The global economy is waiting on China to become the consumer force to save the global economy. However based on the girl/boy ratio outlined below this may not take place. A family in China plays a pivotal role in the positioning of their adolescent boy during their quest of marriage. Yes this is true. A family of a boy will start saving money for their boy's house, cars, and overall wealth so they are competitive in their search for a bride. Due to need of saving money they may not be the answer the global economy is looking for.
You can find the story below at the Scientific.
It's one thing to wish for a boy or a girl when pregnant; but it's something else entirely to take steps to guarantee your wish comes true. Enter China and India, where the ratio of boys to girls is so lopsided that economists project there may be as many as 30 to 40 million more men than women of marriageable age in both countries by 2020. The question is: Why? It's more than just the historic birth ratio of 105 boys for every 100 girls. Both abortion and infanticide, largely triggered by a long-time limit of one child per family in China, each played a role. The skewed populations have prompted Chinese men, left with a limited pool of potential brides at home, to seek wives in other regions of their own countries as well as those abroad. But a dearth of mates isn't the only concern for population giants China and India, which together account for 2.4 billion of the 6.7 billion people on Earth. There are 119 boys born for every 100 girls in China today, compared with 108.5 boys per 100 girls during the 1980s. Recent national data is less comprehensive for India, but census records show 115 boys born for every 100 girls in 2003. That represents a major leap from 104 boys per 100 girls in 1981. By comparison, the U.S. is closer to average: 105 boys for every 100 girls this year.The growing imbalance slows in older age because women tend to outlive men, with the ratio in both countries falling to about 106 men per 100 women after age 60. But such figures are cold comfort for younger men who lack marriage prospects in their age groups. China's lopsided population woes began in the early 1980s when its government began enforcing a one child per couple rule. The cap was first adopted in 1979 as part of a series of ongoing measures to curb population growth to help the government manage the country's still-limited resources. The move correlated with an attempt by Chinese authorities to improve healthcare that included taking portable ultrasound machines to the most isolated rural villages, which gave women advanced knowledge of the sex of her fetus. The Chinese have traditionally preferred sons because of their potential to financially support their parents, carry on the family name, and lead ancestor worship, population experts say, and this holds particularly true for rural areas where sons provide much-needed labor. This cultural preference has led many women under the one-child rule to seek abortions, which are legal in China, if they discovered a fetus was a budding girl. The advent of abortion technology has largely replaced the practice of abandoning baby girls, which was more widespread when the one-child rule was first adopted. Local officials now have flexibility to enforce the policy as they see fit. Rural Chinese are typically allowed to have two children instead of just one; in fact, only roughly 36 percent of the population, primarily in cities, is subject to the rule, according to the National Population and Family Planning Commission. In recent years, these urban Chinese also flout the rules and have more than one child, typically losing societal benefits and paying a fine based on how much the couple earns. The existence of families with more than one child has allowed researchers to track the practice of sex selection before birth, particularly since hard data on abortion and infanticide is scarce. Health policy expert Avraham Ebenstein of Harvard University examined China's 2000 census data and found that the sex ratio of first births for couples was close to the natural sex ratio, but it became increasingly skewed following the birth of one or more daughters. That suggests parents value firstborns regardless of sex, but practice sexual selection for later children if they do not yet have a boy. "The steep rise in sex selection rate between first and second births is responsible for 70 percent of missing girls," Ebenstein says.There is not a one-child policy in India, but parents there apparently make similar decisions driven by cultural views of daughters as financial burdens—largely because of the dowries required before marriage. The sex ratio for second and third Indian births became increasingly slanted if the firstborn was a girl, but was roughly 50–50 if the first birth was a boy, according to a 2006 Lancet article. The situation led Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to denounce the half-million annual abortions of Indian female fetuses as "a national shame" earlier this year. Killing or abandoning infants has historically existed in India and may also play a role.Chinese, Korean, and Indian parents in the U.S. with children born in this country show a similar cultural bias according to a recent study in Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. This was particularly apparent in the 2000 U.S. census of the third of three children: boys outnumbered girls by 50 percent if there was no previous son.Modernization typically leads to a drop-off in the number of children per family, but the preference for sons does not fall as quickly, Ebenstein says. That was evident in modernizing Asian countries such as South Korea and Taiwan, which both saw skewing in the ratio of girl and boy births during the 1980s.Those countries have recently seen a shift back toward a balanced sex ratio, which spells hope for China and India further down the road. For instance, South Korea had a birth sex ratio of just 107.4 boys for every 100 girls in 2006, compared with 116.5 boys for every 100 girls in 1990. The reverse trend draws power from the strengthening social and economic status of women, as well as the parental desire to have a nuclear family consisting of one boy and one girl.Baby boy bias is not as widespread in countries outside Asia—at least not enough to prompt parents to attempt to control the sex of their newborns. Studies show the birth sex ratio of males to females fell in North America and Europe during the latter half of the 20th century, although it was not significantly skewed to begin with. South American countries do not have widespread prenatal sex selection because of Catholic beliefs, according to political scientist Valerie Hudson of Brigham Young University, and Africans cherish the earning capacity of daughters. Only some other Central and East Asian countries such as Vietnam now see birth sex ratios near that of China or India.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Greenspan's changes his mind mid stream......
