Posts tagged government
its all about the balance sheet, baby
Jan 12th
So.
This is about the American economy and a plea for all of us to quit bitching about how the government is the fault for all our economic woes.
Yeah, sure, the government could (and should) take some actions to help … and improve their own balance sheet.
But. The combination of the US population (people) and corporations have more money on their balance sheets at their disposal than the government (therefore can make a bigger impact).
And.
Remember.
Its all about the balance sheet baby.
What do I mean? Savings & cash.
And I mean we are finally heading in the right direction (so quit looking at unemployment and government balance sheet for a moment).
Overall households have increased their % of hhld savings as a percentage of disposable income.
I won’t get the numbers right but suffice it to say people are improving their household balance sheets.
And.
Corporations are flush with cash. As they have become more conservative and banking money for the future their balance sheets have become quite healthy with cash.
These are indicators of good things in the future.
Oh. And before I get to the crux of the consumer/corporate balance sheet dilemma let me share one quick factoid about US debt, their own balance sheet and how we make money (as a country).
I share this factoid slide from a presentation because, I admit, I do get a little tired of how Michelle Bachman and lots of other people so casually focus on debt:
————————————–
(this comes from an Economic Summit presentation in London)
US is a Giant Investment Bank
- The Asian Savings Glut enabled the US household to “Borrow” money cheaply from savers looking for Capital Preservation and Security and then “lend it back” as risk capital
- If you borrow $100 at 4% over 7 years and set aside $28 to pay the interest, you can then buy “equity” in emerging markets with the remaining $72
- If this “only” produces 10% pa, then over the life of the bond you have doubled your equity capital, you now have $144 after interest, and $44 after principal
- Traditional balance sheet measures such as debt to GDP ignore the asset side of the equation, while liquidity measures such as debt service to income ignore the different nature of equity (capital growth)
- Traditional economic measures fail to capture the real balance sheet and cash flow situation and declare this to be an “Imbalance”
- A slide from Economic Symposium London march 2011
——————————————–
I shared that just so I could get beyond the country’s balance sheet discussion and get to what you & I can do and should do.
So.
On to us consumers … and what we can do to insure some economic growth in the future.
Its about the savings.
Uh oh.
I didn’t say spending (which spurs the economic outlook).
Yeah. Its true that the economy demands increased consumer spending. The problem is that millions of lower- and middle-income households have lost their capacity to spend – in actual dollars as well as mentally ‘scared’ to spend even if they have the dollars.
Despite the growth in savings as a percentage there is an overall lack of savings ‘safety net’ and a level of debt (even if it is small) that hovers like a gargoyle looking over most people’s shoulder. Although it would be helpful if affluent households spent more, we shouldn’t be calling upon a struggling majority to do so. In the long run, the health of the economy depends on the financial stability of our households.
Therefore we need to reduce our own debt on the balance sheets. Oh. In addition we (the people) need to become less dependent upon social security as “the” retirement fund (I will get back to that point).
Attitudinally it appears like we are making the needed shifts.
In the second quarter of 2009 households put away 7 percent of disposable income, compared with under 2 percent in the third quarter of 2007. Yet the savings rate is falling again, down to 5.3 percent in December.
(note: I added that last point because that is our biggest issue … changing long term behavior and our desire to want to spend versus save)
According to a Harris Poll (maybe in 2010?) 27 percent of Americans have no personal savings and 34 percent have no retirement savings, an increase from over a year ago.
Here is the tricky part.
US consumers want to reduce their debt, but the economy’s recovery depends on their spending. By some estimates, deleveraging is happening more because of defaults than because of people opting to pay down their debts. A decline in credit-card debt, for example, closely tracks the rate at which banks are charging off delinquent card loans.
In addition job losses are leading to foreclosure or bankruptcy. In others, borrowing has stalled because card issuers have reduced credit limits or raised interest rates.
Think about this …
These are all “forced” balance sheet improvement behavior patterns.
These are not “choice” behavior changes.
