Good news! The Economist ene doloo honogt uneguy bolj baigaa yum baina (ta yurduu gantshan simple survey bugluud l boloo). As Confidence once remarked, "a great chance to get less ignorant!"
"Seize the moment!"
"Identity Theft"-iin talaarh gants hoyor zuils:
SIERRA on "Identity Theft Protection"
The Economist Top Story, "Lax Maxx: Stealing customers’ data still seems all too easy"
"Identity Crisis" by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt on The New York Times Magazine
Further information about the article on Freakonomics
Postscriptum: Listen to "various Jazz and Jazz-related bands and gigs in Mongolia"
PostPostScriptum: Oasis-iin deer duridsan "Stop The Clocks" albumiig sonsohod uneheer uramtay bailaa! Endees CD1, CD2-g ni tataj avaaray.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Good news! The Economist ene doloo honogt uneguy bolj baigaa yum baina (ta yurduu gantshan simple survey bugluud l boloo). As Confidence once remarked, "a great chance to get less ignorant!"
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Za baiz Oasis-iig sonsoj ehleed heden jil bolchihov oo. Lav l 10 jild baihdaa "slip in inside the eye of your mind" geed amandaa aylaad yavdag baisan yumdag. Yutay ch odoo boltol tedniig sonsdog heveeree. Yur ni uidah yanz alga, uidah ch uguy biz.
Oasis-iin huvid Beatlechuudiin gants hugjmiin tudiiguy setgelgeenii asar ih nuluu, jinhene bileg tanhai Mancunian spirit, tegeed dundarshguy avyas zergeeree busad BritPop hamtlaguudaasaa ers yalgarna. Sonirholtoy ni Oasis-iig toirood football hooliganism-aas avhuulaad, avgay huuhen, har tamhi, arhidalt, zodoon, ter buu hel hamtlag dotorh ah duu Gallagher-iin margaan geed heruul shuugian tasarnaa gej neg baihguy. Hamgiin ironic ni magadguy enehuu olon sensation ni hamtlagiin salshguy neg heseg bolsoor irsen, edgeer zuils baihguy bol Oasis bish bolchih geed baidag tal bii. Neg yosondoo edgeer zugguytel ni Oasis-iin neriin huudas ni gej helj bolhoor.
Yamartay ch minii huvid Oasis-iin ah duu Gallagheruud dotroos Noel ni hamgiin ih taalagddag (yostoy unuu manaihnii heldgeer "jinhene mujik"). Duu Liam ni setgelzuin huvid neleed togtvorguygees gadna jinhene uran buteelch hund baih yostoy neleed heden chanaruud dutagdaad baidag taltay. Harin Noel-iin huvid shal uur, magadguy odoo hurtel Oasis gedeg hamtlag orshin togtnosoor baigaa ni gantshan tuunii gavya geltey.
Suuliin uyed iimerhuu dalii zuilst anhaaral handuulahaa boliod udaj baigaag ch heleh uu, hamtlag dotor ni yur ni yu bolood baigaa talaar medeh zuil alga (medeh ch husel alga hehe). Yamar ch baisan Oasis-iin suuliin uyeiin gants hoyor togloltiin bichleg, audio interview zergiig ni halit guilgeed harval ah Noel ni gantsaaraa neleed ih togloj baigaa boltoy. Gehdee golduu unplugged mayagaar.
Ene bol minii suuliin 2 sar tasraltguy shaham sonsch baigaa Noel-iin Toronto-d hiisen togloltiinh ni bichleg. Acoustic, toglolt dundiin uzegch uran buteelch hoyoriin hooron dahi discourse geed buh yum ni uneheer bishirmeer.
AOL-iin "The Interface" deerh Noel-iin unplugged toglolt bolon yariltslagiig bagtaasan free podcast
Youtube deerh Oasis-iin gig-uudiin bichlegiin tsugluulga
Negent amid hugjmiin talaar halit duridsan uchir uuriin durtay gants hoyor hamtlagiin bichlegiig ni taviya:
Nada Surf podcast on "The Interface"
Broken Social Scene at Brandeis University (thanks Solongo for introducing me to these terrific musics)
Beth Orton in Melbourne, Australia
The Shins in Boston
P.S: Martsanaas Oasis-iin Greatest Hit-uudiig bagtaasan "Stop the Clocks" tsomgiig uter turgen olj avah yum baina shuu
at 7:12 AM
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Courts now rely far more on economic analysis, with its apparent precision, to reach decisions. As a result, big companies in legal disputes race to enlist top economists on their side, paying top dollar in an arms race for talent.An Economist's Courtroom Bonanza
Cases that might have been expert-free 30 years ago now involve as many as eight experts, four on each side, says Russell Frackman, an intellectual-property lawyer at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp in Los Angeles. Economists are part of each side's roster; so are specialists in a myriad of other fields. "Even if you don't think the other side's expert will have much influence," says Mr. Frackman, "you don't want the jury to wonder why you couldn't find another expert to offset him or her."
at 8:00 PM
Friday, March 23, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Гадаад харилцааны сайд асан Ц.Гомбосүрэн гуайн Зууны Мэдээ сонинд өгсөн ярилцлага
Honoring Wired's Patron Saint: Marshall McLuhan
What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message?