The former Fed chief's plug for nationalizing banks is vertigo-inducing. It's also a conflict of interest—and a sign of just how far he has fallen. There is something sad about watching former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan lose most of the intellectual underpinnings of his life. A few months ago he famously conceded that there was a "flaw" in the economic model with which he thinks about the world, and that he was "distressed" by that realization. (Of course, his flaw ended up costing the economy trillions of dollars, so merely being distressed seems a bit mild.)
Now Greenspan tells us that temporarily nationalizing broke US banks might be OK. If that doesn't stop you in your tracks, it should. The man often called the high priest of laissez-faire capitalism is saying that he can imagine briefly taking some of the most troubled US banks into state ownership because that is better than the alternative of letting the market sort it out. That is vertigo-inducing indeed, like Lenin doing an about-face on the whole capitalism thing. It is, quite rightly, getting a lot of attention. After all, if Greenspan thinks there are problems with laissez-faire capitalism, and with market-based solutions to banking problems, what is he likely to say next? That marginal revenue doesn't equal marginal cost for profit maximization? The economic mind boggles at the idea.
People forget all too readily, but Greenspan is a consultant to Pimco, the largest bond manager in this quadrant of the galaxy and its strategy is to chase government protection.
Marginally more seriously, it is worth asking why Greenspan is saying these things now, and whether there is any better chance he is right now than he was before (and before (and before)). First question first, he is saying these things now, I think, for a couple of reasons, one obvious, another less so. The obvious reason is that saying anything else would be dumb. We have poured centi-billions down the bilious black hole that is the US banking system, and, while a complete crack-up has been arrested, there seems little prospect that billions of dollars more won't be required with any more assurance of success. After all, the fundamental problem remains: Banks own assets that are worth next to nothing, and they are carrying those assets at prices nowhere near nothing. If they marked those assets to their real values, the banks would have to stop pretending they are solvent. It's much more fun to hoard government cash and pretend that things that are worth $0.05 are worth $0.75.
Greenspan knows that. And he also knows nothing will change until banks are forced to reprice assets that currently trade on a cycle with the arrival of the Pleiades. What's more, he is finally conceding that won't happen if the banks are left to their own devices. In the interim we will have what are not-so-fondly called "zombie banks" roaming the financial landscape. Granted, it is a myth that we need banks lending so we can have more debt to get us out of debt—that bit of circularity escapes too many people—but we do need banks all the same. Having the current crop playing mirror-world Price Is Right games with their assets while they wait out the current recession/depression isn't helpful.
But there is more to it than that. I don't think Greenspan is just burnishing his reputation or rethinking his intellectual underpinnings. He is also looking to his own interests. People forget all too readily, but Greenspan is a consultant to Pimco, the largest bond manager in this quadrant of the galaxy. And Pimco has made it clear that its strategy is to go wherever government protection goes—the company's Bill Gross says they want to "stay under the umbrella" of government-protected banks. As a holder of senior bank bonds, Pimco would likely be safe in any nationalization, while most of the rest of the shareholders, both common and preferred, would be wiped out. So, in calling for nationalization of banks, or at least saying it would be OK, in some sense Greenspan is talking the book of a very large bank bondholder.