That is a point I am making so that we don’t get fooled by numbers …. but rather focus on behavior.
Any behavioral model will show you that forced behavior creates only short term behavior change. And that is why many Media & Economic reporting information is flawed and misleading to the general public.
Yes. Once again I will point out there are some encouraging signs which we should nurture.
The cost of debt payments as a share of personal disposable income, has fallen to around 12 percent, from nearly 14 percent when the recession began. But that overall figure masks wide disparities – millions of households have no debt at all, while others are deep in debt (go back to my “the Two Americas PewResearch post).
Yes.
By looking only at numbers it appears the trend is moving in a positive direction.
But (and this is a big but) …. we need a change in attitude (which will create the behavior necessary to make it all work).
American people are addicted to spending (this is probably an entire post all in itself on breaking down the addiction culturally).
But let’s instead think about some things.
Americans definitely spend more than people in western Europe and Asia. Definitely. Its part of our DNA.
You can look at consumption levels and control for purchasing power over the last several decades, and America is simply in a league of its own. The only people who come close are people in Britain, but they are about 85 percent of the level of American consumption. Germans, French and others are in the 70 percent range, Japanese even a little lower. So Americans spend like no one else.”
So what can help us become better savers.
I guess I think about this like any addiction.
It has to be part personal responsibility and part ‘system’ (a system that enables us for success).
I think we need to improve the access of lower-income households to savings institutions.
We just saw Bank of America and other banks trying to charge an extra fee on people with debit cards, particularly with low minimum balances. That tends to discourage people especially among lower-income households.
We need to remember about 25 percent of lower income America is unbanked (they don’t have bank accounts).
So.
First.
Similar to Europe we need to incentivize banks to create small savers accounts. They have a low or minimum balance, that have no fees, and pay a recognizable interest rate. These can be subsidized by government working with banks (and that, my friends, is a good use of government spending).
Second.
we need to revise our tax laws. There are too many tax exempt advantages incentivizing borrowing. We need to incent saving.
Third.
Learn from others.
We can learn from societies that promote a more balanced approach to saving and spending.
Few Americans appreciate that the prosperous economies of western and northern Europe are among the world’s greatest savers. Over the past three decades, Germany, France, Austria and Belgium have maintained household saving rates between 10 and 13 percent, and rates in Sweden recently soared to 13 percent. By contrast, saving rates in the United States dropped to nearly zero by 2005; they rose above 5 percent after the 2008 crisis but have recently fallen below 4 percent.
Unlike the United States, the thrifty societies of Europe have long histories of encouraging the broad populace to save.
During the 19th century, European reformers and governments became preoccupied with creating more frugal citizens. They focused on creating hundreds of savings banks that enabled the majority (pretty much anyone) to save by accepting small deposits. Central governments established accessible postal savings banks where small savers could bank at any post office. In addition, to encourage thrifty habits in the young, governments also instituted school savings banks.
All these actions fostered a culture of saving that endures today in many countries (and fosters a certain type of economy). For example … the French government attracts millions of lower-income and young savers with its Livret A account available at savings banks, postal savings banks and all other banks. This small savers’ account is tax free, requires only a tiny minimum balance, and commonly pays above-market interest rates. And in German cities, one cannot turn the corner without coming upon one of the popular savings banks, called Sparkassen.
Legally charged with encouraging an overall savings mentality these banks offer no-fee accounts for the young and sponsor financial education in the schools.
Ok. And while we may not have all those governmental driven opportunities here (and want to use that as an excuse) we need to get in our heads that even with the economy we can save. Even with reduced income we can save.
We only have to look to Africa, where millions who have just risen above the poverty level, have created savings accounts despite the fact their disposable income does not permit any luxury.
In addition, many foreign countries have also restrained the expansion of consumer and housing credit with the intent to minimize being personally over-in-debt. Home equity loans are rare in Germany, and Belgians, Italians and Germans are rarely offered an American-style credit card that allows the user to carry an unpaid balance.
Oh.
Lastly.
Savings & retirement.
Your retirement isn’t about social security.
