The End of an Era: My Last Days in Canada

 

 

I was born in China, moved to Japan when I was 3, and have lived in Canada since 6. This is how I began most of the interviews that resulted in the need for this article. I am 23 now, and my 17 year residency in Canada will soon end. I will soon be a resident of New York City.

This is not the first opportunity I had to move to the United States. I had the opportunity when I was admitted to Brown (read: not admitted to the better Ivy Leagues), and chose to go to the Queen's School of Business. I worked briefly in the U.S. after my first year, at a hedge fund. And I could have chosen to work in the U.S. after graduation, but the opportunities at that time were limited.

There were a few reasons that prompted this move. It is by no means surprising, I am sure, for people in my profession to move to New York. But it occurred quicker than expected. In my first year of working, I worked in the credit group of CPPIB, which is one of the best places to work in Toronto. I fell in love with the work and the people. It exposed me to a particular style of finance that I could not replicate in Toronto. As my time in the credit group ended, I started looking for a new job.

As any of you know, finding a job is stressful and humbling. Coming from a non-target school and non-target firm, the opportunity set was limited. But the bright side is although non-target candidates will receive fewer interviews, they will have a better hit rate, even for a terrible interviewee like me. I was lucky to have found what I wanted quickly. My first interview was with the firm I will be working for. They are well known to be highly intelligent (one asked me to prove the set of rational numbers was countable) with a stellar track record. The entire process from reaching out to headhunters to getting a Visa took about four months.

In the last 17 years I had grown well accustomed to Toronto and to Canada. I know where the best restaurants and bars are, where to go for cheap wine tasting, how best to get from point A to B, which streets have bike paths and which to avoid (where the buskers and panhandlers are) and how to get student tickets to the opera. On the contrary, in New York, I still look like a tourist, a sore thumb sticking out amongst a well formed ebb-and-flow.

I will sincerely miss the country that I had given my youth and my adolescence – the country that gave me an education and a spectacular opportunity, yet received few taxes in return. I will still be tied to Canada. My business, Examblitz, will still operate in Kingston. And I own student housing investments in Kingston. My parents will remain in Toronto, though they probably will now be frequent visitors of New York City.

My relationship with New York has been bittersweet. I document that part of my life through my short story (www.randwalk.com/fiction). The city is so full of soul and character, yet empty at the same time. It breeds individualism and materiality, where people are often late and relationships are overtly born out of mutual benefit. These things happen anywhere, but it is apparent (even celebrated) in New York. But then it has such diversity of culture, art, music and food, that there is something to satisfy anyone's desires.

I expect my life to change. At the very least, the stress of a new job will be overwhelming. I will be working more and learning more. I will be outside my comfort zone. My rent will almost double, and I will, once again, bike through yellow taxicabs to get to work. My food-blogging career will restart with a NYC restaurant guide.

In many ways, this is the start of a new chapter. University was a continuation of high school; working life was the continuation of summer internships. My new life in New York City doesn’t feel like much of a continuation of anything. It is as though the random walk jumped to a new co-ordinate system. New city, new job, a few old friends, and a lot of new restaurants. I hope you will join me on this new trajectory, in person or in spirit. 

Personal tax implication of savings: why you should defer your RRSP and max out your TFSA

Tax-shielding personal savings and investments is an important consideration to maximize long-term wealth. No resource exists that definitively and elegantly explains how individual Canadians should act to create long-term wealth using RRSPs and TFSAs. The following article tries to lay out a framework most people can understand and use.

Descriptions of these accounts exist everywhere but the main details are as follows. Both TFSAs and RRSPs are effectively tax-free saving accounts but TFSAs are taxed at the current rate while RRSPs are taxed at the rate at time of withdrawal. The other major difference is that TFSA contribution room is not decreased by withdrawals, whereas RRSP contribution room is decreased by withdrawals.

The value of one dollar invested in three possible accounts, after n periods is as follows:

RRSP

TFSA

Margin Account

Where:

is the return on investments is the current marginal tax rate is the marginal tax rate in period n, the time of withdrawal is the average tax rate on returns (which is a blend between dividend and capital gains tax rate)

We begin with the assumption that our goal is to maximize the value of our savings at some point in the future. It is then clear that TFSA is always better than a margin account. Therefore, there should never exist an underfunded TFSA together with a funded Margin Account. The only reason a TFSA should be underfunded is if investing in an RRSP is a better option. From the equations above, it is clear that an RRSP is better than a TFSA if the current marginal tax rate is higher than the expected marginal tax rate at time of withdrawal. Therefore, we need to analyze the shape of T.

For most people T increases over your life until it decreases to T_n. Presumably there will be a time over most people’s life when RRSP will be more beneficial than TFSA. It is therefore generally a rule that RRSP is preferable to a TFSA, which is preferable to a margin account. However, for people with increasing marginal tax rates (which is most of us) an RRSP contribution is probably suboptimal.

Consider deferring RRSP contributions by m years, at which time the marginal tax is T_2. The benefit of the deferral is:

The cost is the lost tax shielding over the m years, which can be expressed as:

This is a hard equation to analyze, but testing a wide range of values show that in cases where marginal tax rate is increasing quickly, the benefit  dT will be higher than the cost. Furthermore, while dT is a certain benefit (subject to correct assumptions of future income), the cost of lost tax shielding is market dependent. Therefore, in general it is beneficial for Canadians to defer RRSP contributions as their salaries are increasing quickly. For many people, this means waiting until taxable income increases past $84,902, $138,586, or $220,000, whichever one is “within sight” – say within 3-5 years. (N.B. taxable income is after tax deductions. An average person will have ~15,000 in deductions a year). Until then, maxing out TFSAs is a good policy.

Put in simpler terms, for a person who is taxed in the highest tax bracket, such a person should always max out RRSPs, TFSAs and Margin Accounts, in that order. The same argument applies for people in a lower bracket who know they will never reach a higher bracket. For people who will traverse brackets, the decision becomes less clear. It requires you to compare the additional tax-shielded return to the benefit of deducting RRSPs in a higher income bracket.

A Modernist Kitchen in a Condo in Downtown Toronto

In August 2014, an experimental restaurant like no other opened in Toronto. It was situated in an apartment, without a food permit, and served a tasting menu for $25. As you know, it was my first restaurant. After hungrily scouring the world for the world’s best restaurants, I tried to replicate some of what I had eaten in my own kitchen. I have always cooked, though to cook well is difficult and laborious, and so I rarely do it. In August 2014, for friends I would perform, and hope to dazzle and impress.

The decision to start Chez Kong was a fickle one. I had downloaded an app called Modernist Cuisine, a cookbook I first heard about in Seattle, where the book’s signature photographic cross-sections of food were presented in a museum exhibition. I had downloaded the app, which had a slow-cooked chicken that would become Chez Kong’s signature dish. My first bites of the slow-cooked chicken were life-changing. It felt like a bite from the forbidden fruit, revealing something in chicken that I had never known. This everyday ingredient, by some simple processes, was elevated to levels the most star-dressed restaurants could not compare against. It was at that point of discovery that I decided I had to learn this new discipline of Modernist Cuisine.

In 10 days I would practice cooking the opening night’s menu. I went shopping for blenders, juicers, pressure cookers, food processors, whipping siphons, syringes, and everything in between. The first night, I did not have enough forks and knives. And so the next day I bought cutlery. The menu for opening night was decided and reservations came in excitedly. The first four days were booked solid in about an hour. For the entire month, every seat was filled and new seats were opened up. The starting menu was as follows:

amuse. fizzy champagne and grapes
caramelized carrot soup in carrot juice
quinoa pistacchio pesto risotto
buffalo mozzarella, arugula, tomatoes
slow-cooked chicken with onions
sous-vide steak
almond pie
david’s decaf latte

The latte and capresse salad were from my childhood, the rest was decidedly modern. The first night was fun but hectic. I was chef and server, trying to make sure the steak didn’t overcook while serving champagne at the bar. One girl didn’t know the drinks were for charge (even though the menu indicated the price), so that was an uncomfortable conversation. At one point a jug of something spilt. I don’t even remember what because I was multitasking intensely, but the shattering caused a great ruckus in the room. I felt like an amateur.

From there, it became easier. Repetition calms nerves. I had scraped that potato through the sieve so many times, again and again, that it became second nature. That mashed potato took hours to prepare but it was gorgeous and elegant. The carrot soup. I tasted it so many times that the one time I forgot the little teaspoon of baking soda, I caught it and remade it. The food got better, I think. New dishes were added, and more innovative ways were thought of to make old ones. There is the sous-vide steak, which people didn’t think had a hard enough crust. So instead, I froze it and pan-fried it right from the freezer. Later a beefy red wine sauce was added – of course made from scratch.

It was a lot of fun. But at times it was laborious. The dishwasher needed to be run three times before morning, so I slept in two hour intervals. The minute people left, I ate the leftovers (I would be starving), and started preparing for the next day. A lot of things needed to be done a day in advance. I would have to start cooking at least 4 hours prior to service – and that’s when I can recycle the same ingredients from day to day. Basically, it’s a full time job, and I wasn’t even serving lunches. I wonder, today, how I managed to motivate myself to get up so early. On Sunday afternoon, the chef’s weekend finally starting, I would be so happy that it was all over. On Aug 31, the last day of service, I was relieved.

