Intermezzo Entry:

Today was a good day, because I spent most of it in conversation. About lots of things, with colleagues. One thing I love about my current job, unashamedly; the people I'm around like to talk as well. About all manner of topics. Yesterday we were actually discussing the psychology of Hitler (because I caught the clerk reading Mein Kampf); today it was random disjoint convo about A Brief History of Time, and seguing into some enthusiastic ranting about Gregorian cantos and Basel II regulations. Talk. Talking, chitter, rant, gripe, bitch. It's the shit I *live* for.

Among the topics of discussion was on the moral ethos of success; one of my colleagues has this game-theory inspired idea that people are basically evil. His assertion is thus - if everyone worked together, and obeyed a rational moral code, the world and everyone in it would be much better off. MUCH. (Think Kantian categorical imperative) But, if only a *few* people did all the fucked up, manipulative, and evil things that humans do, at the expense of everyone else, those *few* would benefit greatly while the rest suffered terribly.

If humans were basically good, we'd have worked together to overcome these difficulties for the greater good of all. Our capacity to cooperate for the greater good is evident - witness the formation of governments, religions, institutions, societies.

But because humans are basically evil, everyone tries to get ahead at the expense of everyone else. Massive log-jam. Think Prisoners' Dilemma, or the brief depiction of game theory in A Beautiful Mind where the guys bump into one another. As a result, the world becomes a confused, brutish mess, with knots of self-interest and self-organization in the pursuit of short-term goals.

It occurs to me that if one were to be terribly, really successful, ie. tycoon successful, that meant that you'd have to have trod on a trail of suffering - whether it's the employees you squeezed, the consumers you gulled, or the resources you raped. No one's hands are clean.

So could I do it? Could I live with myself, as a politician, or as a mogul, knowing that the peons working hours and being paid peanuts contribute directly to my neo-Impressionist art collection, the maintenance of my TVR Vanquish, the renovation of my million-dollar bungalow, or the price of sending my children to Eton?

But then again, one of my friends said, "Take care of your family, and don't screw your friends. And don't get caught. That's all you need to live with yourself." Very Godfather:)

"At the end of the day, I think I do more good than harm. What other standard have I got to judge by?"

And I come to the somewhat dry conclusion that I don't mind being corrupt, or parasitic, or screwing over the world for my own immediate gratification. Why bother pretending otherwise by making some huge tax-exempt philantropic donation or mouthing the moral platitudes? But of course, I'm not entirely devoid of moral character. *limpid smile* I mean, I'd still drop a coin in a beggar's bowl now and again. Better to squeeze and exploit; than to be squeezed and exploited. There is only black, or gray. There are only degrees of sinning.
(Not like I'd run a pedophilia ring or smuggle nukes. Maybe AK-47s though)

Other isolated thoughts:

a) George Bush is either a total moron, or the most cunning dictator in recent history. Either he's a gung-ho redneck totin' his nukerler shotgun - or he's effectively emasculated his opposition, imposed an embryonic Gestapo on the American public ("Homeland Security"), and being given an excuse to pillage and reshape the world in an image that promotes the interests of the American cultural and corporate elite whom he cosies up to. Although some of the Bush conspiracy theorists are majorly paranoid and contradictory; the fact is that the Bush family is filthy rich, with money that traces back to the WW2 years and the Thyssen industrial group's laundering of Nazi loot. And that Bush himself and his old man have had lots of corporate skeletons and vested bigwig interests - including direct links to the old BCCI bosses and their backers in the Saud royal family. These same backers who may be an indirect source of funding for various Islamic fundamentalist groups through charitable fronts.

b) Coming from an American university has this rather strange advantage - chances are the numbers of your fellow native countrymen will be reasonably small. Say, 50-60 a year, for a really popular but not exceptionally elite one? (This number can be considerably larger if the uni has a twinning or correspondent course, of course). This means that you can actually get to know almost all of them; it forms a pretty tight core of acquaintances and alumni you can draw on. Whereas in Melbourne, this number was in the *thousands*. One ends up shying away, sticking to a small circle of close friends. There's no real feeling of being.. part of a community.

c) The New Guy at work is an old family friend of mine from years past. We went out for dinner with one of the MDs of the group i work for. (not the merchant bank, the commercial arm). It was an interesting event.. the New Guy happens to be on quite good terms with him. Turns out this guy's application to the merchant bank was handed in through the MD - apparently the bigwig's son studied in the same uni as New Guy. This MD likes to surround himself with young people - mostly his sons' friends. My friend says it's partly because of personality and partly because he's been quite lonely since his wife died of cancer a few years' back and his sons are both still abroad. He was a very nice chap who talked to us as equals. (although not so westernised as to ask us to call him by first name:). Somewhat bizarre; given that top banking executives aren't normally given to hanging out with guys in their twenties, but it was an interesting experience nonetheless.

d) Just how much value-add does coming from a top-tier Ivy League or Oxbridge university provide one anyway? An acquaintance of mine from Duke University is now still unemployed; while another guy from Georgetown is working as a shipping clerk. But I suppose that's a symptom of present economic straitening. Still, someone I know made an interesting observation that coming from an elite university is not just an investment, but it's a self-fulfilling prophecy - the confidence and self-assurance it engenders in you as being part of an elite are what helps you go a long way, more than any real quality differential in education. And of course, the potential for networking, and the increased career options because the good MNCs all recruit straight off the top-tier campuses. Finally, it's also more of an achievement for an international student to get in - I think they need to stand out more 'gainst the Americans who have contextual home-ground advantage. The international students who can play the testimonial/ECA/academic games well enough to get in are the ones with the kind of diligence and quality to excel in the working world anyway, regardless of their educational pedigree. Or, in the case of Malaysia, without a scholarship caste, it means that you're wealthy enough - and the opportunities that an expensive, exclusive education provides is one of the ways which wealth and power is self-perpetuating.

e) I wouldn't mind being a corrupt politician; because all politicians are corrupt, in one way or another, but I think I could do a *better* job with a slightly lowered level of corruption.

f) I'm taking an awfully long time to do a lot of things at work these days. Urge to productivity seems to have slowed down. Nevermind; as long as the boss doesn't notice. But the world is such a grim place these days, that one can read the news for hours, fixated by the insanity (like the Nigerian Miss World riots), the absurdity (http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/weird_news/4609175.htm), or just the evil (http://www.pjstar.com/news/luciano/g137071a.html.