Jean Baudrillard: Philosopher and sociologist who blurred the boundaries between reality and simulation
The Economist obituary of Jean Baudrillard
Mar 15th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Jean Baudrillard, philosopher of consumerism, died on March 6th, aged 77
AT SOME point in his career—neither date nor time being important—Jean Baudrillard took a large red cloth, draped it over a chair in his apartment, and sat on it. He may have smoked or thought for a while, or scratched his nose; a large, doughlike nose, supporting glasses. He then got up, leaving an impression of his body behind. The image pleased him: so much so, that he took a photograph.
Since he made no comment on the event (beyond the fact that the chair was later broken), the exact details are conjectural. But by putting the cloth on the chair, and sitting on it, Mr Baudrillard added to the plethora of signs, objects and symbolic acts that made up, in his philosophical system, the whole woof and warp of the 20th century. By getting up, he left behind a “simulacrum” of himself: the truth, as he teasingly put it, that hid the fact that there was no truth there. And by photographing the chair he made it “hyperreal”: an image, which could be reproduced unendingly, of an object that claimed to have meaning and, in fact, had none.
Then he went to lunch.
Pourquoi pas? When a simulacrum is also a French philosophe, perhaps the most popular of recent decades, he needs a bottle of Merlot from time to time. And since he spent his days considering the seductive power of images and objects, it was fun to observe that he himself had such a power over the woman in the butcher's who wrapped up his foie de veau, just because she had seen him on television.
Whether Mr Baudrillard's world was utter nonsense, or whether it was a profound critique of a consumerist civilisation drowning in its own meaninglessness, was a matter for lively debate. Many of his French colleagues found him too much: noisy, mischievous, attached to no school (though he had sat at the feet of both Henri Lefebvre and Roland Barthes in his feverish years at Nanterre, when teaching had been interrupted by clouds of tear-gas and cobblestone-throwing). He said things that got him into trouble. His enthusiasm for the événements of 1968 painted him as a man of the Left, where philosophes belonged as naturally as fish in water; but Mr Baudrillard later broke with Marx, and called him a conservative. What he meant was that both communism and capitalism made human existence a matter of production and exchange, while he preferred to stress its symbolic side.
In any case, in his world, both the liberal and the communist narratives of history had collapsed. “The end of history” was no longer universal capitalism and democracy or the victory of the proletariat. It was summed up for Mr Baudrillard by a lone man jogging, oblivious to his surroundings, hearing only the music of his own sound-system and aware only of the statements he himself was making: health, fashion, endurance. He was running straight ahead, but with no end in view.
The desert of the real
Of all the people he offended, none took more umbrage than the Americans. This was interesting, for he was far more popular there than in France, lecturing on various campuses of the University of California and even appearing, at Whiskey Pete's outside Las Vegas, as some sort of lounge lizard in a gold lamé jacket. In 1986 he got in a car and drove across the country, both hating and adoring it. He had never been so fully in a land of hyperreality, cluttered with meaningless symbols or, as in Disneyland, with garish synthetic versions of ordinary life. He looked for America, he wrote, in “motels and mineral surfaces...in the speed of the screenplay, in the indifferent reflex of television, in the film of days and nights projected across an empty space.” There he found himself, playing a French philosopher, roaring through “the desert of the real”.
Americans did not like his book. They did not care to be called “the only remaining primitive society”. A few years later, they objected also to Mr Baudrillard's contention that the first Gulf war of 1991 had never taken place. But, in his view, it had not. The media had created a picture of conflict; but Saddam had deployed his troops, and America had dropped its bombs, as pure statements of power in a vacuum, and the two forces had never met. General Norman Schwarzkopf, the “victor” (though with no victory) had celebrated with a party in Disneyland: QED.
All this paled, however, beside Mr Baudrillard's musings on the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. This was the “absolute event”, an inevitable reaction to “insufferable” American power. In the face of overweening globalisation, to destroy the twin towers was the only response. The symbol invited its destruction: “It was they who did it, but we who wished it.”