When Social Security came about in the 1930s, it was largely a program to keep families from starving and from going absolutely broke. It was never intended as a long-term benefits program. Yet life expectancy has increased over time and now today, many Americans depend on Social Security as their primary source of retirement. We need to change our ‘entitlement’ attitude on this.
That’s it for today.
At the end of the day, someone, somewhere in America has to save. In fact a lot of someones somewhere have to save.
Save a lot, save a little …. just save.
And, remember, it’s all in your head. Because if an African earning 5,000 dollars a year can figure out how to save money I imagine we can figure out how to set aside some money.
poverty redefined?
Jan 8th
So.
The US Census Bureau has redefined poverty in the USA. Its kind of like having someone give you a new report card for a past semester.
Whoa.
(I am certain this was a West Wing episode … it was)
It’s from a Season 3 episode called “Indians in the Lobby” where two White House staffers discuss a political problem:
SAM: On Monday, the OMB is putting out a new formula for calculating the
poverty level.
TOBY: What’s the problem?
SAM: It’s a good news, bad news thing. Under the new formula, poverty is up two percent. It was anyone under $17,524, now it’s $20,000.
TOBY: What does that shake out to?
SAM: Four million new poor people.
TOBY: Four million?!?
SAM: Yeah. Obviously, that’s the bad news.
TOBY: Yeah…
SAM: The good news is more people will be eligible for benefits.
TOBY: And taxpayers are nuts about that. Let’s get back to the bad news. Four million people became poor on the President’s watch?
SAM: They didn’t become poor. They were poor already. And now we’re calling them poor.
TOBY: What was wrong with the old formula?
SAM: I don’t know.
TOBY: Find out.
SAM: It is possible that this is a statistical reality and not a political finding.
TOBY: Well, get together with somebody at OMB and find out what was wrong with the statistical reality of the old formula.
I love the fact that West Wing pointed out several years ago that the poverty formula wasn’t so good.
So where did that old formula come from? And for that I will use West Wing again. Here Sam talks to Bernice from the office of management and budget, about where the old formula came from:
SAM: Well how was the old one reached? The current one.
BERNICE: In 1963, an eastern European immigrant named Mollie Orshansky, who was working over in social security, came up with it. Food was the most costly living expense where she came from.
SAM: Our cost of living formula for the last 40 years has been based on life in Poland during
the Cold War?
BERNICE: This is what I’m talking about. I mean, food doesn’t account for one-third of a family’s budget. Housing is more expensive than food. The current model also doesn’t take into account transportation and health insurance. So let’s call the current model the old
model and sign off on the new model.
Ok. Sorry. I digressed because I loved West Wing and I often find it addressed many issues we are addressing today.
Anyway. The new definition.
One day someone wasn’t poverty stricken and the next they were.
Oh.
And one day someone was poverty stricken and the next day they weren’t.
Yikes.
Here is the graph:
New poverty versus old poverty/IBM: http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/new-us-poverty-v-old-us-poverty
Ok.
Let’s be clear. All the people wandering in and out of the new and old poverty statistics are struggling in some form or fashion. What moves someone out of poverty (I believe this is the definition) is that they have “attained a level of income where discretionary purchases are enabled.” In other words … it seems to define a line between ‘deprivation’ and sustenance. A good line in my mind. Well. Not good … but fair assessment.
Now. I am not clear on how discretionary discretionary is but suffice it to say that if I were dropped to whatever the number was that was slightly above poverty I could make no discretionary purchases … in fact … I would have to completely reassess all my spending & living behavior.
But.
This isn’t about me. And this isn’t really the way we (USA) is defining poverty … what I suggested above is how global poverty is defined (in a broad sense)
This is about redefining USA poverty.
Sometimes I believe we go number crazy.
Should we care what the number of people living in poverty is? Well. Yeah, I guess so. I imagine it gives us some measurement with regard to how Americans have the ability to live the ‘american dream.’
And I think that is good.
Ok. That said … this redefining is weird.