The results were impressive. Table after table of happy guests. Some came back for a second serving. Others invited friends. People I did not know existed came. One patron brought his dad, another her mom. It became the automatic choice for Queen’s School of Business socials. It was cheap and corkage was free. It was exhilarating and rewarding. The chicken fingers crowd ate it and probably assumed it was good. The foodies dissected the dishes and picked apart the ingredients. One foodie who had gone to Basque country, where this style of food originated, commented that at least a few of the dishes were Michelin quality. The slow-cooked chicken, people gorged in family-style fervour. The tiny pieces of sous-vide salmon, flaky and blushing pink in the middle, might have been the most loved dish. And of course, the frozen steak – well that was pretty for instagram.

I have tried to recreate some of these dishes in my spare time, and they fall short every time. Without the pressure of other people’s opinions, it is difficult to be self-motivating. And of course, you lose your touch after a long hiatus.

 Below is a list of lessons I learnt about the restaurant business:

1. Starting a restaurant isn’t difficult. I guess that is why there are so many new restaurants. Initial investment can be small.
2. Fixed costs are limited. Rent is the main one. Keeping operating leverage down is important to manage risk. You can figure out good ways to do this. One method that I used that doubled as good cooking practice is the frozen Chez Kong steak, which cooks right out of the freezer. It makes a perfect sear – and also lets you keep variable costs precisely in line with revenue.
3. The only pre-requisite, or intrinsic requirement for being a chef, is having a good palate. Most of your patrons will have a fraction of the palate as you will, so if you’re happy with it, they’re probably happy with it too.
4. Bad things happen. A nut (of the screwdriver variety) ended up in one of my patron’s dishes. It had fallen off of my pressure cooker. I felt absolutely terrible (though she didn’t really seem to mind).
5. The restaurant business is a lot of work. It essentially takes a whole day to prepare for one meal. Usually, there’s prep work the day before as well.
6. I am so lucky to have been born in the time of modernist cuisine. Food had previously had its apex in the French style – the style that is still currently the standard in almost any kitchen. The methods have not really changed in hundreds of years. The 20th century was not really the best for food. It is the century of diners, fast food, and processed food. Finally, quality food has seen a resurgence. At the centre of it is the idea of modernist cuisine. It is often attributed to the Basque country. But it has followers everywhere in the world. It is a wonderful revolution in the way we make food. The results are driven scientific precision.

As I ran the restaurant there were many people who were surprised that my professional future has very little to do with food (and similarly, that my prior education had been so formulaic). It seems like people were more impressed with my talents as a chef than with my future job in finance. When asked why I had no interest to continue as a chef, the answer is obvious. There is a very slim return for working in the restaurant business. These are the decisions we must all make in life. In this case, the decision is sad but obvious. 

A Parisian Chef in Toronto

It is from Spring, a Randwalk recommended Parisian restaurant opened by an American, where James Henry derives much of his inspiration. Half-cut radishes are allowed to be themselves, dipped simply into a “nettle butter” that resembles some middle-eastern slaw. The raw fish is like the sea bass dish from Spring, though it lacks any real flavour. It is from Au Passage that Henry gets a prevailing sense of simplicity. Asparagus with goat cheese and breadcrumbs. It’s slight and savoury; and the crumbs add much needed texture. It feels like warm farm-to-table cuisine and succeeds. Then there is the blue rare beef, aged 48 days and paired with charred romaine. A spread of anchovy as sweet as roasted garlic adds a bit of sophistication. A luscious Barbara d’Alba that was at its peak (after five years of aging). The meal was not without its faults. Some dishes erred on flavourlessness; the Aglianico was tart; the general presentation needed more work. Actually, most of the wine pairings could have been notched up a bit. But you could get over it easily. Like the soft poached potatoes with clams that could have easily been an appetizer at a 3-star restaurant. Or the gateau-basque-style almond tart with a side of goat milk sorbet, served with some old Spanish digestif. Which leads us to the most interesting dish of the night - a head cheese – black pudding combination that was midway between meat and paste. There were more than a few highlights of the dinner. It is difficult to be exciting in a world where a chef can be ferried in from Paris, or Australia. This dinner manages to be impressive despite all the jet-lag and unfamiliarity that comes with a pop-up kitchen.

This dinner is a part of Charlie Burger’s pop-up restaurant series, where famous chefs are invited to cook for a select group of foodies. This dinner occurred on Victoria Day, 2015 at Peter Pan.

$235 per person, all included.

Apéritif

Falanghina, Camporeale, Lunarossa, 2013, Campania, Italy

Amuse bouche

Terrine

Radishes, nettle butter

Raw fish, turnips

Steamed oyster

Champagne Charlie Burger, Rosé, Oger, France

Asparagus

ramps, bottarga

Fernao Pires, Porta de Teira, Ninfa Branco, 2012, Tejo, Portugal

TBD course

James Henry wants explore Canadian ingredients and feature something fun & seasonal

Aglianico, Camporeale, Lunarossa, 2013, Campania, Italy

Blood cake

peas, broad beans

Granata, Barranco Oscuro, 2010, Granada, Spain

Aged beef

romaine, anchovy

Barbara d'Alba, La Cresta, D.O.C, Roche Dei Manzoni, 2010, Piedmont, Italy

Almond tart

goat milk sorbet, wild strawberries

30 year-old Oloroso, Bodegas Tradicion, Jerez, Spain (older than some of our guests)

The Perils of Familiarity

A most unfortunate event happened today. It put an end to all the sunlight day-light saving time bought me. For a second it felt like all was lost. I was doing something that I did often. In fact, I did it just that morning. It’s one of those rote functions that can almost be automated. And I had tried, too. A few months ago I wrote some lines of code that would shed 10 minutes from this process. At times, tasks like these can be annoying. Others, it can be liberating. The joys of doing something your mind is so acclimated to that it requires no brainpower whatsoever.

But there is a reason why this process is not given to some computer to handle. It is because, in the rare instance, it is important to be alert. And, unfortunately, I was not. In the writings of Gladwell and Cialdini, special place is given to the shortcuts the mind takes. To process all the information in the world, the mind makes assumptions of familiar things so that it can devote more time to the unfamiliar. Cialdini gives an example of the line-skipper who does better because she uses the word “because”. Gladwell fills his entire book, Blink, with these stories.

Mine is a slightly less interesting story and so I will not get into the details. All I do know is that with this experience, this particular process will no longer be in realm of familiarity. I would like to end by expressing to my friends my gratitude for their support through this matter.

Italian Wine Tasting in New York

The story goes that the organizer of this event had been painfully hung-over from the youthful gallivants in the Tuscan night, and had stumbled across a wine shop owned by Cristian Brasini (see here). And in some twist of fulfilled promises she invited him to New York to share his wines. For this and other reasons, I escaped work for half a day to attend. There, I witnessed this animated wine merchant from Montepulciano passionately described the wines of his homeland. In a heavy accent, of course.

In a corner of what looked like a test kitchen behind a boutique wine store (see here), the rich and still youthful 30-somethings of New York City were jovial in the early Friday evening. At times the breezes of fragrant food brought out an exquisite hunger and made smelling the wines a chore. But there were always enough weaker wines to guzzle without much thinking. They tend to go along well with food anyway.

In the grand scheme of wines, Italy seems to play a supporting role to France. The famous ones are limited to two regions and maybe Veneto if you include Amarone. And the country is all but missing from whites, but for the ubiquitous Pinot Grigio. Yet that surface level conclusion is clearly misleading. Arguably, the country has a decidedly wide range of wines unknown to the rest of the world. It takes a real expert to understand the range of wines in Italy (like the organizer of this event).

The food is in need of praise. It is surprising that such haute-cuisine comes out of the back of a wine shop. In an explicitly un-italian fashion, each ingredient is scrutinized, glorified and described. Herbs picked a few miles away, for example. Luscious scallops in a clam-like bowl, topped with fish roe. A smokey cut of pumpkin. Tender pork belly infused with peanuts – what a pairing for the wines – any of them. Delicious chocolate ganache with a confident bitterness. New York has a lot of very good and very bad food. No one came for the food but perhaps that is what people will remember.

Except for the few Michelin star experiences in Europe (Arzak, Geranium), this was the most extravagant (and wallet breaking) wine and dine experience of late. It had seemed like all the stars had aligned to fulfill this. Here is a description of the wines I had. I’ve decided to rate the wines out of 5, using the same idea as the restaurant ratings on www.randwalk.com.

