My first poll.

Vital important question.

One Eva to rule them all. Which one?
	Mendes.
	Longoria.
	Gabor.
Free polls from Pollhost.com

9/11, Baudrillard and the Theory of Comparative Advantage

In an essay titled "The Spirit of Terrorism," published in Le Monde two months after 9/11, Jean Baudrillard wrote that the World Trade Center attacks were the consequence of a "terrorist imagination" bred by an "insufferable superpower," the United States of America. "In the end," he concluded, "it was they who did it, but we who wished it."

I will be using Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage to illustrate what the hell he's talking about.

Let's say there are 2 countries, USA and Qaeda-land. And let's say this world of 2 countries only produces 2 items, Robots and Camel Milk.

If the countries were on their own without trade, this is what they would be able to produce if they dedicated all their resources to making either robots or camel milk:

Qaeda-land can make 100 robots or 100 tonnes of Camel Milk
USA can make 200 robots or 100 tonnes of Camel Milk

Now, it seems that the USA is better than Qaeda-land, and has an absolute advantage over it. The USA can make at least as much or more than Qaeda-land in both products. You would therefore think it has nothing to gain from trade with Qaeda-land.

But Ricardo's Theory says look at the opportunity costs of production: USA's opportunity cost of making robots is higher than Qaeda-land's. There is room for both to benefit from trade, if they choose to specialise.

If both countries did not trade and chose to split their resources equally between making robots and camel milk, then this is what would happen:

	Robots	Camel Milk
Qaeda-Land	50	50
USA	100	50

However, if they specialised in producing in the item which they had a comparative advantage in producing, then this is what they would produce.

	Robots	Camel Milk
Qaeda-Land	0	100
USA	200	0

Wow, it looks like given the proper exchange rate (to be precise, the proper terms of trade), both USA and Qaeda-land could benefit from increases in production!! Notice the exclamation marks?! This is the part where economists normally wet themselves with excitement at how surprising and non-intuitive the results of specialisation can be!!

To illustrate this, the examples of Ricardo's Theory typically use a "nice" exchange rate, for instance, 75 robots to 50 tonnes of camel milk, which yields the following consumption:

	Robots	Camel Milk
Qaeda-Land	75	50
USA	125	50

Why is it "nice"? Well, because the absolute gains from trade - 50 robots - are split evenly between the 2 countries, Qaeda-land and USA, resulting in both countries having 25 more robots than they would have had without trade and specialisation.

But what if we had a "not so nice" exchange rate, for instance, of 55 robots for 50 tonnes of camel milk:

	Robots	Camel Milk
Qaeda-Land	55	50
USA	145	50

One could argue that Qaeda-land is still better off than it would have been if it didn't trade - it got 5 more robots than it would have had if it made things by itself. Economists are content to end there. Everyone benefits from specialising under the theory of comparative advantage.

But you and I know that's not the end of the story. Because the people of Qaeda-land would be living in a world where the people of USA now had 145 robots, compared to their own measly 55 robots. They might even think that they were being suckers, having specialised in making camel milk so that the people of USA could enjoy the foot-rubbing, foie gras-making and general lawnmowing services of those additional 45 robots.

And if you believe that people measure happiness in relative rather than absolute terms, you'll see that there are people out there who prefer a world without those extra 50 robots and how to divide them up fairly. They'd prefer you not to build 100-storey skyscrapers when they can only afford 20 storey-skyscrapers (never mind that that couldn't afford a tent before trade occured). They would prefer not to be "suckers". They would prefer to take you down in a race, rather than run and lose.

And that is how - as I see it - Ricardo's theory, which is the theoretical foundation of modern international free trade (and therefore globalisation and the WTO), provides some nuance to what Baudrillard meant. "[It] was they who did it, but we who wished it." Who wished it? Anyone who felt a vague sense of dizzy wonderment at seeing those 2 buildings collapse on September 11th.

You know who you are.

How to save Proton

So, our Prime Minister is intervening personally in order to to save Proton, but he still can't get a meeting with the Volkswagen chairman.

Well, I've got your saving Proton right here. (Warning: this is not going to be pretty.)

Easy-peasy steps (not).

1. You got the wrong partner. Choose Ford, which owns, among other brands, Volvo.

2. Co-operate on building the Tandem, the most revolutionary new car design of the past 20 years that nobody has heard of. Tell them you'll build it for them at Tanjung Malim and buy the 1st 100,000 off the line. Just as long as Volvo shows Proton how to build it. And the vendors too.