The government is making the definition of poverty pretty odd … it eliminates any connection between poverty and “deprivation” — by reclassifying poverty as being all about “inequality.”
The Heritage Foundation states:
Under the new measure, a family will be judged poor if its income falls below certain specified income thresholds or standards. There is nothing new in this, but unlike the current poverty income standards, the new income thresholds will have a built-in escalator clause. They will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the living standards of the average American.
The current poverty measure counts (albeit inaccurately) absolute purchasing power (how much meat and potatoes a person can buy). The new measure will count comparative purchasing power (how much meat and potatoes a person can buy relative to other people). As the nation becomes wealthier, the poverty standards will increase in proportion.
So.
Does this mean 15% of US is in full deprivation mode within the new definition? Nope.
Just means a lot of people aren’t living the American standard of living.
Weird? Yup.
But let me move on from that nonsense …
Frankly, when I see numbers like 15 to 20% of Americans living within some band of poverty levels (however it is defined) … well … that doesn’t seem right.
No. in fact I am sure. It is wrong.
I do not believe in income leveling (or redistribution).
But I also do not believe a country as wealthy and healthy as ours should have anything more than single digits in poverty (I am going to assume for assumption sakes that 0% is impossible just due to some people not making any effort to not be poor).
And the US Census poverty redistribution made it more clear that more older HHlds and more white HHlds are wallowing in some sort of poverty/wealth constraints than ever before.
OLD NEW
All People TOTAL 46,602 15.2 49,094 16
Under 18 years AGE 16,823 22.5 13,622 18.2
18 to 64 years AGE 26,258 13.7 29,235 15.2
65 years and older AGE 3,520 9 6,237 15.9
Do I have a solution? Nope. Certainly not an easy one.
But I do have a thought.
Many of us sit around moaning about the economy and paying our bills and saving for the future. Well, my friends, there are a shitload people out there who have it a shitload worse.
And, by far, they are not lazy nor untalented (things often associated with the words ‘living in poverty in the USA”).
We need to find some solutions.
I say that as I also struggle with what exactly is poverty in the united states.
I do know if you want to see real poverty you don’t go to a Walmart.
You should visit one of the slums surrounding a Latin American/Caribbean or African major city (maybe even a major European city … like Paris).
And while you’re at it, visit a solidly middle-class neighborhood. By American standards, those neighborhoods would be poor, but they are neat and orderly neighborhoods … built and maintained with pride (regardless of their income level).
In those neighborhoods the residents are thrifty, hardworking, and well-mannered as well as determined to give their kids a good education.
Suffice it to say that people with lower ‘on the cusp of poverty’ levels of income in non-USA countries have a different attitude with regard to how to live and maintain every day life.
America is unique in respect to its view on poverty.
But who cares (no matter how absurd our definition may be).
The fundamental question is “why is a poor person poor?”
Generally a person is not poor by choice, the grace of God or some fault of his own.
A person is poor typically because he is denied opportunities.
To solve poverty we need to get to the root of the problem. The deep-rooted causes of deprivation, starvation, and social and economic exclusion need to be addressed.
We need to look beyond the dollars & cents and seek to better understand the social inclusion/exclusion aspects of poverty.
The social inclusion approach helps identify the processes, social relations, and economic and political arrangements in the society which contribute to poverty and, therefore, we would have a better opportunity to begin building solutions that provide attainable opportunities so people can rise above poverty/deprivation.
All that said … maybe looking at numbers like this does matter.
Because when I see something like 15.9% I see a large enough group that it should matter … to you & me.
the appeal of ron paul
Jan 6th
So.
I typically don’t write about politics because, well, I typically believe if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything at all. In addition politics-speak makes my head hurt. Its kind of like listening to a new business guy called the ‘king of Babble-on” (Babylon so you get the full reference).
It all makes my head hurt.
But last night, as I skipped away from another college bowl game where I wasn’t sure there was a defense anywhere on the field, I went to Piers Morgan on CNN (by the way … CNN may have 2 of the best news commentator shows on tv today … Fareed Zakaria and Piers Morgan … balanced by one of the worst .. Anderson Cooper … but that is a different article).
