Pretty squashed egos

PGS stands for the Pretty Girl Syndrome, which some beautiful girls suffer from. Not all beautiful females suffer from this syndrome but I’m sure most guys have met our fair share of women who suffer from some form of PGS.

ONE theory that I’ve always promoted to my friends is my PGS theory. Please don’t get me wrong. I am not a Vietnam War veteran, and I have not experienced life to its fullest but let’s just say I have some stories to share.

PGS stands for the Pretty Girl Syndrome, which some beautiful girls suffer from - these girls think that “if I’m pretty, then I usually can have my way, or get out of trouble or tilt the scales in my favour”.


The symptoms obviously are - being extremely attractive, used to getting their way all the time, dislike the word “NO”, and are used to people dancing to their every whim and fancy.  They also have an ego the size of Texas, but act as if they are as humble as Mother Teresa. Sounds familiar?

I am sure many decent gentlemen have been fooled and given the run around by members of the PGS club, and I am also certain there are many girls who have been passed up for promotion or lost career opportunities because the boss chose the more attractive candidate.

I am sure you are expecting me to say, “What goes around comes around” and tell a nice story that will make one feel good or even vindicated.

Sorry folks, not today. Today, I am going to tell you that God has a funny way of teaching people humility and respect. Recently, I had the privilege of being the television host for the Miss Universe Malaysia 2010 contest. My job was to conduct pre and post audition interviews for each contestant.

The selection process was quite straightforward – walk in, fill in some personal details, answer some basic mini essay questions and impress a panel of four judges with her winning personality.

However, the final part was the most challenging, as each girl need to face the judges - comprising actor Hans Isaac, radio man Phat Phabes, 2004 Winner and National Director Andrea Fonseka and Julia Dolmotova, a Russian-born professional who has substantial experience in beauty brand marketing.

All judges were looking for candidates who were attractive, had a pleasant personality, good communication skills, intelligence and the X-Factor.

The word X-Factor sounds ex­­­tremely grey but in the entertainment world, it is about having the ability to turn heads and capture an audience. The judges’ job was to look for that big X-Factor which I am sure many of the girls thought they had.

Prior to the individual auditions, I asked many of the candidates what their main strengths were. Some of the over-confident girls answered, “I am confident, beautiful and humble. I have just what it takes.”

When I probed further and asked if that could be misconstrued as “slightly arrogant”, most of the responses was a very confident “No”.

I think they forgot what the word humble means.  In those moments, I wanted to place a PGS tag around their necks to give the judges a bit of a heads-up on what to expect.

But a colleague quickly whispered in my ear, “Just you watch, they have no idea that they are about to enter the lion’s den”.

In this type of situation, warriors fight and prove their worth, or get eaten alive. She will get eaten, but which lion will bite the hardest? The judges tore these girls apart. It was not done using the Simon Cowell method but rather the honest truth.

Hans, Phabes and Andrea used a more diplomatic approach but Julia was more direct. “NO, you don’t have it, you should do something else. You are not ready; you are not beauty queen material.” Talk about reality check.

The judges also said that some of them did not get shortlisted because they did not respect the com­petition. According to the judges, some of the girls did not come prepared, looked like they had just come from a nightclub and had the mentality that looks alone could get them through.

One judge stressed, “We are looking for a beautiful, ambitious, well-informed lady who carries herself well. That is what people sometimes forget.”

To sum it up, they are looking for someone who has class and poise. This goes to show that while there are many beautiful women in the land of Malaysia, classy women do not grow on trees.

Let this be a reminder to us all that looks can only get you so far. It can open doors but you also need skills and knowledge to keep the door open. If not, you will just be known as a “dumb blonde”, a tag which is very hard to shake off.

I am always reminded about what my friend once told her young and beautiful sister.  Her ‘big sister’ advice was that, “Even though God gave you a huge advantage with good looks, if that is all people remember you for, then you are easily forgotten.”

This friend stressed to her sister, “If you have the looks, then make sure you have the brains to go with it.” Girls who have PGS start their day by singing the song, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?”

Well, I suggest they change their tune to, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, do I have the skills to do it all?”
And if I were the mirror, I would answer, “No, but please do something about it!”

A DIFFERENT SPIN
BY BEN IBRAHIM

> Ben Ibrahim is a TV host, MC and writer. He has hosted shows ranging from The Breakfast Show to the 2008 Olympic Games. For more information about Ben, log on to www.benibrahim.com

Some common-sense thinking on yuan

RECENTLY, the United States postponed its condemnation of China as a currency manipulator, pending negotiations on whether China will appreciate its yuan. Note the United States has raised hell about somebody’s exchange rates before.