3. Tell them you'll make it work in Malaysia because you're a National Car Company and through a combination of taxes, duties, tolls and other incentives, you can make basically everyone in Malaysia buy this car in order to get it rolling and reaching production capacities sooner. If they don't believe you, fly them in to KL and have them sit at the PLUS highway toll stand at Sg. Besi counting the Sagas and Wiras that pass by. Then tell them all these model designs are 12-25 years old.

4. Export-wise, Ford and Volvo have to take over. Proton has a basically crappy reputation in Britain, but I hear they do better in the Middle East.

The facts.

Let's just state the obvious.

1. Proton is a national car company. State-owned. Let me repeat and highlight, STATE-OWNED.

2. It is declining in market share through a combination of poor quality products, safety issues and lack of models. After 20 years of operating, it still only produces sedans, completely misreading (or perhaps not even bothering to read) the market's reception of MPVs, SUVs and crossovers. (It also over-estimated the market's reception of freakmobiles.)

3. It has a knowledge gap in manufacturing to safety standards now prevalent in the world, and is in dire need of knowledge and technology transfer.

4. It has an alleged high cost base in the inefficiencies of its vendor network.

5. It owns Lotus, a sports car marque known for the exceptional handling of its models.

And so, to these facts: No. 2 and 3 and 4 are serious problems. No. 5 is an asset, but one that's not really paying off at the moment. No. 1, well, I don't see it as a problem. Plenty of state-owned corporations do well, given the proper management and incentives. (Petronas being a very clear example.)

The challenge therefore is to find a partner what can overcome points 2, 3 and 4, maximise point 5 and turn point 1 into an asset, an opportunity. To which we arrive.

You know what a state-owned company automatically has? Three important things:

Patience.

Access to a market.

And lastly, if the formula is right: Balls.

Now, to see why this plan would address the above points, one by one:

Turning "state-owned" from problem to benefit.

1. I've written elsewhere on why I'm a fan of the Tandem. However, I recognise that as a product that needs to be marketed by a business, it's got a very slim chance. The benefits of using the Tandem are only felt the more people use it - a positive externality problem you economists out there would be familiar with. And in this case, its not like the 1st fax machine where at the least, you and your branch office could communicate even if no one else had it. In this case, a seriously large amount of people need to use it before congestion starts to ease.

This means government intervention. Governments try to regulate externalities where possible and feasible - smoking zones to get the smokers away from the non-smokers, carbon taxes on your factory emissions. These are regulations for negative externalities, but incentives to promote positive externalities also exist - for instance, California provides tax rebates to you if you install solar panels on the roof of your home, in order to alleviate the burden on its over-stretched electricity grid. In a nice allegory, the Tandem would alleviate the burden of an over-stretched tranportation grid.

For the Tandem, a whole slew of incentives would need to be provided:

- Financial: reduced road taxes, tolls, excise duties and COEs (for those in Singapore) for Tandem ownership.

- Logistical: Dedicated Tandem/motorcyle lanes only.

So, basically with the Tandem, you've turned what normally is a liability - a state-owned enterprise, uncompetitive and bloated - into (potentially) an asset - a state-owned enterprise, with patient and far-sighted shareholders who can realise benefits more than individual private enterprises. This stands to reason: governments would save the most in construction and land acquisition costs for road construction, and they should justly foot the bill for widespread adoption of the Tandem.

Synergy

2 and 5. The two issues which will be of primary importance for a vehicle of this sort will be safety and handling. Safety, because you're dealing with a much more compact automotive frame while still needing to meet safety standards. Handling, because you're dealing with a narrow profile prone to cornering problems. Volvo and Lotus are marques which have world-renowned reputations for them respectively. Lotus, Proton already has. It would only need the expertise of Volvo to finish the job.

And let's be honest - the Tandem looks at this stage like a lab project (I could be wrong, but no news has come out since the first invitation to the press to view it.) Too much government lobbying needs to accompany its adoption, as discussed above. It's something which Volvo has in their portfolio, but all it could do in the end is provide influence to their ongoing 3CC concept car, and that's it. But if someone can come along and say to them, we'll take your on-the-shelf lab project and run with it, in exchange for you providing us some technology and knowledge transfer, I think they'll go for it. Not much to lose on their part. That's synergy to me, in terms of design capability and corporate win-win.

Leapfrogging

3 and 4. One of the primary reasons for partnering with a larger, foreign auto-maker is the access to technology and manufacturing know-how that they provide. That much is obvious. On these 2 points, I can't comment that Ford is a better partner that GM or Volkswagen, but I will say this: you need something to trade with, something that will make it worth their while to talk to you. And the Tandem, overlooked and under-estimated, is precisely that bargaining chip, a chip which also happens to serve Proton's national aspirations.

There's a unwritten rule in setting targets, for sales, for learning, or for anything - aim for something beyond what you actually want to achieve. Meaning to say, in order to catch up, you need to leapfrog. You can't just try to catch up, otherwise you'll never do so - you'll always be introducing a new feature 2 years after someone else has already done the same.

The Tandem represents an automotive challenge which if surmounted would elevate its manufacturer a step beyond its contemporaries, something others would have to catch up to. Such opportunities come rarely in business. Attempting to solve the real-world problems of implementing the Tandem - in a package that is safe, easy, and economical to own - would accelerate capabilities in automobile manufacturing far beyond than simple catching up, because the company would be solving problems no one is attempting to do so at the present time.

Betting the farm

You'll find examples of this sort of leap forward in history - the steamship. The 1st automobile. The 1st jet airline. The Boeing 747. The Tandem is a much more prosaic example, but its still different enough from current cars to warrant comparisons to those great icons of manufacturing. Such iconic products represent a great throw of the dice by the companies involved, an almost all-or-nothing, bet-the-farm strategy which vaulted them beyond what others were at the time.

Such boldness was what Dr. M had in mind, I think, when he started this project. If you ask me, there were lots of bumps along the way, and a lot of Malaysians have paid for Proton's foibles for the past 20 years. However, if we still want to do it, I think this is the plan that the vision would need to be attached to, and the only decent way that Proton can go beyond its current dead-end trajectory.

Told you it wouldn't be pretty.

Personal Rapid Transit

In a recent Technology Quarterly from "The Economist", a report was made on Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems. Unlike Mass Rapid Transit systems, these would be small, 1-4 person transport pods, travelling on fixed rails, but with lower running costs, more accessible stations and overall faster transit times.

Cute. But if you're talking about overhauling transportation, reducing wait times and congestion, I prefer another solution.



This is the Volvo Tandem, a concept car being developed by the Volvo Monitoring and Concept Centre (VMCC), Volvo's design studio in Southern California. This is the 1-seater version; here's a 2-seater:

The basic idea behind this car? The driver sits in a narrow, bobsled-like vehicle while the passenger (in the 2-seater version) sits in-line behind the driver (just like a bobsled). That's essentially it.

Small Idea, Big Impact

I had an epiphany once, while sitting in one of KL's interminable gridlocks. I was looking around at the cars around me on the 3-lane highway I was on. Most had only single occupants, like me. Everyone was bored and frustrated. Some were picking their noses.

In terms of square feet of road and lane space, the average 3-car-abreast space on the road held a grand total of.... 3 people. I looked at the empty seat next to me. I thought, wouldn't it be great if we had smaller cars, that could fit just one person, so you could squeeze 6 cars in 3 lanes instead? Just chop my Proton Waja in half and presto, you're done.

As if to complete the epiphany, a fleet of motorcycles then chose this time to whiz past, in the small crevice between my car and the car next to me.

(One week later, I saw the Volvo Tandem cars you see above in a weekly paper. Oh well.)

Just imagine: the amount of road space already built in your city would double. Instantly. No need to build any thing at all. Just imagine the city you're living in, effectively doubles the size of its roads overnight, with no loss of living space. Would that traffic jam you're sitting in still be there? I'd bet not.

Just as long as some teensy-weensy problems are overcome.

Costs and Benefits.

The idea is sound, if we can get past the following problems:

1. Safety. For instance, distance between the head of the driver/passenger and either side of the vehicle (Volvo says the Tandem provides more clearance than even some vehicles today). Also, side impact and collision protection. These would all need to be enhanced in a slimmer vehicle like this.