Piers was interviewing Ron Paul.
Now.
Because I don’t pay attention to all the deep politics stuff my perception is Ron Paul is a quasi-out of touch old guy. In sound bite form some of his opinions have made me sure America would be better off without him leading.
But I stayed tuned to Piers and listened.
Ok.
And when you hear something like this … well … how can you not find him appealing as a leader of America?
“There is only one kind of freedom and that’s individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it.” – Ron Paul
And soundbites aside.
yeah. He is an old guy …. but he talks “young” and he talks in a common sense way (although some of the things he says stretch reality sense).
He talks like you and I.
And at his foundation in thinking he thinks stuff we think.
Directionally he uses plain words I can understand, he clearly has a vision and, maybe best of all, he tends to not linger in the ‘gray.’ And maybe that is another thing I found appealing. That lack of gray. He takes black & white stances which are often quite contrarian to the traditional caveated “win me a vote” point of view. Do I agree with all he said? Nope. But for gods sake the man had a point of view.
Best of all? … well … he doesn’t act like a politician … he acts like someone who doesn’t care about being liked or disliked … he acts like someone who just wants to do what he believes is right.
The interesting thing?
The way Ron Paul has captured the attention of 20somethings (which is another thing I find appealing … because I often believe true leaders are in the Hope business).
But maybe I shouldn’t be surprised because change (and plain speak) is exactly what people that age are looking for. And probably the first thing many young people see is an anti-war candidate.
And while some (mostly older) people are wary of Ron Paul’s isolationist policies I have to assume middle America finds it appealing as they worry about our own economy and their own troubles.
At the end of the interview?
I have to be honest.
When I hear him speak, and fully explain beyond simple soundbites, any major reservations I have become less major.
He certainly has sincerity and honesty. Plus who throws in a strong dose of truly understanding the intent of the Constitution (way better than any supposed “Tea-partier”):
“Our country’s founders cherished liberty, not democracy.” – Ron Paul
And he has a sense of real economics (although some of his economic steps seem a little unrealistic).
Oh.
Predictability. He’s very predictable and his vote record seems to always be consistent with following the Constitution.
I have no idea whether I could actually vote for him but people should seriously consider him. And the fact that I am writing this is not an endorsement.
But. I was wrong.
He isn’t a nutcase nor is he out of touch.
And he speaks English rather than political gobbdlegook.
And he is using the political system perfectly. He is certainly not a Republican and yet he is in every Republican debate. And he is certainly not a Democrat. And I have always believed that given the world and the situation we are in that the true solution to our government deadlock mentality is the rise of a 3rd party (history has shown that to happen in American politics so I am no soothsayer on this). And he is using the system to create a 3rd party without truly stating a 3rd party.
With that said … I predict he doesn’t win the Republican nomination. And then he enters the election as the third candidate (ok … I assume the Communist party has candidate but since Gus Hall died I have no clue who it is). And then? Gosh. Who knows.
In the end? It was a better use of my time then a bad bowl game.
economic center of gravity
Jan 4th
There is an awesome study completed in late 2010 called “Global Economy’s Shifting Centre of Gravity.” Ok.
Maybe not awesome to some people … but to me? Fascinating reading (I actually read it over my vacation which included some cocktails while reading & making notes).
Here is the net:
- In 1980 the global economy’s center of gravity was somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.
- In 2010 the center of gravity shifted to just east of Helsinki/Bucharest latitude (oddly the longitude doesn’t seem to vary much over time in this modeling).
- In 2049 the center of gravity will shift almost two-thirds of the earth’s radius from the 1980 center to somewhere say in west Asia.
All that said … I would envision most people wouldn’t be surprised by this.
But there are some nuances to this study that should make people think a bit.
Its ok. I am not going to go into the modeling analytics … but suffice it to say this guy knows his shit and figured out a way to analyze economic power not by clustering (which is an important distinction) but rather center of gravity (it’s kind of like figuring out how to measure the dynamic behavior of spatial economic distribution rather than simplistic clustering).