Remember “Japan Bashing” when Japan’s trade surpluses allegedly implied an undervalued yen? Trade tensions ensued, Japan occasionally acquiesced, and the yen appreciated. And appreciated – 23% in 1971-73; 37% in 1977-78; 49% in 1985-87; and 20% in 1993-95. Yet the “problem” remained. Japan still had the largest bilateral surplus in 1995 – but the bashing stopped. By then, the Japanese economy was on its knees, trapped in its lost decade.

Was the ever-appreciating yen a major contributor to Japan’s economic collapse? No consensus yet, but Stanford economist Ronald McKinnon ties the “syndrome of the ever-rising yen” to Japan’s deflation trap. Whatever the final consensus, common sense dictates skepticism attends a solution that never solves the “problem.”

Think as follows: Suppose appreciation unwinds the surplus; we get bashing, cave-in (appreciation), surplus unwound, End of Story. But, suppose the surplus remains! Then a destructive dynamic is unleashed, whereby bashing equals cave-in equals unresolved surplus setting up expectations of more and more bashing and cave-ins – as long as the surplus is not resolved! The pressure on the currency then never quite stops. Bashing is a political weapon that is itself a significant problem. Now, China’s story.

In 1994, China fixed its yuan at 8.68 per dollar to stabilise a high, volatile, inflation that had reached 20% annually. It worked. Inflation fell to track US inflation. During the 1997-98 Asian crisis, China stuck to the policy despite pressure to devalue, earning itself policy credibility. After the crisis, financial stability allowed producers to focus on real improvements – productivity, quality, cost cutting. The country utilised its abundant labour to become competitive in consumer manufactures, while the advanced economies specialised in capital intensive production – standard economic theory.

So, what’s not to like?

Hordes of rural Chinese labour flooding into world markets to rise from unrelenting poverty. Hordes of US working families buying cheap consumer goods that raise living standards.

What’s not to like?
 
Enter US special interests! US mercantilists and their political, academic, and media allies point to China’s surpluses with an old playbook – currency manipulation! Undervalued yuan! Enter China-bashing! In March 2005, Congress threatened a 27.5% tariff. China acquiesced and the yuan appreciated 22% over three years, but the surplus widened! Another 20%-40% needed, came the experts! Sounds familiar? How does another Asian economy deal with the thuggish return of an 800-pound economic gorilla? First, DO NOT CAVE!

Reasons why China should not cave

● Cave-ins set up a destructive dynamic: As noted, a cave-in is counter-productive and could lead to continual pressure on the currency and more economic problems.

● Argument has no merit: Why is the yuan undervalued now, not in 1994? Why didn’t the United States protest “currency manipulation” then? Because the policy was harmless until China became too competitive for US special interests! Let’s simplify matters. Suppose Google creates a phone to compete with Apple’s iPhone. Business is slow but through innovation, cost cutting, Google makes a better product at lower price. Apple lobbies its politicians who threaten Google with legislation unless it raises (appreciates) its price and become uncompetitive or less competitive! The argument has no merit!

● Fixed exchange rates are not currency manipulation: The special interests demonise fixed rates as currency manipulation, but fixed rates were prevalent and beneficial in history! They insist that the very operations of fixed regimes – central bank buying/selling of foreign exchange to maintain the fixed rate – is proof of “currency manipulation” since it prevents currencies from reaching free market equilibrium! By that criterion, almost every country currency manipulates because most either fix or have managed floats. Thus, the criticism is feckless, asserting its conclusion, rather than arguing why free floats are best for developing economies, not fixed or managed floats.

● Free float is not right for China: Exchange rates today, under liberalised capital accounts, are forward-looking asset prices (like stock prices) driven by current and expected future fundamentals – news, sentiments, even bubbles. Thus, a free float will deliver trade balance (or unwind a surplus) only if foreign exchange demand mainly reflects import demand. But import demand is only a tiny fraction of foreign exchange demand, which reflects mostly asset flows (hedging, investment etc). Instead of trade balance, a free float will likely just introduce new problems of exchange volatility for China, with its yet thin financial markets.

● Sustained surpluses do not imply appreciation immediately required: No theory suggests such a rigid connection. People run life-long deficits with their grocers – no depreciations required! Historically, Britain ran large surpluses with the United States – with no attendant hysteria for appreciation or else! Why?

Trade balances are macroeconomic phenomena: a means of shifting consumption/investment profiles over time through borrowing or lending to the world. They are simply more significant than whether certain special interests are unhappy with the exchange rates they face.