So, should we ignore Greenspan altogether? Feel free, but don't come to the wrong conclusion. Ignore him because he presided over the creation of the current financial crisis. Or ignore him because he is late coming to an obvious conclusion. Or ignore him because he has a conflict of interest that people reporting his comments generally don't disclose. But for once, Alan Greenspan is right. Temporarily nationalizing insolvent banks is a good idea, and we shouldn't dismiss it just because a discredited and conflicted former Federal Research chair is saying so.
I took this story from the Daily Beast at http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-02-18/greenspans-hidden-agenda/
Now Greenspan tells us that temporarily nationalizing broke US banks might be OK. If that doesn't stop you in your tracks, it should. The man often called the high priest of laissez-faire capitalism is saying that he can imagine briefly taking some of the most troubled US banks into state ownership because that is better than the alternative of letting the market sort it out. That is vertigo-inducing indeed, like Lenin doing an about-face on the whole capitalism thing. It is, quite rightly, getting a lot of attention. After all, if Greenspan thinks there are problems with laissez-faire capitalism, and with market-based solutions to banking problems, what is he likely to say next? That marginal revenue doesn't equal marginal cost for profit maximization? The economic mind boggles at the idea.
People forget all too readily, but Greenspan is a consultant to Pimco, the largest bond manager in this quadrant of the galaxy and its strategy is to chase government protection.
Marginally more seriously, it is worth asking why Greenspan is saying these things now, and whether there is any better chance he is right now than he was before (and before (and before)). First question first, he is saying these things now, I think, for a couple of reasons, one obvious, another less so. The obvious reason is that saying anything else would be dumb. We have poured centi-billions down the bilious black hole that is the US banking system, and, while a complete crack-up has been arrested, there seems little prospect that billions of dollars more won't be required with any more assurance of success. After all, the fundamental problem remains: Banks own assets that are worth next to nothing, and they are carrying those assets at prices nowhere near nothing. If they marked those assets to their real values, the banks would have to stop pretending they are solvent. It's much more fun to hoard government cash and pretend that things that are worth $0.05 are worth $0.75.
Greenspan knows that. And he also knows nothing will change until banks are forced to reprice assets that currently trade on a cycle with the arrival of the Pleiades. What's more, he is finally conceding that won't happen if the banks are left to their own devices. In the interim we will have what are not-so-fondly called "zombie banks" roaming the financial landscape. Granted, it is a myth that we need banks lending so we can have more debt to get us out of debt—that bit of circularity escapes too many people—but we do need banks all the same. Having the current crop playing mirror-world Price Is Right games with their assets while they wait out the current recession/depression isn't helpful.
But there is more to it than that. I don't think Greenspan is just burnishing his reputation or rethinking his intellectual underpinnings. He is also looking to his own interests. People forget all too readily, but Greenspan is a consultant to Pimco, the largest bond manager in this quadrant of the galaxy. And Pimco has made it clear that its strategy is to go wherever government protection goes—the company's Bill Gross says they want to "stay under the umbrella" of government-protected banks. As a holder of senior bank bonds, Pimco would likely be safe in any nationalization, while most of the rest of the shareholders, both common and preferred, would be wiped out. So, in calling for nationalization of banks, or at least saying it would be OK, in some sense Greenspan is talking the book of a very large bank bondholder.
So, should we ignore Greenspan altogether? Feel free, but don't come to the wrong conclusion. Ignore him because he presided over the creation of the current financial crisis. Or ignore him because he is late coming to an obvious conclusion. Or ignore him because he has a conflict of interest that people reporting his comments generally don't disclose. But for once, Alan Greenspan is right. Temporarily nationalizing insolvent banks is a good idea, and we shouldn't dismiss it just because a discredited and conflicted former Federal Research chair is saying so.
I took this story from the Daily Beast at http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-02-18/greenspans-hidden-agenda/
Sunday, February 1, 2009
1 Year To Live
Yesterday I was on the phone with a friend I have had for the past seven years. He is an older gentleman, which was summoned by his Doctor for an appointment. They told him they had a few tests they wanted to run regarding his heart condition. My friend has a condition where his heart has spasms, which are very painful. When this condition first started five years ago, it took many doctors at many different hospitals to figure out exactly what was happening. When he was first diagnosed, they shared that the condition was not life threatening. They had a few life changes they wanted him to implement and that is all they communicated. Basic things like improving your diet, quit smoking, exercising, etc. Really they wanted him to make a life style change, which we all do time to time. Long story short he failed to make many of the suggested changes and co-existed with his condition with the help of medication.
When my friend arrived at the Doctor’s office they did a blood test and told him that the Doctor would be with him shortly. As the Doctor entered the room he got down to business and shared that my friend has a year to three years to live. Of course he must stop smoking to reach the three-year life expectancy milestone. They shared that every time he had a heart spasm it basically ate away the walls of his heart. Currently the walls of his heart are very thin and the spasms will turn into a heart attack, it is basically a matter of time. With the heart being so fragile it very well could explode once a heart attack starts for lack of a better term that the laymen man or woman could understand.
My friend asked the questions you would expect. Of course the first question was are you sure? If I make the needed changes in my life could we sidestep this from happening all together? Can the walls of my heart recover? Is there a surgery available to fix the situation? All the while he kept waiting for the doctor to make a suggestion where the diagnoses could be avoided. Instead the Doctor made him fill out a living will right then and there in the Doctors office. This Will has nothing to do with his earthly possessions; this living will covers his treatment options like when they should try to save his life and when they should let him die. Options like living on life support and decisions regarding resuscitation. This is when the reality and the levity of the situation became evident.
When he broke the news on the phone yesterday it was one of my worst thoughts coming to fruition. I knew his lifestyle coupled with his age made him a perfect candidate for heart failure. I am sure he heard the concern in my voice however I was looking for a positive while digging in a preverbal pile of shit. The one positive is he does have time to get his affairs in order. Within days of the news he did start liquidating his life. The Corvette was up for sale, he sold his truck to his oldest son, and he had a lead on someone purchasing his Harley etc. I asked if he had life insurance and he confirmed however the amount I do not know. The conversation was awkward and rightfully stressed. I told him that I loved him and that I would be coming over to visit after my business trip which ends this coming Friday.
I do have one frustration I will share. Is the following my selfishness? I am not sure. During our call I asked if he was going to stop smoking so he could live as long as possible. He danced around the question. He said he did cut down to a half pack from two packs a day. He said he wanted to enjoy the time he had left. He did not want to live the remainder of his days trying to kick a habit. The time he had left is a range of one year to three years. It seems he is happy with living one more year. Or at least it seems he has accepted this timetable. However he very well could be in shock and could snap out of this malaise. I would be in shock and he is handling this news very well. I was impressed with his calmness in communicating the news. On the phone it became obvious he was worried about how I was receiving the news. While staring into the face of death he still had other peoples feelings in mind. He is a great friend and a friend I do not want to lose.
The problem I see is the state of his affairs; he has a ten-year-old son and a wife that is 31. His wife stays at home and takes care of their house and son. She does not have an education or skills that can create revenue for the household. To be direct she is intimidated of the thought of working, communicating on a professional level is challenging. They have a large amount of equity in a home that is in the most desirable area of town. He owns his own company and has made a good living. However he does not have large amounts of money stashed away, especially with the current stock market. I know from other conversations his 401K lost about 30% of its value during the past 8 months. I know he made changes to stop the financial bleeding, like all of us his savings have been damaged. If he would make the life changes needed to live three years he could give his wife much more of a running start in establishing a life without her husband. She could obtain the skills needed to be a success in the workforce etc. They could work together on creating a plan, which should be put into action now not later.