He created some awesome (to me) cylindrical spatial global maps in which it is almost like viewing an economic holographic image.
I will spare you.
What I won’t spare you is what this means.
The income dynamics of the average location of the planet’s economic activity is shifting.
I think we all knew this in our gut but now we have actual proof. And its kind of sobering proof for those of us in this hemisphere (I include South America, Latin America and North America into this pot of people).
That global economic activity moves east in this graphic fashion shows the rapid growth in incomes going to the large chunks of humanity who live in India, Africa, China and the rest of East Asia. (note: population itself changes much more gradually therefore this sharp east-directed rise of the rest is not driven by population growth.)
Overall this shift is a reflection of a lot of good happening in the world. For example 600 million people have been lifted from extreme poverty – a large and rapid improvement in the well-being of humanity that is unprecedented in the history of this planet.
And there is more is to come.
In particular, Africa and China will remain growth areas (albeit each in different ways).
Now.
All of this could be interesting/concerning in a variety of ways.
First.
This isn’t just about money, or income, this is about power. Economic shifts lead to governmental shifts … and intellectual shifts.
Second.
Let’s talk “intellectual shifts.” Eliminating poverty (or limiting poverty) means releasing probably the greatest restraint to education. And mind power is the great equalizer.
Sorry folks … it isn’t democracy (or any real ‘freedom of’ … although some people may debate the cause/effect of that relationship). When economic shift permits an elevation of intellectual power that tends to be the formula for sustained shift in economical gravitational pull. Regardless of the type of government oversight.
I even have a historical example on economic opportunity (and how governmental shift is not enough) … and economic opportunity lost.
We have faced a similar foundational economic re-construct situation before … only to have the economic center of gravity remain skewed toward the western hemisphere. And although the economic center of gravity was challenged at that time … there wasn’t the intellectual shift attached to the economic shift to sustain the movement.
Let’s look back at the last time we may have faced something like this.
The cold war. Soviet Union versus United States (actually … the rest of the world).
The reality is that while Russia tried to fill the void (of prosperity … or maybe better said … ‘better than what is’) and sought to increase its empire-like global perspective under the guise of government doctrine … it was actually an economic battle. Think people labor versus capitalism (simplistic but you get the point).
Russia was certainly good at destroying governments and economic construct. However because of their economic corruption they were unsuccessful in replacing what they destroyed.
Ultimately that was their failure … not a failure of communism but a failure of economy first and foremost. And, in the end, their failure to sustain an economic shift meant that the intellectual power was never maximized.
I promise you that mistake will not happen again. In fact it is happening all over again … but the economic shift is being sustained.
There are three (to me) primary locations pulling the center of gravity. And I will outline each (and why we in the western hemisphere should sit up and pay attention).
The three? China, Russia, Africa.
China.
They don’t necessarily destroy governments and economies. In fact they do the opposite.
They simply take less than successful scenarios and through economic success makes each … well … more successful.
Ok. There is a point here.
What most Americans (let’s say ‘outsiders’ in general) fail to see is the “more successful” part. Many people measure success off of what we have (or how high is up).
In fact it is through those eyes that we damn China today.
Take a step back.
As Mao suggested for China … success would be enabling the majority to afford another pair of shoes.
Not a mansion .. heck .. not even a house … just another pair of shoes … for a gazillion people.
And he did it.
And China has continued to grow.
Sure. It becomes more difficult from there. But that’s not the point.
Other ‘industrialized’ countries measure them in a different way.
And are being foolish by doing so.
China is being successful (for a number of reasons) but because they have taken what they have done well internally within their own country (helped a segment make the next step up) and go elsewhere and offer the same opportunity.
They are creating an infrastructure within emerging countries, and emerging economies, to ‘be better than what is.’
In Africa it is transportation and communication interface. In southeast Asia its internal infrastructure.
China is becoming an enabler rather than a destroyer.