1. Inama Azienda Agricola Vulcaia Fume 2012 (Sauvignon Blanc). I thought this was a special wine. I don’t think I’ve had a fumé blanc from California before so I don’t have anything to compare it to. The oaking was done well – nice smoky flavor, some hints of vanilla but not overpowering. I can’t tell if it’s French or American oak but it seems to follow more of a new world style. The surprise was how sweet it was – which wasn’t a problem because of the bitterness imparted from the oak. I think this could benefit from aging to bring out more of the non-fruit flavours. (Rating = 5)
2. Inama Carmenere. I don’t remember exactly what this wine was. I think it was Carmenere, which is surprising since I haven’t seen that outside of Chile. I remember thinking this was meaty / peppery and so thought it was a rhône blend. I find Chilean wines difficult to drink because of the eucalyptus (or mint?) characteristics so I thought this was a good instance of Carmenere. (Rating = 4)
3. Bressan Pignol 2001 (Pignolo). This was easily my favourite wine. But I am a bit biased since I have a thing for lighter reds. The smell was intoxicating – very complicated and still fairly young, with lots of floral and red fruit smells. Some earthy and medicinal smells were starting to develop. The one smell I didn’t expect was the green pepper (or black pepper?), which I actually like a lot. I think this would be like an aged Chinon, which is more of a thought experiment than anything. The palate was a little light at first but it got more rounded after a while. (Rating = 5)
4. Travaglini Il Sogno 2008. Ripasso with Nebbiolo seems sensible but I guess I was annoyed that it tasted closer to port than a Barolo. It seems like this wine was well received by the crowd but, of course, they are wrong. (Rating = 2)
5. Passopisciaro “Passopisciaro” (Sicily, Nerello Mascalese) 2012. This was very average but maybe it would better with age. I thought it tasted like an Ontario pinot noir, which I would drink all day long. But I was already getting a bit tipsy and decided to throw most of this out for my health. (Rating = 2)
6. Gulfi Nero Bufaleffj 2009 (Nero d’Avola). I can’t believe how good this was for a reasonable price. Reminded me of a rich Bordeaux blend but particularly liked that it felt more “precise” and less tannic. It was surprisingly easy drinking. (Rating = 4)
7. Silvia Imparato Montevetrano 2011 (Campania, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot & Alglianico). This was not good as I’m sure we all agree. I think there are $10 wines that kind of taste like this. Tasted like someone put vanilla extract in it. It seems like this wine was also well received by the crowd but, again, they are so off (note average wine tasters prefer sugar and vanilla everywhere). (Rating = 1)
8. Il Moro di San Giovanni 2007 and the other two supertuscans. I’m going to lump the three supertuscans together. I think these are literally the first supertuscans I’ve had and so excuse my ignorance. My least favourite was actually the 3rd one, despite it being the most expensive – I found it to be too sweet and the secondary flavours hadn’t developed enough yet to balance the sweetness. Between the first and second, it’s a coin flip. Both were very well made. I think (and you will disagree) that these lack the acidity that makes Bordeaux great. Probably the second super Tuscan was my favourite because of the stronger acidity. The primary flavours were all very nice and indicative of the grapes that went into these. (Rating = 3)
9. Felsina Chianti Classico Gran Riserva Colonia 2007. I wasn’t terribly impressed with this but after 10 minutes in the glass, it developed very well and started to show a secondary flavor profile of leather and cassis. It’s nice to know that it can start showing in a reasonably young Chianti. (Rating = 5)
10. Masciarelli Villa Gemma 2006. This tasted like a lot of Tuscan wines do. Not a terrible fan of this grape (Montepulciano d’Abruzzo). Tasted like a lot of stewed fruits. Slightly boring. Lacked precision. (Rating = 2)
11. Isole e Olena Vin Santo del Chianti Classico 2005. Powerful aroma of stewed apricots. Interesting they make this in Chianti. I don’t drink dessert wines so can’t comment much here. (Rating = 3)

House of Cards, A Shakespearean Tragedy

The power of news is exposed in House of Cards. The polarizing schemer of Washington, played by Kevin Spacey, uses the news (and its conduit, Rachel) to achieve his political goals. Smear campaigns, sound bites (“disorganized labour”) and sob stories help misinform and mislead the public. Whether the news is used respectfully, as in the Newsroom, or villainously, by Washington, it is decidedly powerful. 

The poor pawns at the Herald spend the entire season at Underwood’s command; but their closeness to the lies is what gives them power. In the finale, Underwood celebrates a victory to be undone by the revelations of vultures-turned-heroes. 

Underwood is a tragic hero with periodic soliloquies who is unfairly schemed against and seeks retribution by playing god. He controls, manipulates and kills yet the audience feels not anger, just empathy. Further, he is a guilty pleasure. His actions require the audience to question their own fallibilities and their own value systems. Underwood is the alpha male that is respected in private and scrutinized in public. 

The first season turned Democratic Whip to Vice President. The second made him President. His stratospheric rise rode on skulls and bones. Frank's pleasures seem to often derive from Schadenfreude. One exception is his all-american love for ribs from a dilapidated hole-in-the-wall. Aside from relief from scrutiny, the bbq joint allows Frank to relinquish power. Freddy proclaims himself as "president, vice-president and the congress" in his restaurant. Similarly, Xander Feng, the successful Chinese businessman, opens an episode with some 50-shades with roles reversed. The show successfully shows power, both as a motivator, and as a burden. 

Frank's wife turns out to be a complicated character herself (maybe more complicated). She twists and turns, with unclear motives, has power (she overturns her own bill in rebellion against her husband) and is powerless (she is sued by her ideological opposite). She marries her husband for excitement, not happiness. 

As with any Shakespearean tragedy,  the third act will feature turning action. Frank, now president, will soon reach his peak. (As a comparison, Macbeth was crowned at the  end of Act II, and begins his epic downfall in Act III.)  Lady Underwood has, until now, egged his husband on. Perhaps she will even start feeling remorse. Watch the trailer and you will see her going down the route of Lady Macbeth. It is unclear how viewers will receive this. Much of the show is built on our restrained support for Frank. His downfall will be met with sadness, even when he deserves it. 

The 3rd season of House of Cards appears on Netflix tomorrow.

Personal Taxes: A Proposition for Smoothed and Many-Stream Taxation

This article has come out two months too late. If you have followed the trajectory that Queen’s Commerce (or equivalent programs) have lobbed you in, your tax rate has, as of January 1st, increased from 0 to one of the highest brackets. In 2014, you likely worked just enough to use up all of your deferred education credits. Now you venture unshielded into bonus-season. You have never filed a tax return, and so have no idea that metro-passes are tax-deductible. $2.70 tokens probably made sense two months ago. Last month, after applying a 40% tax shield, a metro-pass easily becomes more economical, requiring only one ride a day to break-even.

There are real economic implications of understanding taxes. That seems sensible. But it isn’t. The point of taxes is to provide revenue to the government and encourage or discourage certain behaviors. If you had to think about it, a tax isn’t doing what it’s designed to do. If you didn’t know you could get a tax credit from a metro-pass, then you are not being encouraged to take a metro. More importantly, if you are deviating from value-maximizing behavior as rational people generally take, then the tax is creating deadweight loss.

So a tax regime has failed when people move from a 0% tax rate to a 40% tax rate overnight. No underlying economic condition has changed yet the difference in tax regime causes different behaviors. One of these two sets of behaviors must be inefficient.

To illustrate the inefficiency, consider the job market for incoming graduates. One company offers a signing bonus while another offers a one-time year-end bonus that is of equivalent value. Graduates will be unnaturally drawn to the company offering a signing bonus because it would be taxed in the low-tax-rate year whereas a year-end bonus would be taxed in the high-tax-rate year. Thus resources are being allocated according to tax-related policies, instead of real economic effects.

There are a few takeaways from this brief discussion. First, companies should always offer new graduates a signing bonus, even if it means a lower salary. Second, the tax regime should correct for these inefficiencies. One idea is apply tax rates based on average income over a period of time. This is particularly meaningful for people in more volatile professions. People who make the same amount of money as others over a long period of time, but have more volatile incomes should not be subject to more tax as more stable income earners. Another idea is the prospect of lifetime progressive taxation. Here, the marginal tax is calculated based on income made over a lifetime. In theory, this method appears the most sensible. But it would only work if people saved prudently, and that isn’t likely.

Finally, we should consider the goals of taxation in more detail. The view that taxation should intrinsically be progressive (i.e. richer people are taxed more) is wrong. If that were true, the populous would never allow governments to implement the HST. No, taxes are primarily based on short term views on how to raise the most amount of money. The famous laffer curve says that no taxes would be raised should rates be 0 or 100%. The laffer curve should be maximized somewhere in between. Thus the ideal policy should encourage people to make enough money such that such money can be taxed.

For normal earnings, such as primary employment income, the current marginal tax system works well. Again, the reason is not because taxes should intrinsically be progressive. Instead, rising marginal rates keep marginal utility constant. Generally, people’s basic expenditures are similar and fixed regardless of income. A low starting marginal tax rate allows people to have access to basic needs. Further income is taxed higher, but you need less further income to improve life. (In fact, I would advocate for much fewer tranches of marginal tax rates, probably three. The first tranche is taxed at 0 or very little and allows people to satisfy their fixed expenses; the second tranche is taxed at a low amount, say 20-30%, that satisfies the needs of most middle income families, such as car, cell phones, birthday parties, movie tickets, books etc. This tranche should end higher than the median income to encourage the majority of people to earn more money. Anything above that should just be taxed at a flat rate. It would be assumed that any income in this tranche is used for discretionary activities that provide people a high utility, even when discounted at a higher tax rate. Note that our current taxation system follows this to an extent.)

Where our current taxation becomes problematic is for alternate sources of income. Under the current system of taxation, it makes more sense for a lower income individual to undertake new positive economic activity than a higher income individual, even when the positive economic activity is equivalent. This is exacerbated by higher income individuals potentially having less time, and thus an even higher opportunity cost to create extra positive economic activity. These perverse incentives are contrary to effective tax policy and should be changed. Secondary income, perhaps defined as the lower stream of income, should be taxed at some fixed rate (say ~20%).