● Caving would not solve the surplus but could cause deflation: As macroeconomic phenomena, trade surpluses will fall only if a country’s excess of savings over investment falls. But appreciation alone cannot ensure that. Falling exports from appreciation may cause incomes/savings to fall, but investments (and imports) could also fall. And if the surplus does not respond, as during Japan Bashing and in 2005-08 for China, a cave-in could set off the destructive dynamic of more expected cave-ins; and investments could easily move abroad. If China caves, its surplus likely remains but it falls into recession.

What Should China Do?

First, ignore the bashers and look inwards – will continuing current policy add great risks to asset/goods inflation or over-exposure to one borrower?

Second, hire a top US public relations firm to argue its case, reverse China’s role as an economic piñata in the US media.

Third, insist the US reforms its Social Security/Medicare/tax systems to incentivise savings.

Fourth, insist that bashing ends and make sure any policy revision cannot be interpreted as a cave-in or loss of control over China’s own economic destiny.

Comment by Dr Lim Ewe Ghee

● A graduate of Yale University and the University of California, Davis, the writer is a senior research fellow at the Center for Policy Research and International studies (CenPRIS), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). Previously, he was senior economist at the International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. The above are solely the views of the researcher, and do not necessarily represent the views of CenPRIS or USM.

Venture capital, done the Google way

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--After a little over a year in the venture capital business, Google now has 10 start-ups under its wing and plans further growth in 2010.

A mobile payments company called Corduro became the latest start-up to accept funding from Google Ventures on Monday, as fund executives hosted a wide-ranging discussion on the state of Google Ventures at Google headquarters. Google wants to invest about $100 million this year in interesting emerging start-ups, said Bill Maris, managing partner of Google Ventures.

Bill Maris, managing director of Google Ventures (Credit: Google Ventures)

Google Ventures launched in March 2009, but the company had not said very much about its activities in the intervening year. Over the weekend, Google Ventures launched a new Web site and disclosed that its team of full-time employees had grown to 16.

A company most known lately for snapping up start-ups left and right, Google has separate goals in mind when considering venture investments, said CEO Eric Schmidt. Schmidt, who is an assistant instructor for a venture capital class at Stanford University, said Google wants to emulate the strategies and tactics followed by the traditional venture capital firms that turned groves of fruit orchards in the southern Bay Area into Silicon Valley, but with a Google twist.

Google is interested in compelling start-ups that have computational problems, be they risk analysis, algorithmic processing, or some other complicated type of numerical challenge that is hard for a small company to pull off but second nature to Google. Companies that accept investment from Google can draw upon individuals from among Google's engineering team for specific needs: one Google user-interface design engineer, Braden Kowitz, helped an image-recognition company called Pixazza improve the usability of their Web site and tools.

This is a completely separate project from Google's mergers and acquisitions team, Schmidt said. When Google buys a company it's usually because a project team has identified a need and researched the available companies, or when an interesting company reaches out to Google looking to get bought, he said.

Venture investing, on the other hand, involves "new speculative high-risk investments," Schmidt said. It's also distinct from the investments Google has made through its Google.org arm or the energy investments it has made in that it is being run with a for-profit mentality, he said. Schmidt also moonlights as an investor in Tomorrow Ventures, which does not list him among its partners but which he mentioned briefly to clarify that it was a completely separate operation from Google Ventures.

Google accepts employee recommendations for potential investments, reasoning that its employees are in tune with innovative start-ups in their respective fields.

"Googlers know a lot of people, and the employee base that Google Ventures can tap are people who understand subtleties that the average VC firm can't tap," Schmidt said. "That doesn't mean we are better investors, but it means we understand this stuff."

So where is Google putting its dollars? So far, Google Ventures has put money into start-ups that align with Google's broader interests, such as OpenCandy, a software-distribution and ad network, and English Central, which analyzes video on the Web to help students learn English.

But there is no overarching goal or philosophy behind Google Ventures, Maris said. Google's leadership triumvirate (Schmidt and co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page) does not decide where specific investments are made, although they do set the budget for the fund, which will likely vary on a year-to-year basis.

Still, Maris was mildly surprised to learn for the first time during the roundtable discussion that Schmidt wants Google Ventures to expand overseas in the near future.

Right now, mobile applications are the hot venture investment area because of the low cost of capital needed to get a couple of developers off the ground and the potentially high reward as mobile technologies continue to develop. Google is obviously eyeing that trend with investments like Corduro, but it's important to avoid a "herd mentality" when it comes to venture investing, Maris said. Schmidt took great pains during the discussion to paint Google Ventures as something complementary--rather than competitive--to the existing venture capital industry. Google has plenty of money and technological expertise but it does not have nearly the experience that seasoned VC firms bring to the table, he said.

However, Google Ventures can learn a lot from those firms, he said.
"Venture is a phenomenal achievement of America. My entire life has been defined by the people who created the venture industry," Schmidt said.

Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom.