Indy Telecom & Industrial Media

ABC News has a rather interesting study on the impact of race on politics, particularly given the candidacy of Barack Obama.

One of the interesting measures is “racial sensitivity” of white voters between Obama and McCain.

A similar graph amongst Blacks would have been useful; however, blacks have traditionally been a pro-democratic group, with 90% supporting Obama. What’s more interesting is that this has little to do with a black candidate – John Kerry had 88% black support in 2004, and 90% voted for Al Gore in 2000.

Similarly, the racial impact graph shows how blacks and whites perceive Obama’s candidacy’s impact on race relations.

I am also curious to see correlations between this, and traditional right-wing/conservative voters, and see how that scores. This would be unique because according to the study, Obama’s standing amongst whites is about the same as any Democratic candidate, but with a much wider range than usual.

Either way, interesting nuances to watch out for.

The Economist has an excellent article on inflation in emerging economies, and how they may be making the same mistakes that developed economies once did.

For instance, the graph below shows the CPI comparison between today and a year ago, and the difference is simply staggering. This is made made worse by the fact that food is one of the biggest component of the consumer price buckets.

Also interesting is the comparison of GDP vs. interest rates, and the currency supply between developed and emerging economies.

An interesting take away could be that the increasing price of exports from emerging nations could be because of a weakened Dollar, rather than faster inflation. But as someone who has relatives in Asia (who complain a lot about the price increases), I’d like to point out that the current rate of inflation increase in emerging economies (at least in Asia) is among the fastest, historically speaking.

Either way, increased inflation in the developed economies translates to less discretionary spending. Increased inflation in emerging economies usually translates into less food on the table, which is something to think about.

The New York Times has an excellent article that questions (and speculates) on the Supreme Court time and again rebuking the Executive branch , something that’s quite rare.

While traditionally wartime Presidents have had broad and sweeping powers, the Judiciary has ruled against this specific Executive on four separate occasions during the past four years -

• Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: The court upheld that US citizens detained as enemy combatants must get a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge their detention.
• Rasul v. Bush: The court established that Guantánamo Bay was still within US territory, and therefore subject to US laws (and consequently, the constitution).
• Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: The court established that the military court established by the Executive cannot proceed because they violate military laws and the Geneva Convention.
• Boumediene v. Bush: The court established that terror suspects in Guantánamo Bay have the right to seek a writ of Habeas Corpus in a US Federal Court.

It is almost interesting to note the consistency (and reluctance) with which the Judiciary has lately stood up against the Executive, especially surprising given a wartime circumstance (of course, whether or not we are in wartime is a topic for yet another discussion).

Either way, I’m reminded of a fascinating Chinese curse. Interesting times, indeed.

Here are some links for this week –

• Analysts Lose 17% for Investors in Brokerage Picks — Twice the decline of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.
• Warren Buffet’s bet against hedge funds — I agree with a lot of what Mr. Buffet has to say; this is just not one of them.

Excellent essay by Paul Graham on great cities attracting great people.

Who needs plaster when you have Legos?

Be afraid, folks. Be very, very afraid.

The Times (UK) has an article on Nassim Taleb, and while it talks about his work, the more interesting bits have nothing to do with Taleb’s work.

What I find particularly interesting (and in some ways, rather profound) is Taleb’s philosophy on life, which he sums up at the very end.

Taleb’s top life tips

1. Scepticism is effortful and costly. It is better to be sceptical about matters of large consequences, and be imperfect, foolish and human in the small and the aesthetic.
2. Go to parties. You can’t even start to know what you may find on the envelope of serendipity. If you suffer from agoraphobia, send colleagues.
3. It’s not a good idea to take a forecast from someone wearing a tie. If possible, tease people who take themselves and their knowledge too seriously.
4. Wear your best for your execution and stand dignified. Your last recourse against randomness is how you act — if you can’t control outcomes, you can control the elegance of your behaviour. You will always have the last word.
5. Don’t disturb complicated systems that have been around for a very long time. We don’t understand their logic. Don’t pollute the planet. Leave it the way we found it, regardless of scientific ‘evidence’.
6. Learn to fail with pride — and do so fast and cleanly. Maximise trial and error — by mastering the error part.
7. Avoid losers. If you hear someone use the words ‘impossible’, ‘never’, ‘too difficult’ too often, drop him or her from your social network. Never take ‘no’ for an answer (conversely, take most ‘yeses’ as ‘most probably’).
8. Don’t read newspapers for the news (just for the gossip and, of course, profiles of authors). The best filter to know if the news matters is if you hear it in cafes, restaurants… or (again) parties.
9. Hard work will get you a professorship or a BMW. You need both work and luck for a Booker, a Nobel or a private jet.
10. Answer e-mails from junior people before more senior ones. Junior people have further to go and tend to remember who slighted them.

Something to think about.

I’ve been saying this for a while, but the WSJ has an article wondering if oil would the next bubble to pop.

In fact, to anyone who’s been following trends, it is quite obvious that oil has been fast approaching the “bubbly” state. People far wiser than I have said so, as well.

From the WSJ article -

Lehman Brothers on Friday compared the rally to the one-upmanship of the dot-com boom: Wall Street analysts have repeatedly raised their price forecasts as oil prices have soared, driving new investor flows that have pushed prices to still-higher levels, leading to still-higher price forecasts. Lehman sees the “classic ingredients of an asset bubble,” with financial investors driven by a “herd” instinct and chasing past performance.

Of course, the key difference between oil and the tech or housing bubbles is that oil is strongly based on fundamentals, while the latter is heavily based on pure speculation. However, that has been slowly changing, because there is no way that oil could have hit $130 purely on the basis of weak fundamentals.

Secondly, general market sentiments over higher oil prices are driving down demand, and a strengthening US Dollar (all hail Uncle Benny!) seems to be pushing the prices down.

The other thing to keep in mind is that while the US economy is doing badly, European economies aren’t much better. China has also been badly battered by the new earthquake, and the increasing oil prices and food shortage is having its say on India and the rest of Asia (this includes SEA and SA).

Also, while the oil bubble may have been triggered by weak fundamentals, it is increasingly being driven by speculation. If this is not the sign of a bubble, I do not know what is.