Of course this kind of policy is subject to gaming, so certain restrictions must apply. People should not be allowed to take two part time jobs and have that count as two separate streams of income. If the second stream of income is similar to the first one, they should be combined. I would not say that anything like this is likely to be implemented, but thinking along these lines should be helpful in establishing a more economic tax policy.

As a final note, I will explain one tax-gaming idea that, to my knowledge, has since been closed by the government. The idea was to use the TFSA to hold securities in companies you own yourself (these companies can be ghost corporations that hold your property, etc). The companies would then dividend everything out to the TFSA, and pay no income. Doing this is illegal, but there are probably many other “loopholes” that aren’t. Clearly, understanding tax is essential to every economic decision. The first thing you therefore do is memorize this table http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm. 

A Comprehensive Definition of Happiness

In this article, I improve on my previous attempts to define happiness. I am convinced that happiness is reconciliation between expected and actual results. However, the relationship between the two has been ill-defined. But, let us try.

For simplicity, we will assume there is a linear relationship. That is, happiness is exactly the difference between expected and actual results:

ϵ=Y-X

Here, ϵ is happiness, Y is actual results and X is expected results. Taking Y to be a function of X (since Y happens after X)

Y=X+ϵ

This gives an equation for a linear regression through the origin with beta = 1. Happiness is the error term. Three conditions must hold. ϵ must be normally distributed, be independent sample-to-sample and have constant variance. These are mostly reasonable. For example, constant variance verifies that people of all income levels are similarly happy. Independence sample-to-sample means day-to-day variations can be rocky, another generally accepted consequence of life. That ϵ is normally distributed, however, is less substantiated. Kurtosis (fat tails, i.e. bi-polar) and skewness (like the perennially disappointed French) are likely characteristics of happiness. However, for ease of analysis, we will assume ϵ is normal.

Implication 1: The goal should be the decrease standard deviation. 

σ = 10, μ = 0

σ = 50, μ = 0

Implication 2: Learn to predict results more accurately

 

σ = 10, μ = -10

Overly-optimistic predictions result in unhappiness

σ = 10, μ = +10

Overly-pessimistic predictions result in happiness

The Problem with Scholarships

Scholarships for the 2013-2014 year have largely been determined. It allows for a look back into the financial aid received over the last four years to assess the validity and effectiveness of monies received. Financial aid is the means by which universities acquire a student body that is advantageous to the perception of the institution and for the future quality of alumni (and therefore, future funding). Private universities are more adept at providing financial aid because they have turned it into an intrinsic part of their business model: pay for top talent against fierce competition and make a return thereafter. 

My own experience with scholarships has been sweet-and-sour. I have probably amassed more funding than the average student; but I have not received any major scholarship, nor have I received many scholarships where an application is required. The highest dollar scholarship I have received is $4000. The total, I will not publically state as not to appear boastful, but it is by no means an unprecedented amount.

55% of financial aid funding was from automatic grade-based scholarships. Half of it was awarded upon entrance. For an institution, talent acquisition is more difficult than talent retention.  But the preference for entrance scholarships falls apart given the disparity in grading at the high school level. Determining over one-fourth of scholarship funding by inconsistent evaluation is daft. From the institution’s perspective, it incentivizes a pseudo-random sample of students to attend.

The other half of automatic scholarships is not without its problems but is significantly fairer. Students take a repertoire of similar courses with similar grade distributions so that the highest performing students receive the highest payouts. But grade calculations are questionable and uniformity of grade distributions class-to-class is not assured. Also, universities do not benefit; students who are high performers need not the monetary persuasion.

How to improve scholarship funding

Large scholarships (e.g. $500+) should have transparent eligibility criteria (e.g. female students who have taken COMM X, Y and Z in previous years). Scholarship descriptions in their current state are obnoxiously ambiguous: are they awarded on cumulative or yearly rankings? Are courses taken under Arts and Science excluded? These particulars have significant implications for payout. Specifying criteria clearly improves student goals and levels the playing field.

This is particular true for the 12% from course-specific scholarships. One commerce award is rumoured to be based on the average of the 160-series courses. In my year, the grades spanned both percentages and GPA, making the entire process highly debatable. These idiosyncrasies need to be explained in advance. 

However the plunder is divided up, there will always be complaints, not least because the losers far outnumber the winners. It is, therefore, in the university's best interest to be methodical when determining awards and clear about how performance is measured. Transparency protects universities from sour students and accusations of favouritism. It protects the rights of donors and awards specific types of performance the university or the donor intends to award. Finally, it's fair.

Why Dating is so Difficult

Marriage, surprisingly, has an analytic solution. Economists have devised a “deferred acceptance” theory that applies to marriage, and have won a Nobel prize for it. Game theory suggests that to be happy, one must be prepared to be lonely 37% of the time. On a bus ride in the Tieguanyin tea plantations of Taipei, fueled by caffeine and a high altitude, I wondered whether economics can explain why dating is so difficult. Emotional irrationalities aside, it seems like dating in the modern era is more difficult because of transparency – the incalculable struggle of deciding when to become “Facebook official,” or whether to post a particular display picture.  This might seem obvious enough, but the following will hopefully justify why this is indeed the case. In short, our current environment accepts fewer couples than the socially optimal quantity.

Deciding whether or not to date someone should be a simple enough task. Like in any decision, the benefits should outweigh the costs. In other words, the marginal benefit of dating the next girl should outweigh the costs of doing so. Although there are few if any real costs of dating, there is clearly opportunity cost: missing an opportunity to date someone better or sacrificing career opportunities. The socially optimal quantity for any individual is to date every girl whose marginal benefit, i.e. the utility derived from dating said girl, is greater than the opportunity costs. However, this socially optimal point is rarely reached. Perhaps that is why people find dating so difficult.
           
As in most markets, the marginal benefit curve is downward sloping. If you could only date one girl, you would choose your favorite – the one that provides the most utility to you. The next girl you date will provide slightly lower utility.  In this way, you may visualize dating with a downward sloping demand curve. As we rush into our twenties, most with little interest in settling down anytime soon, this demand curve can be viewed as how many girlfriends or boyfriends we have over a certain period of time (maybe 5 years). Indeed, this is exactly what a demand curve is.

In order for a socially optimal point to be reached, the marginal revenue curve must be equal to the demand curve. This only happens when there is first-degree price discrimination. The analogue in the world of dating is each date you find does not affect the quality of other dates. In actuality, this is rarely the case. In the world where appearances are everything, choosing to date one girl might exclude you from dating another girl. This is the problem a monopolist faces. In a one-price monopoly, lowering the price for one customer means lowering it for everyone else – the explanation why marginal revenue is always below demand. Similarly, choosing to date a girl that you are perfectly happy with dating, but just passes the bar, might exclude you from dating a girl you would otherwise be happier with – because of social reasons and signaling theory.

So how do we move ourselves so we are closer to the socially optimal amount? First-degree price discrimination is difficult to perform. However, there may be an opportunity to perform third-degree price discrimination. In the dating world, we will find ourselves facing groups of people will differing elasticities.  In laymen’s terms, some will like us more than others. For 3rd degree price discrimination to work, these groups must be identifiable and separable. A good example, as evidenced by a close friend, is an Asian church-going group that is shielded from Facebook, and mostly-white friends of friends from Queen’s. These groups will have different elasticities and more importantly dating people from one group will not exclude you from dating people from another group (i.e. “non-transferable”).

Segmenting potential candidates into these groups and ensuring some Chinese wall between them will move dating to a more socially optimal quantity. Interestingly, this response has already happened. It appears like many relationships are moving in the direction of limbo – not just passerbys but no labels either. That helps keep relationships unofficial and therefore out of the dinner conversations (or the Alehouse bar, if you will). Couples are getting better at keeping relationships to themselves, though sometimes the housemates get drunk and spill the beans, and still other times a scrupulous, troublemaking detective becomes gossip Queen. Perhaps this is an economic justification to engage in “double-dealing”, though certainly not in the traditional sense of the word. 

Academy Awards

2014

The films of 2014 focused disproportionately on personal feats. Yes, all stories need a protagonist, but the majority of the academy nominated films this year explore personal accomplishment and sacrifice. 

Two films are about geniuses, who almost by definition, are recluses. Alan Turing and Stephen Hawking in the Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything are both afflicted in their own way and have dedicated their lives in search of their intellectual pursuits. The Theory of Everything manages to be beautiful and potent despite being largely autobiographical; Imitation Game is a confusing mass-marketed disaster that deviates meaningfully from real events and juxtaposes too many overplayed themes ranging from feminism to homosexuality.

American Sniper follows the personal struggles and accomplishments of the most lethal American sniper in history, and has the feel of Hurt Locker and Zero-Dark-Thirty. Selma takes from a more notable period in US history, telling the story of Martin Luther King's most pivotal days. The film is precise, well-acted and ultimately uncomplicated.

Golden Globe winner Boyhood is a revolution in movie-making, successfully exploring adolescence by filming over a decade. It's a story with no real plot, like a reality show for the intelligentsia. It holds viewers in merely through its beauty and delicacy.

Grand Budapest Hotel is Wes Anderson's eighth feature, and likely his best. The artistry is engrossing, from the minute details of each scene to the dark jokes you shouldn't be laughing at. 

And back to films on individual success, Birdman and Whiplash are both about the struggle for recognition. Although one is a comedy and the other could not be more serious, the two films could have been confused for the same, linked by the the Manhattan setting, backstage clamours, suicidal overtones, yearning for approval. The main character of Birdman has found fame but is looking for it in the more respected field of theatre. The student drummer in Whiplash wants to become one of the greats.