Most Americans decided, at this point, that they did not understand Mr Baudrillard very well. But then few people did. Behind the panache of his ideas—often bunkum, yet sometimes catching acutely the media-dominated triviality of modern life—the man was hidden. “No background,” he would growl, if you asked. Somewhere, there was German-speaking peasant stock and suspicious parents who wondered what on earth they had produced in this plump and bookish boy. Or perhaps there was really none of that at all: just a photograph of a suggestion of a human shape, on a red cloth on a chair.
at 10:13 PM
Thursday, March 15, 2007
at 1:11 AM
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
at 9:08 PM
From Publishers Weeklyhttp://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Effect-Understanding-Good-People/dp/1400064112/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt/104-8399067-7467935
Psychologist Zimbardo masterminded the famous Stanford Prison Experiment, in which college students randomly assigned to be guards or inmates found themselves enacting sadistic abuse or abject submissiveness. In this penetrating investigation, he revisits—at great length and with much hand-wringing—the SPE study and applies it to historical examples of injustice and atrocity, especially the Abu Ghraib outrages by the U.S. military. His troubling finding is that almost anyone, given the right "situational" influences, can be made to abandon moral scruples and cooperate in violence and oppression. (He tacks on a feel-good chapter about "the banality of heroism," with tips on how to resist malign situational pressures.) The author, who was an expert defense witness at the court-martial of an Abu Ghraib guard, argues against focusing on the dispositions of perpetrators of abuse; he insists that we blame the situation and the "system" that constructed it, and mounts an extended indictment of the architects of the Abu Ghraib system, including President Bush. Combining a dense but readable and often engrossing exposition of social psychology research with an impassioned moral seriousness, Zimbardo challenges readers to look beyond glib denunciations of evil-doers and ponder our collective responsibility for the world's ills. 23 photos. (Apr. 3)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
at 7:06 PM
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
"Psychology of evil" professor delivers final Stanford lecture (ene talaar iluu ihiig medehiig husvel Amateur-Directors deer Hashaa-giin bichsen "Das Experiment" kinonii review-iig unshaaray)
Steven Landsburg - The Theory of the Leisure Class
Tyler Cowen on EconTalk
Ed Glaeser and Daron Acemoglu debate: "Is Democracy the Best Setting For Strong Economic Growth?"
NYTimes on Ed Glaeser - "Home Economics"
at 8:25 PM
Monday, March 12, 2007
Эр хүйстэй төрөх, ЭР ХYН болохын хооронд их зай бий. Эцэг болох амархаан, харин ААВ байх л амаргүй. Дороо дүүтэй бүхэн ах болчихгүй. Ах шиг Ах байх нь хамгаас чухал. Бас сайн дүү гэж бий. Аав шиг ААВ, Ах шиг АХ, дүү шиг ДYY.
Confucius - Rectification of Names
"There is government, when the prince is prince, and the minister is minister; when the father is father, and the son is son." (Analects XII, 11, tr. Legge).
at 9:23 PM
Saturday, March 10, 2007
at 2:09 AM
"[...] she represents the most baffling girl and the most resounding challenge I have yet faced. All my ingenuity barely sufficed to keep her entertained for a couple of hours. Her career has given her such a hard shell that it is damned hard to draw blood. And her prejudice against acedemic life, of which I seem to her so perfect an example, increases her indifference."- Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. "A Life in the 20th Century: Innocent Beginnings, 1917-1950" p.185
at 1:33 AM
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Odoogoos 2 jiliin umnu tsag zavaa garzdan baij The Beatles-iin tuhai 5 DVD documentary-g uzej duusgaj bilee. Ur dund ni yurduu 4-hun individual humuun saya saya hunii setgelgeend yamar tom huvisgal hiisniig ni oilgoson yum. Yurunhiiduu Baabar, Bayarkhuu hoyoriin nerledgeer beatlechuud bol "Manai zuunii [bish ee ungursun zuunii] hurug" munuusuu mun. Tegeed ch yur ni "Mongoliin ardchilsan hudulguund Beatles-iin uzuulsen nuluu" gedeg sedveer zanimaldval unuu "Ugiin Uurhai" geed nevtruulgiig hutuldug baisan (odoo Indiana University-d baigaa) Saruul-Erdene-ii heldeg shig "sain nuhval master-iin zereg hamgaalahaar ajil bosood irj medeh yum shuu" hahaha.
Za ene marzagnal ch yahav. Suuliin hed honog ungursun 11 sard Beatles-iin barag buh albumniih ni producer-eer ajillaj baisan Sir George Martin bolon tuunii huu Giles Martin nariin beatlechuudiin ihenh hit duunuudiin shinechilsen huvilbariig bagtaasan "Love" hemeeh tsomogt "dontov". Bi oiriin hoyor honog ene albumnii duunuudaas uur duu sonsooguy bolhoor ingej todotgood baigaa hereg l dee, hehe. Neg yosondoo bol Hashaa-giin heldgeer yostoy "tasarhaiguy gazarguy" bolj :)
Harin saya ene album-iig sonsoj baigaad unuu 5 DVD buhii documentary deer uzej baisan gants hoyor durtay clipee sanav:
Ehniih ni "Something" duunii clip. Linda McCartney-giin hesguudiig haraad l baimaar...
Enehuu "Across the Universe" duug beatlechuud (gehdee yurunhiiduu bol Lennon-McCartney hoyor) Enethegt Ganga Murnii ereg deer Maharishi Mahesh Yogi-giin dor transcendental meditation hiij baih uyedee zohioson gegddeg. Jai Guru Deva Om...
at 4:10 AM
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Monday, March 05, 2007
http://blog.myspace.com/enkhee - Saya yumaa uhaj baigaad asar ertnii neg blog olov :D (ezen ni hurtel baidgiig ni barag martsan baih aa haha)
at 6:14 PM
Published: February 16 2007 17:11 | Last updated: February 16 2007 17:11
My stepfather is an alcoholic and spends his time and money on nothing but self-intoxication. This results in me experiencing great anger and wanting to do something stupidly aggressive.
My mother has less and less money to run the house. I no longer live there but will soon have to contribute money to prevent my mother entering a downward spiral of debt. How do I control an alcoholic who is content only with a bottle in his hand? How do I solve the financial problem? How do I stop myself becoming wound up by my stepfather’s actions?
Name and address supplied
Your stepfather is addicted to alcohol, but your real problem is that your mother is addicted to your stepfather and you are addicted to her. There are economic ideas about how to break an unwanted addiction (Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling coined the phrase “egonomics”) but they presuppose that the addict wants to kick the habit. It does not sound as if any of you actually wishes to break his or her respective addiction, which would make them “rational addictions”, as theorised by Gary Becker, another laureate, and Kevin Murphy. Taking into account all the costs and benefits, each of you would prefer to stay addicted.
You should therefore not be focusing on addictions but externalities. Your stepfather is imposing a grievous cost on you and your mother but not offering any compensation. Ronald Coase - yet another laureate - suggested that externalities could be bargained away. You could just pay your stepfather to stop drinking, or he could pay you to stop complaining about it. The problem is that Coase’s theorem requires that you are able to negotiate without costs in time, trouble or embarrassment. In your case, alas, this seems unlikely.
Tim Harford (trust me he's an economist gsn :P) geed unuu "Freakonomics" ene ter shig ediin zasgiin onoluudaar udur tutmiin amidraliig tailbarlah gej orolddog neg nuhur bii. Hervee bi buruu sanaaguy bol Oxford tugssun baih. Anh Hashaa-giin bichlegiig huuj yavsaar baigaad mani eriin bichleguudtey anh taniltsaj bilee, hehe. Odoo bol niitlel buriig ni ali boloh algasalguy unshihiig boddog bolson. Harford yamar ch hun oilgohoor mash engiin goyo bichlegiin helberteyn deer asar complex zuilsiig ediin zasgiin onol ashiglan mash urnaar tailbarladag. Tegeed ta buhend hervee bolomj oldvol doloo honog bur tuunii Financial Times deer hutuldug column-iig unshij baihiig zuvluyu.
Aan tiim, sayhan tuunii "Undercover Economist" geed nom garsan. Nomiin delguurt hartal jaahan huuhdiin comics ene ter shig sanagdahaar ni avaaguy yum. Bolomj garval olj unshnaa :D
at 12:19 AM
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Avi: Yes, London. You know: fish, chips, cup 'o tea, bad food, worse weather, Mary fucking Poppins... LONDON! [Snatch]
the history of English food suggests that even on so basic a matter as eating, a free-market economy can get trapped for an extended period in a bad equilibrium in which good things are not demanded because they have never been supplied, and are not supplied because not enough people demand them
An another outstanding analysis by our beloved Paul Krugman :) (little bit outdated, though) -Supply, Demand, and English Food
at 6:18 AM
http://magnai.origo.mn/ - ENTIK-iin yurunhii zohitsuulagch Magnai-giin web log
Зовсоны эцэст бус зөвхөн тэмцэсний үр дүнд л жаргана. /О.Магнай/lol
at 3:56 AM
Friday, March 02, 2007
Oron buhnii bureaucrat nar negdehtun gsn :P
at 7:59 PM
FEB. 27, 2008
The great market meltdown of 2007 began exactly a year ago, with a 9 percent fall in the Shanghai market, followed by a 416-point slide in the Dow. But as in the previous global financial crisis, which began with the devaluation of Thailand’s currency in the summer of 1997, it took many months before people realized how far the damage would spread.
At the start, all sorts of implausible explanations were offered for the drop in U.S. stock prices. It was, some said, the fault of Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, as if his statement of the obvious — that the housing slump could possibly cause a recession — had been news to anyone. One Republican congressman blamed Representative John Murtha, claiming that his efforts to stop the “surge” in Iraq had somehow unnerved the markets.
Even blaming events in Shanghai for what happened in New York was foolish on its face, except to the extent that the slump in China — whose stock markets had a combined valuation of only about 5 percent of the U.S. markets’ valuation — served as a wake-up call for investors.
The truth is that efforts to pin the stock decline on any particular piece of news are a waste of time.
Wise analysts remember the classic study that Robert Shiller of Yale carried out during the market crash of Oct. 19, 1987. His conclusion? “No news story or rumor appearing on the 19th or over the preceding weekend was responsible.” In 2007, as in 1987, investors rushed for the exits not because of external events, but because they saw other investors doing the same.
What made the market so vulnerable to panic? It wasn’t so much a matter of irrational exuberance — although there was plenty of that, too — as it was a matter of irrational complacency.
After the bursting of the technology bubble of the 1990s failed to produce a global disaster, investors began to act as if nothing bad would ever happen again. Risk premiums — the extra return people demand when lending money to less than totally reliable borrowers — dwindled away.
For example, in the early years of the decade, high-yield corporate bonds (formerly known as junk bonds) were able to attract buyers only by offering interest rates eight to 10 percentage points higher than U.S. government bonds. By early 2007, that margin was down to little more than two percentage points.
For a while, growing complacency became a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the what-me-worry attitude spread, it became easier for questionable borrowers to roll over their debts, so default rates went down. Also, falling interest rates on risky bonds meant higher prices for those bonds, so those who owned such bonds experienced big capital gains, leading even more investors to conclude that risk was a thing of the past.
Sooner or later, however, reality was bound to intrude. By early 2007, the collapse of the U.S. housing boom had brought with it widespread defaults on subprime mortgages — loans to home buyers who fail to meet the strictest lending standards. Lenders insisted that this was an isolated problem, which wouldn’t spread to the rest of the market or to the real economy. But it did.
For a couple of months after the shock of Feb. 27, markets oscillated wildly, soaring on bits of apparent good news, then plunging again. But by late spring, it was clear that the self-reinforcing cycle of complacency had given way to a self-reinforcing cycle of anxiety.
There was still one big unknown: had large market players, hedge funds in particular, taken on so much leverage — borrowing to buy risky assets — that the falling prices of those assets would set off a chain reaction of defaults and bankruptcies? Now, as we survey the financial wreckage of a global recession, we know the answer.
In retrospect, the complacency of investors on the eve of the crisis seems puzzling. Why didn’t they see the risks?
Well, things always seem clearer with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, even pessimists were unsure of their ground. For example, Paul Krugman concluded a column published on March 2, 2007, which described how a financial meltdown might happen, by hedging his bets, declaring that: “I’m not saying that things will actually play out this way. But if we’re going to have a crisis, here’s how.”
at 7:22 PM
Thursday, March 01, 2007
A man dies and goes to hell. There he discovers that he has a choice: he can go to capitalist hell or to communist hell. Naturally, he wants to compare the two, so he goes over to capitalist hell. There outside the door is the devil, who looks a bit like Ronald Reagan. "What's it like in there?" asks the visitor. "Well," the devil replies, "in capitalist hell, they flay you alive, then they boil you in oil and then they cut you up into small pieces with sharp knives."http://academic.reed.edu/economics/course_pages/354_s06/joke.htm
"That's terrible!" he gasps. "I'm going to check out communist hell!" He goes over to communist hell, where he discovers a huge queue of people waiting to get in. He waits in line. Eventually he gets to the front and there at the door to communist hell is a little old man who looks a bit like Karl Marx. "I'm still in the free world, Karl," he says, "and before I come in, I want to know what it's like in there."
"In communist hell," says Marx impatiently, "they flay you alive, then they boil you in oil, and then they cut you up into small pieces with sharp knives."
"But… but that's the same as capitalist hell!" protests the visitor, "Why such a long queue?"
"Well," sighs Marx, "Sometimes we're out of oil, sometimes we don't have knives, sometimes no hot water…"
at 12:26 AM