2. Real-world problems. Can we truly achieve a vehicle with half the width of conventional cars? Can it steer? Do we need to re-sit driving lessons? How does the possible need to change 6 lanes before turning off alter driving behaviour? (quick answer: none at all. Go visit L.A., check out the 101 or 405 freeways near Downtown or Hollywood)

3. Secondary vehicle. Even Volvo doesn't say that this will replace all cars. Just that we will use such vehicles for commuting, and perhaps keep another, larger one, for holidays, camping, bringing the family out to eat etc. That means you, Mr. and Ms. Consumer, will still need that SUV, and hence you may not want to expend the cash buying what essentially is a commuting vehicle.

4. Cost. So, could a car like the above be built economically for the masses, at the same cost levels as today's Kenaris, Kancils and Kelisas? I think so.

5. Lanes, ramps and turn-offs. That's a serious amount of additional road painting that would need to be done, y'all.

However, getting past those little niggling problems above could yield huge, huge benefits:

1. Savings in public transport infrastructure. Bus lanes. MRT. Car pool lanes. LRT. PRT. All these things cost money and eat into public funds. Even in vaunted Singapore, which has most of the above, congestion is creeping up. Then think about other urban metropoles that don't have Singapore's public infrastructure. KL, Bangkok, Jakarta and Manila? This is a way to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure without governments needing to spend a dime. We're talking savings of billions and billions of dollars.

2. Middle-class aspirations. It doesn't matter how much infrastructure is built. At the end of the day, governments in this region are committed to the growth and creation of a large middle-class, and one of the pillars of middle-classhood is car ownership, especially in sprawling cities where public transport is hampered by distance and suburban fragmentation. That means governments are fighting a losing battle on this if they want to encourage public transporation past a certain point.

3. More market friendly. Adopting this vehicle would be less dramatic than governments think. All existing market-oriented transport policies - congestion pricing, road tax, parking fees, tolls, COEs - can be easily amended to adapt to this new vehicle. In fact, they could be adapted precisely to encourage using this vehicle. Wanna pay half your season parking fee every month? Wanna pay half your road tax every year? Wannna pay half the COE you would normally pay for a new car? Half the toll? OK, OK, I exaggerate, maybe it won't be half, but it will definitely be less.

4. Green. Smaller cars, smaller mass, smaller loads... less carbon emissions, less oil, less everything. Its good for the planet.

One last thing to note: Volvo says that in their study, 90% of all commuting vehicles in today's roads are have only 1 person, the driver. 77% of ALL car trips (whether commuting or not) only have 1 or 2 people.

So, to recap, that's why I prefer this car over some PRT system bubble-pod which will cost more money, won't be as convenient, and still won't help me lugging my groceries home.

For more on the Volvo Tandem concept car: Motortrend review, Car Design Online

Finally, a Malaysian rapper worth a damn.

Ok, I didn't want to write about this but I couldn't resist. It was stimulated by this video.



(youtube text link)

So, I guess there'll be some out there who don't understand the 5 languages he's using so here's a rough translation. Bear in mind the 2 key things lost in translation - the puns and the rhymes - which made this rap pretty funny.

*Warning. You are reading at the risk of being offended. We are talking racial slurs here. Do NOT listen or read if you are racially sensitive. I believe this guys' heart is in the right place and he isn't malicious, so please don't "Ops Lalang" me or him. OK? He's from Muar. He knows what its like to live in different worlds, at the same time. He's a rapper. You know, like controversial? Saying things everybody feels but nobody wants to say?


MANDARIN:
Let me first say
I wrote this song
If you wanna hear it, don't be pissed off.

HAINANESE:
I'm a Hainanese kid
I speak 6 languages
You think Hainanese people
Only know how to cook chicken rice?
Drink one glass of Hainanese coffee
And even I will know how to sing

Now this song,
I am singing for all My Friends...
This song,
I am singing for all My Friends...
(whispering)
This song,
I am singing for all My Friends...

CANTONESE:
To my KL friends
Don't be too stuck up
The words I am saying here
Are all from the heart

The fact that I learn Cantonese
Doesn't mean I've surrendered
It's only for the sake of telling you
That I'm not retarded.

The Malaysian Chinese
Are mostly Hokkien buddies
But the funny thing is
Everything here is spoken in Cantonese!

I don't really give a shit
About this strange phenomenon
But on the radio and the TV
Why is Chinese not spoken?

There are many types of Chinese people
This ain't Hong Kong
Why is everything in 'Canton'?
You guys don't respect

But I'll slowly learn it all
This is called manners
And I'll slowly get used to it
'Cos I know what I'm doing.