Birdman has the most artistic merit of all the films. The cinematography is particularly catching – in one fluid motion the camera captures the entire film. It gives the film an odd gravitas to balance  the quirks. All the nonsense, like Birdman's play's name ("What We Talk About When We Talk About Love", the movie's second title "(The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)", and the random guy reciting lines from MacBeth, are held together by the empathy the audience feels for Birdman. 

Whiplash manages to be emotionally on-edge despite a seemingly mundane subject. J. K. Simmons seems sure to win best supporting actor as the monomaniacal music teacher obsessed with training the next great musician. It is the perfect showing of the destructive power of perfection. The nuance that is presented so well is the persuasive, addictive nature of chasing greatness, and how little-by-little it leads people down a degenerative path. And so it is my easy pick for Best Picture.

2013

Against last year’s spectacular line-up, this year’s best picture hopefuls are hopelessly mediocre. This year’s films are largely “true stories” and “Americanized”. 12 Years a Slave, American Hustle, Dallas Buyers Club, The Wolf of Wall Street, Captain Phillips, and Philomena are all true stories. All of the above except Philomena are unapologetically American. 12 Years a Slave begins with a treacherous period of Americans history. It makes the point but no more effectively than any other film on slavery, and has less artistic quality than Tarantino’s Django (2012). American Hustle, set in the slimy late 1970s, tells of fallible con-men messing with gangsters. In Dallas Buyers Club, set in the early days of the AIDS epidemic (1980s), a homophobe smuggles drugs from Mexico to give himself a fighting chance. The Wolf of Wall Street, set in the high-flying 1990’s, shows the morally loose lifestyles of finance fraudsters. Most recent is Captain Phillips, a patriotic story of how SEALs rescued a cargo ship taken over by Somalian pirates. Gravity is thankfully not a true story. It is a triumph of special effects and cinematography, but is not much more than a crowd-pleasing blockbuster. One of the nominations even bears the name of a U.S. state. Nebraska tells of a man who believes he’s won the lottery. The Academy Awards have not always been so patriotic. These are also the awards that have, in the past, given top prize to Slumdog Millionaire and the Kings’ Speech. Indeed, last year, the nominees included a French film, a film set in France, and two films set nowhere at all. 

The Academy has historically favoured films about true stories. Argo, of course was a true story – and so were Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty. Those films are able to outstep the confines of storytelling and create complicated messages and complicated feelings. Against those, the films this year seem to only have one unambiguous message: terrible or sensational things happened the in past. Aside from those two main themes, this year’s line up fails to be novel. They discuss or present overly-discussed issues like homosexuality (Dallas, Philomena), con-men (Hustle, Wolf), Catholic indecency (Philomena), self-sacrifice (Gravity, Slave). Some casting decisions are impressive (Jennifer Lawrence in Hustle), and some are too predictable (Clooney in Gravity, Pitt in Slave).

Many films present serious matters from a humorous angle (as Django did). Only one film this year uses comedy to expose truth. “Her” is un-American and not based on a true story, and is the only essential film of the nine. It explores the human emotion of love with no pre-conceived notions and in a non-judgmental manner. In a futuristic world, where moustaches and high-waisted pants are in, humans date bodyless artificially intelligent beings . In one case, surrogate partners are used to give the artificially intelligent beings a physical quality. Despite these progressive and potentially offensive arrangements, the quality of the film is to keep viewers from making fundamental judgements of acceptability, and instead keeps viewers focused on the point – that love is more mental than physical (the message is more complicated but that was the main take-away). Despite the inherent comedic quality of the film, it still manages to instill tremendous feeling of grief, anger, joy and so on. So my pick for best picture is without a doubt “Her”. It’s a such a shame it won’t win, for whatever reason.

2012

2012 was the most contested year for Best Picture since 2008 (Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader). Golden Globe winner Argo is a far-fetched reality of the unusual escape of American hostages in Iran, 1980 and takes such creative liberties as downplaying Canada’s essential role. Les Misérables is a tear-inducing musical spectacle. Lincoln, a favourite, is a rhetorical masterpiece of an inspiring politician unseen in today’s political climate. Life of Pi and Beasts of a Southern Wild are beautiful movies set on rafts and islands. Django Unchained won’t win but is exceptionally fun to watch. Amour, a story on the loss of faculties in old age, reignites France’s leading role in the industry. And finally, my favourite, Zero Dark Thirty, retells the capture of Osama Bin Laden. This quick-moving, politically relevant and heart-wrenching movie improves on last year’s winner, The Hurt Locker. And I did not watch Silver Lining Playbook, but that’s okay because it won’t win.

Charlie Hebdo is a tragic loss for liberal France and the liberal world

Of all the misfortunes that befall our world, the most unsettling is the attack in Paris last week. It was not the most gruesome or most radical. Its hit count is insignificant compared to other tragedies. What is different in the Paris attacks is that Paris was a clear and direct attempt to squelch the liberal values the progressive world hold dear. That it happened in the birthplace of liberalism, in a city where many more people have died for similar reasons, aggravates the insult.

That the murderers were in the wrong is accepted universally. That the victims were right is less clear. Many discussions of Charlie Hebdo discuss the gray zone of freedom of speech. You cannot freely exhibit anti-Semitism so should not the same apply to Charlie’s cartoons of Islam. Free speech is a difficult topic to wrestle with; and not the right question to ask. The answer is much clearer – that Charlie Hebdo was not only in the right, but espoused all the values that create the liberal world we live in. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons are a criticism of religions, notably Islam. Criticism is not hate; indeed it is often the prerequisite of improvement. To criticize the misogynistic aspects of Islam is not to say anything of its followers as criticizing U.S. foreign policy is not to imply Americans are bad people. Sometimes, especially in graphic representation, figureheads like Obama or the Prophet are used to represent an institution. But when Obama reads the Economist, he knows that he is not personally being made fun of by the Kal the cartoonist.

Criticism through humour is an integral part of the Western intellectual collective. And contrary to Pope Francis’s wisdom, nothing can be exempt from receiving criticism. Criticism is the democratic way by which citizens hold their friends, family, politicians, companies, governments, and yes, institutions, religious or otherwise, accountable. The method of criticism preferred by Charlie Hebdo is a crass and perhaps objectionable form, but nevertheless an integral part of French (and Western) culture. It is called satire, and the art form has existed at least since the playwrights of Ancient Greece.

It is through forms of criticism like satire that the French first led the world to liberal and democratic values. Pamphlets of similarly crass and indignant portraits of royalty were distributed in the wake of the French Revolution. It was a criticism of the Bourbons. Many probably died for their depictions. Much of the world owes its current liberal and democratic state to the same antics that were violently suppressed last week. There are two points that bother me the most. First, that such a righteous and ideological country, that in history and present, has been on the “right” side of most wars, that has produced the most cunning writers and philosophers, where the populous is so thoughtful that they turn melancholy, was so unfairly targeted by evil. It is unfair. Second, that there seems to be a question of whether Charlie Hebdo was “asking for it”. It is painful to make other people unhappy, but it must be done. Hopefully, you will agree that Charlie Hebdo is nothing short of a martyr.

There are and should be limits to free speech when they inspire hatred or violence. But free speech should not be limited just because it makes someone feel bad. There has been a recent uproar on a comedian who was arrested for being censored when he allegedly supported one of the murderers. That is not satire; it is bad taste. To support a murderer is clearly hatred to those who died; to publish Mohammed saying “100 lashes if you don't die of laughter!” is criticizing the brutalities of Sharia law. And that is an important difference.

Dating in the Modern World

For all mathematical abstraction presented in the biographical “A Theory of Everything,” it is not Stephen Hawking’s ideas in theoretical physics that are the most eye-opening but rather his tumultuous personal life. The most heartwarming scenes have Mr. Hawking, with a looming, childish gaze, fixated on the women of his life (or, in their absence, a Penthouse magazine). The serendipitous meeting between Mr. Hawking and his future wife at Cambridge is particularly touching. It seemed like in one deciding gaze, an intractable equality was solved.

This is not the first film about romance afforded to an afflicted genius. In 2002, A Beautiful Mind won best picture for a film about the schizophrenic father of modern game theory. It’s a testament to the curiosity of the general movie-goer for a glimpse into the mind of genius. Although the actual theories and propositions are inaccessible to the viewer, their love lives are.

To the credit of the film, it portrays Jane, Stephen’s first wife, as a heroic figure, dealing without complaint with all the tribulations of having a vegetable husband. Her confidence first shows when after a delirious night of conversation she hands Stephen a napkin with her phone number scribbled inside. He later invites her to a ball, when he adamantly admits his disdain for dancing. Then in a moment of clarity, his degeneration already apparent, they awkwardly embrace and dance a most dashing dance. It was as though, for a fraction of a second, time had stopped. Or as Hawking would put it, they were sucked into a black hole.

I will not pretend to be an expert in sociology, and my own reference of old-world courtship is through the shows and films I watch. This medium will no doubt introduce bias. But shall we begin by noting this exchange between Hawking and Jane occurred in a place not too far from ours in a time not too long ago, between people not too different than ourselves. The past may always seem better than the present, but in this case, is the past not decidedly more civilized, more romantic, more dignified than today. These two participants were university students, like you and I were a few months ago, and met with some liquid enablers in hand as we always do, in places where they could actually hear each other talk. When needed, they could easily find refuge leagues away from anyone else.

It is almost inexplicable how there can be such a divergence in courting practices over the last 30 years. Yes, since then Hawking has published on black hole radiation, computers have been invented and bankers have become the new celebrities (or villains). That would explain the outgrowth of tinder couples, but not the massive turn to the sensory deprivation method of our time. It seems that the objective now is to warp, mask, or disregard reality in an effort to create the largest possible sample size.

Should we note that in the aftermath of WWI, the Brits were sensibly turned to a romanticized form of courtship unseen by aristocrats in the prior period. Faces turned when the widowed Mary Crawley, tested the waters with a potential suitor in Liverpool. Courting in British aristocratic circles is characterized by a clear and weighty forward momentum. Both sides are decidedly honest and straightforward with their intentions. An effort is made to play out the possibility. The basic premise seems to hold from Hawking to time immemorial. At some point between Hawking and the present, the focus turned from getting to know as much about someone to trying to know was little about the other person as possible. It's a phenomenon that seems to have no rational explanation, though admittedly these processes are hardly rational.

The reason for these aberrations, I believe, is the change in the amount of free time we have. Technology has intruded into every part of our lives, giving us unbelievable access to information, and keeps us wired at all times.  Wealth has concentrated in a small group of people who can complement technology; all others are losing share. The implications for courtship is twofold: people in the small group will find fewer compatible mates – this is exacerbated by the limited amount of time afforded to each participant. Thus the result is an effort to maximize n.

It is encouraging, however, to find that technology is having an opposite effect to the recent phenomenon. It can be argued that new methods of meeting others, like Tinder, are a direct response to the messy way that is prevalent today. At the very least, participants on Tinder can be briefed on the candidate and proceed to chat with them. It follows a systematic rigour found earlier; it gives participants control. It focuses on getting to know one another first (though that is not always the case).

Technology had a twofold effect of dehumanizing dating: it stratified society and tied 20-somethings to their blackberries. Finally, technology is having an opposite effect. It was nothing short of a revolution that would engulf the most pressing part of our post-undergraduate lives. Consider an app that tracks people that you could have met by GPS, and lets you chat with them if you can identify what he or she was wearing, or what he or she said in conversation. A correspondence would only initiate if both parties reach out. The chore of getting each other’s numbers will disappear. You have access to every person you meet, but only if he or she is on the same page. This was my idea of a dating app, and not half a year later, it would come out. It is called Happn. It is available in Toronto and in most major cities. In the industry of romance, there are apps for essentially every purpose imaginable.

The first evidence of this trend was when a nutty techie invented “Joysper” at Queen’s University, the epicentre of youthful gallivants (see http://randwalk.com/blog/2013/11/24/pick-your-poison-partying-culture-at-queens-university). Joysper (seehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAG5jxnaiRk) was the first Tinder, a novel way to meet people in the information age. Of course, online dating had already been prevalent, but was relegated to socially obtuse and desperate participants. Joysper made online dating cool by implementing a double-blind matching process that requires no explanation to readers of this blog-post. Tinder made the Joysper method ubiquitous by taking the concept mobile.

Thereafter, more apps followed, each with its unique attributes: Coffee Meets Bagel offers one match a day;  Happn connects you with people you’ve passed by; OkCupid is a widely used dating website-turned-app, Grindr is for gay men; Momo is for Asians; and so on. It is not unlikely for participants to be on many of these platforms since tiptoeing around is no formula for love. It is the initial acceptance of app-based dating that requires thought. The decision is uneasy and fraught with concerns; so it needs to be treated comprehensively. The following paragraphs try to offer a framework to consider app-based dating.

We must recognize the benefits of app-based dating. They are highly efficient at creating opportunities. Traditional online dating increases each participant’s reach. App-based dating have lowered the risk of each opportunity, and have helped participants focus on the most high-probability targets. The methodology is sound – Tinder is wildly popular. Success stories are plentiful. Importantly, Tinder is a diversified platform that offers participants different options: it is generally considered useful for most intentions.

The proliferation of Tinder and OkCupid have caused a stir. Controversies abound over vanity, racism, instant gratification, misrepresentation, self-validation. It’s enough to scare any potential user away. But these criticisms are hardly isolated to online dating. They can be applied to the human race in general. Yes, humans are intrinsically vain and racist. These are our god-given follies and society has done little to correct them. Yes, we no longer have segregated schools but intelligent people still tend to believe that dating preferences should not be subject to the same watchful eye of racism. So it is no surprise that on OkCupid, being black costs you almost a star on your rating (http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-dataclysm-by-christian-rudder-1412372499).  It seems highly arbitrary to carve out one whole branch of life, especially such an important one, and give it immunity from anti-racial feelings. A better policy is to simply admit that everyone is inherently racist and that we should all do our best to control it. An even more rampant human folly is to be overly vain. Unlike racism, which is cultural, being looksist is biological. Because it is engrained in our DNA, it is a more severe problem, a true injustice for which there is almost no defence other than the slow ticking of evolution. Like racism, we must admit our vain side and control it when possible. We should take some comfort in that these issues exist everywhere in the animal kingdom – and to a worse extent since animals lack the self-control humans do.

The question of Tinder is, therefore, not that they produce lookists and racist results, since that is produced in any interaction between humans. Rather, the question must be if they espouse greater racism or looksism. The answer is no. Seeing a photo of someone is sure to draw the same feelings of vanity and racism as meeting someone in real-life, unless the meeting was done blindfolded. In fact, Tinder at least provides some extra tidbits of detail when in another setting, the participants might just simply walk away. The age-old adage “love at first sight” is telling. Whether it is on an iPhone or across Alehouse, the first interaction is an image.

The most scathing criticisms can be mitigated but less apparent problems exist. There is no evidence of efficacy beyond ability to create relationships. The resultant Tinder couples have not been compared to control group couples on relevant metrics like quality, length and satisfaction. More problematic is the skew towards accepting more than rejecting: there is no cost of “swiping right” whereas the cost of “swiping left” is not knowing. This skew creates potentially insincere matches that can be unpleasant and a waste of time. Tinder can also be vulgar and even dangerous.  Morally, depending on your stance, it can be questioned for its contravention of Colossians 3, and the analogous chapter in other major moral codes.

Most of the concerns can be taken care of. Each individual can use it to his or her advantage, according to his or her goals, in adherence to his or her moral code. It can be used intensely or precisely. It is by no means mutually exclusive with other forms of courtship. Thus the question seems to have evolved from whether or not to use Tinder to how it should be used. The app appears capable of at least adding value at the margins, without excessive risks or costs. More likely, it will change human behaviour.  

Ode to Wine / Blind Tasting

It was inevitable to be drawn to wine. In Europe, it is slurped like water. In starred restaurants, it is paired with food. It strengthens the palate and plays tricks on the nose. It has as long a history as anything. It is intrinsic to and often defines culture all over the world. Its prevalence everywhere in the world is a testament to the closeness and oneness of humans. Pablo Neruda has nothing but good to say about the legendary grape (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/ode-to-wine/). Beer is forever for the cheap drunkard; spirits are for the perennially unhappy (think Mad Men). Wine is for the jovial.

It would seem to be a shame to live through another day without the joys afforded by wine. But the subject is shrouded by mystery. It is also a fairly expensive taste. Altogether it is a difficult subject to learn. It is more complicated than beer by many magnitudes. For this reason, wine itself has been discounted by consumers that order indiscriminately, and buy according to price tag at the LCBO. Consider the sorrows of a wheat beer lover that accidentally orders a hoppy IPA. There are enough types of wine to suit any taste bud (and most budgets). One experience illustrates my recent obsession with wine.

It was just another day in Copenhagen. I was eating at a quaint little fishbar in an industrial part of town. The wines in Denmark are too expensive – the pairings with the meal at Geranium were over $100. They generally go for at least $10 a glass. But at least the standard glass size in Denmark is 200mL instead of the stingy French who only give 125mL. (In Canada, it is usually 150mL or 187 mL.) In my adventure to find a cheap glass of wine, I stumbled upon a sherry. I had used sherry vinegar before; but I had no idea it was a fortified wine – something the waitress was kind enough to explain to me.

I had enough. It seemed wrong to be going to all these restaurants in the name of food blogging yet being a complete amateur when it came to wine – an indispensible side of gastronomy. And I am generally against doing things half-assed so I decided to learn wines inside and out. I had watched a thrilling documentary called “Somm,” where wanabe sommeliers have to guess the varietal, vintage and appellation of a wine purely by sight, smell and taste. I re-watched some clips and got excited. That would be my goal. Someday, I want to be able to guess a wine from what it tastes like. It seemed like a good way to hone in on your senses – and to make you more acutely aware of your surroundings. The wanabe sommeliers talk about going to the market every day so they could smell apples, pears, berries, lemons – just so that they don’t lose their ability to pick up even the tiniest clue when blind tasting. So it’s obvious then that there is some intricate link between wine and food. Being good at one makes you good at the other. At the very least, it would be a cool party trick.

We are also at a stage of our lives when wine makes a lot of sense. Slowing metabolisms and beer bellies prefer wine. Learning wine is expensive – and now it’s affordable.  The next post will detail my supercharged attempt to learn about wine. I was racing against my imminent job catching up with me. But for most people, a leisurely approach is acceptable.