Russia today.
In 2011 Russia released a list of more than five thousand strategic assets to be turned over to the private sector to operate instead of the government. This quasi-communist country is now privatizing.
And in Africa the picture continues to improve.
Wars have subsided and governments have stabilized and they are also adopting their own quasi capitalist-communist economic attitude, i.e., private subsidized by government.
Their average GDP has consistently grown almost 5% annually (actually 4.9% between 2000-2008).
Over the past 8 years over 80 million households have been elevated above poverty level – to a level where discretionary spending commences in the household. Telecommunications, banking and retailing is flourishing.
This reflects a significant rise in the African urban consumer. In 1980 28% of Africans lived in an urban environment and today 40% do. In countries where infrastructure is isolated, typically in more urban environments, this means that a more significant portion of the population has access to education, skills development and jobs.
In addition, African governments are increasingly adopting policies to maintain the economic growth as they privatize state-owned businesses, open lines of trade (foreign), strengthen legal systems and provide well needed physical & social infrastructure (a byproduct of that last factor is an increased labor force and economic distribution among the population).
So.
Having used those examples maybe I am maybe actually suggesting the bigger thought is a new communist-capitalism attitude shifting the economic center of gravity (I am erring on the side in my point of view that USA isn’t doing something wrong but rather that others are doing something well).
I do find it impressive that traditional & evolving governments have attained this balance of communism embracing capitalism.
Historically, the two are ideologically irreconcilable. Yet even the traditional communist based governments are proving to be quite pragmatic in supporting pro-growth economic policies (by non traditional communist means).
China has unapologetically stuck to communism in every other sense of government policy (and Putin’s Russia certainly leans in that direction as well as a number of more dictator/authoritarian based governments in Africa). Yet these quickly growing economies are characterized by low, stable business tax rates, responsible government spending, reasonable levels of regulation and incentives for business expansion.
As a result, their economies are expanding, businesses are thriving …. and maybe more importantly … the population is gaining a better way of living.
Once again … in my words … better than what they had.
Yes.
It is interesting to me that it is the economies of communist (or communist like) governments are thriving due to capitalism and responsible pro-growth economic policies.
And because of all that we are seeing a shift in the economic center of gravity.
Anyway.
Sorry. I digress.
Ok. Getting back to the center of gravity.
This study reflects how we should be looking at things. Millions of millions of people in developing countries are becoming more wealthy.
Exorbitantly? Nope.
Wealthier? Yes.
Simply moving all developing countries (or the majority … call it a ‘large mass’) to non-poverty from poverty is a massive shift. And by doing so it enables that population to be more productive. More healthy. More educated. More knowledgeable.
This funny Maslow chart reflects that as additional personal needs are fulfilled it induces new needs (which we, as humans, constantly improve ourselves in order to further attain these ‘self actualization’ activities). Think about this from a non-funny sustenance perspective in growing from poverty to non poverty (but the dimension perspective will always reside in the human mind).
This is simple shit.
But we in the ‘industrialized world’ get caught up in the wrong issues … we assess success by where we are today .. (silly silly people).
Ok.
Be careful with what I say next.
While USA focuses on government constitutional aspects and “enhancing their constitutional situation” … China is focused on economy.
Now.
I am a HUGE freedom of guy. But. If you want to grow and expand your government/country/culture more … a good economy is a really good thing.
But having a realistic point of view on economy is an even better thing.
Maybe if we look at the shifting economic center of gravity here in the western hemisphere we shouldn’t look at it as a loss of stature but rather maybe we should seek to gain some learning.
Is this post a message to our government and regulators? Nope.
This is a message to you & I that we have it pretty good here in the good ole USofA.
Is it as good economically as it was? Nope. Is it good? Yup.
It’s an attitude issue for ‘we the people.’ Because with the right attitude then we can create the right behavior.
But that is my next economic article.
A rant on the everyday American’s economic behavior (because other cultures aren’t as addicted to spending as we are).
Hope you enjoyed.
