Geopolitical Factors that might affect the Asian Markets

I am leaving the Middle-East to the Indian sub-continent in this scenario.

There's massive problem in the South-East Asian Theatre and the Far East.

South East Asian Theatre:

1. Thailand. Great Instability. What with the Red Shirts infuriated, there is bound to be further backlashes.

2. Burma. There was a chance for democracy. It has failed, and situation will deteriorate.

Far East Theatre:

Horrible things have been discovered. Covert torpedoing of a South Korean ship, breaking all international rules. No warning issued, no notification given that the S.Korean ship had accidentally strayed into N.Korea's maritime waters. Loss of 40+ lives.

Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan are , obviously on standby. With the heavily protected DMZ of S.Korea manned by UN troops also, there is little chance of success by the N. Korean regular troops to launch a full-scale offensive.

But the threat of missiles remains.

It is good that the international community is exploring diplomatic options.

But all this instability may affect the Far East and South East markets.

Root Cause of being Anti-Establishment

The root cause of being Anti-Establishment lies in the Mind.
It does not depend on one's Bank Balance or Total Assets.
I've seen , in India, as well as many other countries, quite rich people (say assets with$5 million) being severely anti-Establishment. Studying these people, I've found it's some die-hard things that they Believe in. It is also, in SOME MINOR CASES, FRUSTRATION. AT NOT REACHING THE SUPER-RICH BRACKET (VHNWI).
The super-rich (VHNWI) are never anti-Establishment. I guess, that's because they just have to be pro-Establishment, to maintain their Brand Equity. What they have achieved through hard work. Example is Bill Gates, he's slipping from his No. 1 position, and that is not his concern. His concern is that people still maintain Faith in Windows and what Microsoft has to offer. Same happened in case of Steve Jobbs, and will probably happen in case of Google's founders.
Meanwhile the middle-class and the poor are a study in contrast.
Let me look at India.
I myself, a middle-class Indian, am pro-Establishment in 90% of things. Though my earnings have really fallen the last 1 year. Still, it's my bent of mind. I like the Capitalist system. I like a Socialist State trying hard, very hard, to embrace a DUAL SYSTEM, trying to balance out Industrialization, at the same time trying to solve the problem of its Rural poor.
I said 90% pro-Establishment.
I'm 10% anti-Establisment in case of Environmental and Wildlife Issues. To a medium degree, because of what I believe in.
With respect to the vast poor people in India, frustration is the root cause of anti-Establishment.
But at the same time I have found some amazing cases of poor people who are pro-Establishment.
Trying to understand the root cause of Anti-Establishment is a very, very difficult thing.
Because it lies in the Mind.
And the Mind itself is mind-boggling ;-)

Revolutionary Project to SAVE South China Tiger

Way back in 2005 or something, I saw a Documentary in the National Geographic channel regarding a REVOLUTIONARY Project to save the South China Tiger.

The basic idea was that there were regions in Africa - Ecosystems, basically, that would sustain and increase the almost extinct in the wild South China Tiger.

It's an extremely detailed Project done by a handful of individuals.

If you are REALLY INTERESTED in saving the tiger, all you have to do is go to their website (which I rediscovered today thanks to Al-Jazeera) :

http://english.savechinastigers.org


It's a model worth studying, believe me.

Some conclusions I've reached

While looking at Global Events ( be it Geopolitics, Current Affairs, Psephology, Defense Analysis, Global Warming, Environmental Crises) most of us always predict the Future from 2 completely polarized, opposite angles:

1. Scientific / Tech Angle. This is , as in modern times, highly specialized. To be quite precise, super-specialized. Whole Governments/Countries depend on this method only.

2. Religion.

Now, could there be a Middle Way to take into account all Religions.....comprising the empirical knowledge/analyses that were after all developed through thousands of years

AND

a Generalized Scientific/Tech approach based on mathematical calculations that really do not require much more than a pocket calculator ?

If you are skeptical, let me give you some examples -

In Business, the richest people made money, say from the stock market and other speculative means, using not much sophisticated Maths. Of course, they spent hours making those calculations.

In Technology, such as I.T., the richest people made money following an uncanny trend to guess in which direction technology would go. Example - Bill Gates figuring out Windows being the future and grabbing the license for DOS from IBM, and then picking up the WIMPs template from Apple.

In War, the greatest generals did not pass out from Colleges. Examples - Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, George Washington and so many others. And none of them were specialized and had formal war training. It was the Strategy that mattered.

Environmental Issues...Al Gore made startling revelations that surpassed many specialized scientists.

BBC exit polls totally accurate

I was surprised at the accuracy level of the exit polls conducted by BBC and 2 other organizations.

Watched thru' a part of the program and part on the Net, it was amazing.

Another interesting thing happening in the European Union is how its tackling its financial crisis. I'm sure it EU will overcome.

Conservatives may scrape through

3 results gone to Labour Party.
Now, I have done not even 1 percent the usual psephological analysis I do, but it seems Consevatives may scrape through.

Reasons:

1. > 50% were dissatisfied with the unemployment factor......that's one of the number 1 or munber 2 reasons that count in elections. Number 2 could be security/law and order situation in aparticular country/state. In case of UK, that is not much of a factor, though.
2. 3 results declared show Labour Party winning, but much greater "swing factor" in favor of Conservatives.
3.Would the Lib Dems cut into the Labour Party vote bank ? Since both have a lot in common, so there would be vote division. Advantage Conservatives.

Uh oh...I again took a sneak peak ....9 results declared, Conservatives 0.
But swing factor is +4% in favor of Conservatives.....still hold they'll probably scrape thru' , as others' swing factors show negative.