Wine List (unsolicited advice to learn about wine)

1. Get a list of the most important wines in the world. And have one of each. There are an outrageous types of wine so only focus on the most important ones. That means stop drinking Ontario wines. There is nothing wrong with Ontario wines but you need to learn the important wines before learning the offshoots. Use these red and white lists because they are the testable material for the master sommelier diploma. If you can’t memorize this list, have it readily accessible when you order or buy wines.
2. Take some introductory classes. The most accessible are at the LCBO. Price per wine tasted is usually $5. You also get the lesson that comes with it.
3. Get a car and go to Niagara wine country. This is the cheapest place to try a lot of wine. It is usually $1-2 per wine tasted.
4. Blind Tasting. I will discuss this in detail in the next post. I think that our perception of wine is largely predetermined by irrelevant factors – mainly the price and how French-sounding the label is. The only way to truly understand wine is to turn wine-ordering around. Tell what a particular wine is without looking at the label. This can be done economically at any restaurant that sells flights of wine or wines for 3oz. The best one I’ve found so far is Crush Wine Bar, where it costs about $7.5 per wine blind tasted (after tax and tip).

I began blind wine tasting a week ago. It has become the main source of excitement in my last week of freedom. The process involves going to a restaurant and asking the waiter to pick a set of wines from these red and white lists. The process is exactly like that of the film “Somm”. Based on visual characteristics, the smell and taste, you try to deduce the identity of the wine. This is the only way to truly appreciate wines without being pre-conditioned to believe something because of the price, the brand, and other clues. To truly have associations between label and wine, it is necessary to work backwards and determine the label by tasting only the wine.

As a blind taster, I am horrific. I struggle between the Bordeaux varieties and mix up Syrah and Malbec (on a daily basis, it seems). On a percentage basis, it seems like I can get close to the answer a little less than half the time. By close to the answer, I mean a similar varietal or a similar region. The likelihood of identifying the exact wine, appellation, vintage and all, is reserved for Master Sommeliers. I would be content with flirting with the truth. Here is an example that made me quite happy, despite being wrong.

A wine with a decidedly odd smell presented itself. It was so odd it is kind of hard to describe. The best description might have been what you could smell as you walked through a change room. Curtly, I wouldn’t drink it. On the palette it was a big wine, but without the Bordeaux characteristics. I immediately think of a Shiraz from Australia. I try to smell some green-ness and some pepper – both can potentially be there, just slightly covered up by the unbecoming smell. I almost say Shiraz from Australia because I can’t really think of anything better. But I realize I might have jumped to conclusions. The wine is a little earthy and isn’t as ripe as something from Australia. I end up thinking old world Shiraz, which would be naturally from the Rhone valley. It turns out that the wine is actually a Malbec from Cahors. In my defense, Cahors is not on these red and white lists, and therefore inadmissible. The Australian Shiraz / Argentinian Malbec mix-up is easy to make (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSBOXLexDO4 – amazing series btw). The wine was actually the original Malbec from France; my guess was the original Syrah from France. The two regions are a few hundred kilometers from each other, both from south-ish France.

This is the same deductive reasoning used everywhere. It’s notably similar to classical name-that-tune, where you try to guess a song from what is being played. You have never heard the song before, but you can place it based on similarities with what you know. For the recreational wine drinker, it isn’t necessarily about placing the wine correctly in any particular region, but simply producing a good enough set of options the wine can be. Being able to know which wines the particular glass is not is also a worthy skill.

To do blind tasting is simple. Any time you want to order a wine, ask a friend or a waiter to pick it for you. It is usually optimal to order half-sized glasses (3oz). Going to a place with a good international wine list is important. Any high end restaurant is usually sufficient. The by-the-glass wine list at dbar, a random place I stumbled upon, was almost entirely on my testable list. A personal favourite is Crush Wine Bar, which does 3oz pours and has an excellent selection. It also comes in at the cheapest - $7.50 / glass after tax and tip. One has 3oz pours for about $8-10 (plus tax and tip). Luma, and probably the other O&B restaurants also have 3oz pours. Good luck.

Limbo: Leaving Queen's

An uneasiness is settling in as I wander deeper into limbo. Over the next four months, I am a graduated student but not yet integrated into my next institution of affiliation. This is the first time in a long time that direction and purpose has unraveled. Over the last four years, one could content himself with focusing on activities that would improve his employability. And after finding a job (which occurred about two years ago), one could content himself with enjoying the university experience with the security of employment going forward.

So as difficult and growth-inspiring university is, there was no question as to whether you were going in the right direction – since that direction was so readily defined and the entire program had signed up for it. I am unsettled, peering not far into the looking glass, and finding an uncertain world that diverges into so many paths that any sense of direction and order would be misguided.

As I sit on a plane to China, on the start of a 35-day Asia trip, I realize that this is the first time I’ve been completely stress-free. See, the saving grace of limbo is that you are not beholden to anything, except perhaps financial resources. So for the first time in a while, as I type these words, I notice writing this essay has no opportunity cost. With my duties to school and clubs severed, there is nothing else I should be doing or thinking about. In many ways, it is liberating. This kind of life must be the appeal to bohemians, drop-outs, hungry artists, and so on. Yet there is little comfort to be drawn at this time. For opportunity cost is never zero, which raises the question “What should I be doing?” Indeed, these words form the question I will struggle with for the rest of my life.

The only comfort I can take is by looking back to the previous four years and reflecting on my accomplishments. Perhaps I can use that to excuse myself of four months of dilly-dallying. I recently made a two-page résumé to recount my existence. It's sobering to see your accomplishments reduced to two pages of paper, though of course such a document does not account for the personal growth and personal accomplishments university brings. I compare myself to my high school self, who dealt with similar issues but in completely different ways and with less composure. I feel fortified, knowing that I can withstand all this world will throw at me. For all the issues with the business program, I feel more sure of myself and my place in society. I came to Queen’s unloved and distraught by the social web I could not see myself fitting into. I sought validation from others. I still do but not nearly as much. This is rudimental organizational behavior theory. Before my competence was noted, I had to keep eccentricity to a minimum. More recently, I could increase my eccentricity. So the major difference between now and then is I am not as concerned about showing my competence – perhaps because I now believe it is readily apparent.

Looking forward, my plane two hours from landing in Beijing, I see those carefree, sun-drenched days of summer. For humans that subscribe to evolutionary biology, care-free is never care-free. So in addition to enjoying myself and gorging epicuriously, I intend to expand my catalogue of the world to Asia and the Middle East. As someone mentioned recently, travel makes for the best conversation.

I have done a lot in the last four years and sometimes thinking about keeping pace going forward is scary. But the only reasonable response to uncertainty is to continue on the journey of life without overthinking things too much. 

Pick your Poison: Partying Culture at Queen's University

When I arrived in Kingston at the end of Frosh week, the setting was all too familiar. I stepped into war-torn territory near the end of a weeklong engagement. The veterans of Queen’s University, tired and hoarse, saw victory only pints and millilitres away. I stood with a guilty conscience like a cripple given safe passage. Their droopy eyes, frazzled hair and incomplete memories were eclipsed by glorious grins of accomplishment and of resilience. And after weeks of punctuated ceasefires, they rose again to welcome the real veterans of homecoming. How inspirational.

This is the homecoming that was cancelled for raucousness and then reinstated to improve the school’s profitability. We, the Queen’s community, are briskly unapologetic about our messy keggers, tipsy pre’s, sloppy drunk-food, dancefloor antics and recently formed couples. Our solid academic reputation is matched only by our affinity for drink. The adage ‘work hard, play hard’ is used proudly and unabashedly.

At no other respectable university is partying so unquestionably the activity of choice on a weekend (or even weekday) night. Ale and Stages have become institutions with daily events. Tumbleweed Tuesday is the new Toonie Tuesday. The city of Kingston is a tourist’s paradise with ostensibly the most restaurants per capita of any city in the world. Yet a meet-up at a restaurant is unthinkable. For one it is too expensive. A crate (a “two-four”) of beer is around $34 for a pseudo-premium brand. A Kegger in the ghetto is $10 for all-you-can-drink. But also, restaurant culture is not student culture. With party culture, we have devised a new vocabulary: Belligerence (“Bellige”), as described in the first paragraph, is no longer reserved for the battlefield. Blackout (“Blacked”) is now a state of being.

Party culture is so ubiquitous that it is unavoidable. In a house in the ghetto, a public service poster hangs to say that a third of people don’t drink, placed ironically to inspire more drinking not less. Peer pressure and social norms are exceedingly difficult to deviate from. In some circles, being part of the 30% can be exclusionary and socially unacceptable. It even affects extra-curricular involvement and employment.

Partying as we know it today is an indisputably modern and American phenomenon. Parties, which were almost always religious before the de-emphasis of God during the Enlightenment and rare before economic welfare became widespread with industrial revolution, gained secular and mainstream status in the post-WWI years. The prohibition era of the 1920’s only convinced the electorate of its love for drink and spawned an underground distribution network for the guilty pleasure. Ironically, government intervention gave partying a daring feel.

It traveled to Europe through London, where Brits had their own love-hate affair with anything American. For modernizers in the post-war era, acting American was essential. With it came a bold, new party culture that astounded the conservatives. The rise of partying traces modernity. So next it touched Europe, where today the perennially unemployed use their alcohol purchasing power to out-party the stingy Americans. It has also dispersed to all corners of the world. Some of the best party destinations in the world are in the third world: Sao Paulo, Bangkok, Bueno Aires. In Spain, where youth unemployment is over 50%, the clubs operate until the public transit turns on in the morning. There, talking is optional.

