The B I G Lie

This issue have been like a grain of sand in my shoe. I gnaws at me and I have to do something about it. For I am constantly irritated by the ignorant unthinking acceptance of this lie. This is not my last word but is the most coherent and comprehensive yet.

Life is about choices.

Or is it?

I say that's a big lie.

And I say choice is moot. It is irrelevant. It is an illusion.

There are two categories of choices.

The first is like a multiple choice question, where only one answer is right, or at the least some choices are better than another.

Imagine you tell a student who is preparing for an exam that the exam is in a multiple choice format, and the answer to any question is his choice.

Does that helped him?

Just because the answer is his choice, does it help him to know and to choose the right answer?

The student cannot just choose any answer can he?

And sometimes the answer is none of the above.

What really helps is to teach him to find and to know the right answer.

Telling him he has a choice sounds good but it is really a hollow, empty, and effectively a non-answer at all.

And if he knows the right answer, whether the question has multiple choice answers or not is not really important. It is entirely irrelevant.

And that illustrate what I mean by choice being moot and irrelevant.

There is no need for choices. There is only the need for knowledge and the ability to make or say that correct answer - and we are also able to say what we know is right, don't we?

Choices only matter to those who don't know the answers and having choices may at least give him some chance - ie by sheer luck - of getting some answers right. But that more likely than not will not see him passing the exam.

Choices can also be more harmful than good, eg I know of a better and more precise answer than what the choices are offering me. Think about that.

The other category of choice is where indeed any choice is the answer.

This is the situation where, for example, there is no right answer. But we must ascertain that indeed there is no right answer and any answer will do.

A possible example here is what to eat for lunch. As long as it is food any choice will do.

But if so again why the need for choices?

For have we not sometimes tell others to decide and choose for us, like telling them, "Whatever you buy, buy the same for me."

And the reason why you have to choose in this lunch example, is that the number of food sold in the hawker centre is limited.

So again choice is moot and irrelevant: there is no need for choices: if I have to eat and the only food being sold is nasi lemak, then nasi lemak will do and is good enough.

Sometimes having a surfeit of choices like twenty types of food is a wasteful, unnecessary, irrelevant, over-hyped indulgence. We may be better off without having to make choices in such inconsequential matters and just stick to nasi lemak without any choice.

And also if truly any choice will do, and whatever I choose is the answer, why must I be restricted to choose only from a limited set of possible choices?

And that also illustrates what I mean when I say choice is an illusion.

People, especially the Americans, and other people who don't think, like to portray, even define, freedom as the ability to choose. That is another facet of that big lie.

Choosing means choices, and choices are necessarily restricted and imposed upon you by circumstances outside your control: such as the political parties in authority at the moment, or such as the types and number of food you can buy in the hawker centre.

I rather see true freedom as not being restricted in any way at all, and certainly not to have my choice constrained to just choosing from a limited set of choices.

I rather have the true freedom of having the means and the ability to create my very own unique answer or solution.

I don't need choices. I just need one thing; I need to know what is this one thing I need and have the means to make this one thing happen.

I just need the freedom to say what I want, do I want, eat what I want, etc. I rather be truly free to make an answer - any answer - to any situation, than have a plethora of irrelevant choices. That to me is true freedom!

Choosing means freedom is a most insidious lie!

Politicians give you choices because then they pass the buck to you, and you cannot hold them responsible for whatever that happens to you, because - and all together now - its your choice.

So you had better lived with the outcome and don't bother them with your misery. That is the meaning of choice politically, and we see it happen all the time, eg in the work place.

And it is most prevalent when people who ought to be responsible for you, don't know what is best for you; and instead of determining the best thing for you, give you a set of limited and half-baked options and pass the buck of being responsible for the outcome to you. And your very act of choosing seemingly also imply that you have assume this responsibility for yourself, but which was morally theirs and never transferrable.

So be especially wary when someone tells you, "It's your choice." It means they do not know what's best for you and that you ought not to bother them should it turn out bad for you.

