of fifteenth-century Italy was secular rather than pagan. People still sent to church. Rich merchants and bankers ma have preferred paintings of pagan themes or profane portraits, but they still left generous bequests to religious houses."