Hey, if you really can't listen to this any more
I don't mind
Let me gift you some Teochew words instead...

TEOCHEW:
&%#^ your mom!

(chorus)

Na na na na
NA
Na na na na na

Na na na na
NA
Na na na na naaa...

(rpt chorus)


MANDARIN:
Singapore
Got independent in 1965
But after independence
A lot of shit happened

We speak the same
And we curse the same
But when the government gives an order
You don't dare do shit!

Actually I only have
One impression of Singapore
Because the buildings you build
ALL LOOK THE SAME

This kind of social order
Is basically Commmunism!
Lee Kwan Yew and Mao Tse-Tung
are basically Buddies!

Marxism is actually
Sitting heavily on you
Developing the country
Is better than developing your independent thought.

You're too scared of dying
You're too scared of losing
And the government paves a way
For your kids from young to old
Come over to Malaysia to play
And you think this place is backward
(Aiya even if we live in trees
we still take elevators to go up them - aii?)

You always take the big roads
Never dare to take the small roads
Should you dare to chew one stick of gum
You'll still spit it out here!

Little brother!
I suspect you don't actually even know how to cross a road
There may not be many zebra crossings here
But we know how to SURVIVE

rpt chorus

(Ok ah? Now the Malays' turn ah?)

MALAY:
"Talk some more lah!
You Chinese can go back to China!"
But if we all go back
This won't be Malaysia!
And I'm worried about where you're all gonna find work!

(But normally...
Malays don't like to work anyway... )

You all can go back to the jungle
Live like villagers
But if you want to play a guitar
There'll be no shops open for you
Want to become street racers?
There'll be no motorbikes for you
You'll have one less holiday
Because you won't have Chinese New Year

Don't cause a riot
Little boys open your minds
This country does not only have one race

"Chinese Pig!"

Don't say any more lah
(But to tell you the truth
Bak Kut Teh really does taste nice)

I know I speak Malay like shit
But what I say, I say with real feeling
We're already 50 years old
Everyday you're still sleeping
Look towards the future
See? It's 2020!

rpt chorus

ENGLISH:

We are friends
But we're making mistakes
Cause of (sic) I don't understand you
you don't understand me
We are friends
but we're making mistakes
If we solve the problems
Everything will be free

(machine gun fire)

End.

Highway Lane Markings in KL

(L.) OK, so I can't draw worth a damn, but I think you get the idea. These be lane markings.

Jeez, bringing this up actually makes me embarassed. For everyone, myself included. Sigh. *soldiering on*

So, as you can see, this is a typical road layout with lane markings for a left fork off a major road/highway in K.L. Examples of these? Well, a notorious example, is the branch left off the Federal Highway towards Cheras, in front of Mid Valley Megamall. Next picture.


(R.) So this is what happens every evening, when the traffic builds up along the Federal Highway. The arrows show typical car movement.


Notice the little starburst? That's cars in lane 3 cutting into lane 4 in order to make the turn off to Cheras. Which forces cars in lane 4 to cut left again into a newly created lane 5.

You might think nothing is wrong, but this irks me.

First of all, its become an unwritten rule of the road that this is tolerated. Lane cutting is tolerated; in fact, the lane markings practically encourage it.

While in a traffic jam, this is paradoxically safer, as most cars are travelling at a slow pace. However, when traffic lifts, cars proceeding along the way in lane 4, unaware of this rule, fall prey to the cars cutting in from lane 3 who are aware of this "unwritten rule", which often leads to sudden braking, swerves and accidents.

You know, I come from a school of thought that says: rules regulate behaviour, but good rules make regulated behaviour easier to achieve. These are the lane markings that should be used:




As you can see, with the lane markings so repainted, there is no more cutting. All you need additionally is a road divider, with a "fork" sign. Maybe a safety barrier for idiot speeders.

You know, people would learn to follow rules more, if the rules made sense and were there to save lives. We would have less stress. Less road rage. Less accidents and death. Not to mention that such lane markings are done very sensibly in other parts of the world, which was why I was embarassed to start with.

Poor roads make poor drivers. Its a small step, but I hope this can be fixed. Here's a list of forks with these offending lane markings.

1. Aforementioned Federal Highway towards KL, fork left towards Cheras.
2. Sprint Highway Kerinchi Link towards Federal Highway, fork left towards KL - one of the most deadly roads in the Klang Valley.
3. NPE towards Bangsar, fork left towards Subang.