This is my frustration. Should I have this conversation with him? I am traveling all of next week. Hopefully this is enough time for him to snap out of the shock he is rightfully in. He should be in shock and depressed however you do not die of depression and shock. You die because of the choices you make while you are depressed. In my friend’s case if he decides to smoke, he will die sooner than later. The subject of people dying has become a discussion point that has reared its ugly head too much in the past 60 days. I am tired of people not appreciating the life they have. I know I will talk to my friend and I will drive home how it is his responsibility to live as long a he can. Not for me, not for him, but for his son and wife.
When my friend arrived at the Doctor’s office they did a blood test and told him that the Doctor would be with him shortly. As the Doctor entered the room he got down to business and shared that my friend has a year to three years to live. Of course he must stop smoking to reach the three-year life expectancy milestone. They shared that every time he had a heart spasm it basically ate away the walls of his heart. Currently the walls of his heart are very thin and the spasms will turn into a heart attack, it is basically a matter of time. With the heart being so fragile it very well could explode once a heart attack starts for lack of a better term that the laymen man or woman could understand.
My friend asked the questions you would expect. Of course the first question was are you sure? If I make the needed changes in my life could we sidestep this from happening all together? Can the walls of my heart recover? Is there a surgery available to fix the situation? All the while he kept waiting for the doctor to make a suggestion where the diagnoses could be avoided. Instead the Doctor made him fill out a living will right then and there in the Doctors office. This Will has nothing to do with his earthly possessions; this living will covers his treatment options like when they should try to save his life and when they should let him die. Options like living on life support and decisions regarding resuscitation. This is when the reality and the levity of the situation became evident.
When he broke the news on the phone yesterday it was one of my worst thoughts coming to fruition. I knew his lifestyle coupled with his age made him a perfect candidate for heart failure. I am sure he heard the concern in my voice however I was looking for a positive while digging in a preverbal pile of shit. The one positive is he does have time to get his affairs in order. Within days of the news he did start liquidating his life. The Corvette was up for sale, he sold his truck to his oldest son, and he had a lead on someone purchasing his Harley etc. I asked if he had life insurance and he confirmed however the amount I do not know. The conversation was awkward and rightfully stressed. I told him that I loved him and that I would be coming over to visit after my business trip which ends this coming Friday.
I do have one frustration I will share. Is the following my selfishness? I am not sure. During our call I asked if he was going to stop smoking so he could live as long as possible. He danced around the question. He said he did cut down to a half pack from two packs a day. He said he wanted to enjoy the time he had left. He did not want to live the remainder of his days trying to kick a habit. The time he had left is a range of one year to three years. It seems he is happy with living one more year. Or at least it seems he has accepted this timetable. However he very well could be in shock and could snap out of this malaise. I would be in shock and he is handling this news very well. I was impressed with his calmness in communicating the news. On the phone it became obvious he was worried about how I was receiving the news. While staring into the face of death he still had other peoples feelings in mind. He is a great friend and a friend I do not want to lose.
The problem I see is the state of his affairs; he has a ten-year-old son and a wife that is 31. His wife stays at home and takes care of their house and son. She does not have an education or skills that can create revenue for the household. To be direct she is intimidated of the thought of working, communicating on a professional level is challenging. They have a large amount of equity in a home that is in the most desirable area of town. He owns his own company and has made a good living. However he does not have large amounts of money stashed away, especially with the current stock market. I know from other conversations his 401K lost about 30% of its value during the past 8 months. I know he made changes to stop the financial bleeding, like all of us his savings have been damaged. If he would make the life changes needed to live three years he could give his wife much more of a running start in establishing a life without her husband. She could obtain the skills needed to be a success in the workforce etc. They could work together on creating a plan, which should be put into action now not later.
This is my frustration. Should I have this conversation with him? I am traveling all of next week. Hopefully this is enough time for him to snap out of the shock he is rightfully in. He should be in shock and depressed however you do not die of depression and shock. You die because of the choices you make while you are depressed. In my friend’s case if he decides to smoke, he will die sooner than later. The subject of people dying has become a discussion point that has reared its ugly head too much in the past 60 days. I am tired of people not appreciating the life they have. I know I will talk to my friend and I will drive home how it is his responsibility to live as long a he can. Not for me, not for him, but for his son and wife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