And finally a matter closer to heart. Let me tell you a story about money.

There was a guy, recently working, and has accumulated some balance in his bank, more than he ever had all his life.

Being prudent he wants to make this money grow, at least faster than merely deposited in the bank. And also he has heard a bit of such buzzwords as financial management, financial goals, risk profiles etc etc. And so he starting asking around and started reading, and also some of his friends are in this business of managing other people's money.

And so he got to know such an agent. And the agent said a lot of things, and a lot of ifs and buts too. But the whole thing boils down to choosing between three Funds: Fund A gives you 5% return, Fund B gives you 2% return, and Fund C at the moment is returning 8%.

The agent told him that it is his choice.

But really its a no brainer, right? You can choose with your eyes closed, right?

So he invested in Fund C.

Three months later Fund C went down -10%, Fund B barely moved at 2%, and Fund A returned 10%.

But it was his choice. He cannot blame anyone, especially his agent, and must accept it.

But it made a mockery to his stated goal of financial growth and so on, and all his time and effort spent listening to the agent, and toiling mentally with all the figures and jargon, a futility.

He could have done better doing nothing and leaving the money in the bank and used the time and effort to do more important things. (But again he may not, but just waste it away in another manner.)

On the other hand, he has now taken on a long term perspective.

But really is there any choice?

It is again another no brainer, given what has happened. And also why should things be any different 6 months out, a year out, or even 10 years out? Things are entirely out of his control. His choice makes no difference whatsoever to reality.

And also unbeknownst to both he and his agent, there was Fund D that performed +20% over the same period, and Fund E that gave a guaranteed 8% return.

Maybe he has to choose a better agent next time. But where are these? Who are they? What he knows is what he knows, and what he doesn't he don't.

And of course there may also be Fund F and Fund G and Fund H, etc etc. Some of them are yet to be created or constructed, just because nobody asked for them, for they are customised, specially tailored products.

Then at the same time there was another person. This person has a very strict father. And the father didn't allow him to manage his own funds. The father compel this guy to entrust all his monies to the father, and the father only gives out a regular allowance. This guy had no choice. But 3 months later, the father-managed funds grew 50%.

So what is the morale of this story?

You may object immediately that this is unreal. Such a story is a fairy tale. It does not happen in real life.

Actually that is a valid and acceptable objection.

For in the real world where is there such a father who dare impose his will on his son, and to curtail his son's freedom. And also even if there is one who dares to do so, and has a son who is meek enough to comply, why should just being such a father makes him a better fund manager than other professional fund managers, and that he knows more than those who make a living from selling funds to people?

Where can you find a father that is so wise and knowledgeable that you can indeed entrust your monies entirely and completely to him and just to live on allowances that he doled out?

There are possibilities certainly, like the father owning a stock brokering firm, or George Soros himself. I do in fact know of an owner of a stock brokering firm in Singapore, but for him to be my father is another matter altogether. So the chances of you or anyone having such father is probably less probable than winning Toto, or the earth being hit by an asteroid in the next year.

So for the ordinary mortal, such are the stuff of fairy tales.

But on the other hand, you cannot deny that Funds going up and down are not a reality.

In fact every funds have it in fine print, that past performances are no guarantee for future ones. Yet everyone look at past performances to decide which is the "better" fund. In part there is no choice about it - and there is more than a tinge of irony here - for no one knows the future. And that is really why people give you choices: you have no choice but to choose.

Your greater need are thus not choices but more to know how to seek that one fund, or some other means and instrument, that will meet your financial goals and objectives, or that person who knows.

But then who knows? There will be no one who dare to tell you to invest in a specific and particular fund or funds. It may be -5% last year, but in 10 years it will be +1500%. Who knows? Not unless he or you have a time machine and have gone into the future and seen what things will be like.

So what is the alternative to this lack of knowledge?

We have all heard it before: so, all together now ...

"Its Your Choice!"