The partying movement was enabled by feminism and by women’s ability to stay unmarried for longer. It created a vacuum of young and exploratory females during the undergraduate years when prurient desires are the strongest and commitments the weakest. Never before in history have so many attractive and single people been stranded in an isolated bubble that is the university campus. Nightclubs opened to facilitate the meeting. It is a cleverly devised strategy to form as many potential connections between as many socially lubricated individuals as possible. Clubbing is an exercise in sensory overload. Participants dress themselves up and put their best foot forward. It is high-octane speed dating without a safety net. It is effective precisely because it funnels, filters and stratifies. It tosses people into a match-making game with losers delivered to a conciliatory and quasi-equivalent game (there are many).

Emphasis is placed on rapidity. It relies on split-second decisions based on looks and some one-liners. The sensory overload helps cover some imperfections. The resulting relationships are often shallow but the low success rate is compensated by a gargantuan sample. It topples the traditional courting process and moves the easy eliminators like attractiveness and confidence to the forefront. It is a logical system and a highly effective one.

Party culture is not for everyone. The infinite wisdom of GS Elevator, a popular tweeter in the realm of finance, says “If you are wittier than you are handsome, avoid loud clubs.” It is a system that values particular characteristics. Dating clubs like CCF, AIA arose to provide an alternative to party culture. They bring together similar-minded people and create connections for those unsuited for party culture. They usually provide a warm blanket and a safety net for failure but cannot create as many connections.

Critics might demean partying as indecent as prohibitionists did for alcohol in the 1920’s. But such critics are forcing their own values onto others. To those engaging in the culture, it is fun, liberating and potentially life changing. On the other hand, alternative measures should hold their ground proudly and in the face of influence. Each method has its merits. So pick your poison.

Much of university culture can be summarized as the result of a perfect storm of similar-minded, desire-filled, free-roaming people with no societal requirement to settle anytime soon. Partying is just one, if most common, consequence of the abundance of the young and single. Simply, it helps release prurient desires in the 20-somethings. This conclusion might seem like a narrow view. But what is more important to human satisfaction than continuing the evolutionary process.

The Bible Should be Required Knowledge

Note: "bible" in this article refers to the collective stories in the Abrahamic religions and not specifically the Christian variety.

In a 10-part miniseries, the History Channel retells the most important story of human existence. It is the basis of the religions of over half of the world’s population, though the series is predominantly from the Christian perspective, i.e. the first five episodes consider the Old Testament and the last five, the New.

The series elucidates and simplifies the convoluted monomyth and relieves the many misconceptions about the religions. At its core, the bible explains the Jewish struggle to establish and defend its own nation. Its events straddle the tumultuous Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Hellenistic and Roman periods, the age of civilization and the brutality that came with it.

Abraham leaves Mesopotamia to find the Promised Land. He proves his loyalty to god by offering his son. Moses leads enslaved Jews out of the Egypt and finds the Ten Commandments. The next stories can be summarized by Handel’s (lesser known) oratorios: Joshua, Samson and Saul, in that order. Otherwise, the heroes can be seen as protectorates of Judaism against oppressors: Moses against the Egyptians, Samson against the Philistines, Daniel against the Babylonians. It was a time when City-states rose and fell by the sword. The golden age of Israel is formed when David defeats Goliath and conquers Jerusalem, the subject of strife to this day.

A marked shift occurs with the story of Jesus, the effective division between Christianity and Judaism. Although the Old Testament is fraught with moral quandaries, some that question God’s wisdom (like Joshua’s slaughter of Jericho and David’s infidelity) the New Testament is sanitized and easier to swallow. Jesus is born in a manger in Bethlehem of Mary through Immaculate Conception. Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah (or the idea of “The Holy Trinity) as Christians do. They kill Jesus. The disciples spread Jesus’s new religion, which turns into Christianity.

Constantine accepts Christianity as a valid religion. In 380 AD, Theodosius I recognizes it as the religion of Rome. As Rome splits into east and west, so does the religion (Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy Catholicism). Protestantism is created in the 16th century with Martin Luther in Germany, John Calvin in France and Henry VIII in England.

Islam begins with the prophet Mohammed in the 7th century. It is an offshoot of Judaism with the same Jewish prophets: Adam, Noah (Nuh), Abraham (Ibrahim), Moses (Musa) and Jesus (Isa). These similarities are troubling too. The contest for the Promised Land is the root cause of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It was contested between Christians and Muslims during the many crusades.

The story of the bible is the most universalized story on humanity. Its power is witnessed through its timelessness and accessibility across cultures (the Gospel has been translated into over 500 languages). It guides the actions and morals of the majority of humanity and therefore the most prevalent approach to ethics and law. As proclaimed at the title screen, they are stories that have “changed our world”.

The greatest weakness of the series is the interpretation of events from a singular viewpoint, through acceptable given it is the most prevalent viewpoint. The Producers Downey (who also plays Mother Mary) and Burnett may be criticized for being devout Christians who propose teaching the Bible at all U.S. schools. I agree with this. It is no worse than having a Eurocentric curriculum as all curricula of western society do. It is invaluable to understanding of literature and history (Shakespeare, for example). Ideally, studying the bible would be done from varied perspectives and using it to understand our collective history and present.

Discussing the bible in public discourse is a social faux-pas. It is discouraging the understanding of a key fabric of humanity. This trend needs to be reversed. Watching this miniseries is a good way to start.

Game of Thrones

The history of the world can be reasonably explained as East against West. Separated once by the Hellespont and later by the Iron Curtain, this ethereal divide is the basis of much divergence in wealth, culture, thought and values. But the tides are changing. The last publications of both TIME and The Economist have cover stories on the latest installment between China and US, i.e. the rise of the East at the expense of the West.

And so explains the story of Westeros vs. Essos. In Westeros, the champions of great castles, flamboyant games and tight dresses are in a mutually disastrous war. In Essos, between the nomads, slaves and pockets of rich, exotic dragons are born. The storytelling is clearly a western perspective. The West used to tell stories of Vampires to discredit the East. The movie 300 made the Persian wars seem like the East was another world. Essos is equally unfamiliar yet rising and is becoming the plotline of record.

Game of Thrones takes the HBO formula of slow-moving, multi-faceted plotlines to the world of fantasy. Like Lord of the Rings, the proper nouns will intrigue geeks who’ve read the book and baffle the casual viewer. Instead, focus on the beautiful world (Morocco, Iceland, Ireland, Croatia) and the message of honour, courage and love. The show is unapologetic and unformulaic. Like in real life, the protagonist often loses. For honour, Ned dies. For love, Rob. In the penultimate episode, the line of the series comes to light: “If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention”.

With the entire primary storyline cut, the shift to the East is clear. Daenerys, who has been the point of attention for viewers since the first episode (no explanation required) and since her jaw-dropping finale giving ‘birth’ to dragons, is now the primary plotline. With some dragoons, an army and a potential lover, she is fit to conquer the inbreeding, devil worshiping West. 

The Problem with Sports and the Toronto Maple Leafs

The NHL is a protected ecosystem that allows thirty teams to exist when far fewer are economic under true market conditions. 9 years after the first lockout effectively removed the Leafs from contention by (handi)capping its lineup, a second lockout reignited some Stanley Cup dreams, by admitting the Leafs to the post-season predicated on a reduced denominator resulting in an increased standard deviation and therefore the role of luck. Of course, a seven-game series is hardly won by luck. A team that is twice as good will only lose 17% of the time. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the Maple Leafs are on the cusp of reasonably assured destruction (only 8.7% of teams have achieved a comeback from trailing 3-1, nhl.com).

As a hockey player in my youth, my interest in the Leafs peaked in 2004. They had assembled an all-star line-up including triumvirate of Sundin (though injured), Mogilny and Roberts supported by star defensemen Kaberle and McCabe as well as Cujo-replacement Belfour, Nieuwendyk from the Devils that had expelled us one year earlier, Nolan by a last-minute trade from the Sharks, and crowd-favourite Darcy Tucker. The team racked up over a hundred points and defeated the senators for the second straight year in the first round. It lost to the Flyers, what is largely considered to be an upset. Worse, the champion was not one of the five competing Canadian teams, though Calgary did make it to the final.

As a younger person, the draw of sports is benign. It is even helpful in nurturing teamwork, determination, and most importantly, the acceptance of defeat. Sports is a high predictor of future success, more than where a university degree is from. But sports also has an evil side. It is a distraction from what matters in life. It is a modern day release valve for the wars not fought and the build-up of cave-men, hunter-gatherer testosterone. The unglamorous side is exemplified by the riots in soccer stadiums and the incident in Vancouver that seriously damaged our nation’s good reputation.

Sports is an opportunity to turn off the brain and join the bandwagon. Beer guzzling fan(atic)s are modern day Colosseum attenders hungry for a good fight. In the worst case, it is ascribing your own happiness not to your own accomplishments but to the accomplishments of others. Whether they win or lose, you have absolved yourself of any responsibility. I myself found this fourth playoff game a pleasant distraction from issues that require action. But it is a short term fix; when they lose, your problems will not be fixed. You just have less time to deal with them.