Pravda, Putin & Poverty in the USofA
Dec 15th
The new Economist has Putin on its cover and it made me think about checking out what the Pravda had to say.
God almighty I love taking a couple of minutes and reading the Russian paper Pravda online every once in awhile.
As a reminder. Pravda is kind of like russia’s version of USA Today (someone at USA Today is cringing at the moment). I say that to remind us that a lot of people read it and it has that same ‘people magazine like’ writing style.
Anyway.
Pravda is all in a tizzy on a variety of issues. And they pull no punches when they feel strongly about something.
First.
Lies on SKY: The British Media Circus comes to Russia (note: someone there should get a raise just for writing this headline).
Right on cue two days before Russia’s Parliamentary elections, comes SKY News. Are they following terrorists, interviewing rapists, glorifying murderers and taking sides? Are they asking Americans in Iraq if they are looking for revenge for 9/11? Why no, they are muck-raking in Russia’s vast interior, painting a negative image of Vladimir Putin.
Awesome stuff:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/02-12-2011/119825-british_media_circus-0/
look.
I have mixed feelings about good ole Vlad the Impaler 2012. Every time I read about him or hear him speak I think about the song “Cult of Personality” (an awesome song): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0&ob=av2e
Anyway. I digressed by including that video so back to the point of the post. Pravda.
Having cult of personality is a fine line in leadership. I happen to believe Russia needs a charismatic leader to re-position itself in the global economy. And what I mean by that is that a strong leader can help Russia get its mojo back. Help it have a clear identity and regain some of its “mother country” swagger and belief system.
Putin the right guy? Shit. I don’t know. They probably scoff at Obama. I don’t have the right to choose for them. However what I do know is that Putin is polarizing and sometimes polarizing is good. What I also know is that the Pravda defends him (albeit their communist roots are showing).
Anyway.
The article was worth a chuckle.
And if you have any doubts … here is a soundbite … “In the sewer where the British media resides, pride of place in this festering cesspit, alongside the British Bullshit Corporation, must be reserved for SKY News, where lies on SKY abound, where stories are turned around or upside down, where gross manipulation rules the day and where insinuation goes hand in hand with reporting what are supposed to be facts.”
(journalism at its best)
Next.
An attack on capitalism using Foreign Affairs magazine as its main source (which, frankly, is a really smart move on the columnist’s part) and highlighting USA’s poverty.
Quote: Since then, bribery has become common practice. In 1971, there were 141 companies represented by lobbyists in Washington. In 1982, there were 2,445.
Geez.
He makes a good point (commie bastard).
http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/22-11-2011/119709-Capitalism_and_poverty_in_us-0/
I guess this article reminds me why I like reading foreign news articles. Even if they are opinion articles. I sometimes believe it is quite easy for us Americans to throw stones at others (despite our own issues). So this article throws a nifty sharp edged stone at America using the ‘communist stance’ point of view to make us think about our issues.
And as with any good read there are aspects of truth (as well as some blurry edges).
Reading this article I can very easily see how communism (in its public relations form) could be very appealing to a lot of people.
And I can also see how when the Communist PR machine was working on full cylinders (albeit I believe the infamous Lada only had 4 cylinders) it created some compelling intellectual debate amongst socialist, democratic and any non-communist driven country.
In fact. I would imagine many americans living here in the miserable now reading this would be quite tempted to say “why not?”
(now … that is a scary thought)
Ok.
Here is the Pravda home site. Take a minute.
Is the news skewed or truly reflective of what the typical Russian thinks? Geez. I don’t know.
But. As I have said before.
A LOT of people read this paper.
And I have to assume a LOT of people believe it.
And a LOT of people’s point of view is framed by what they read here.
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/
At minimum it is fun reading.
getting different points of view
Sep 16th
Whew.
If you ever want to get a really different point of view go read the Pravda (a Russian newspaper. http://english.pravda.ru/). The newspaper was originally the voice of communism and while it currently claims to have no resemblance to the original communist Pravda its mission remains “to report the truth and nothing but the truth” (Pravda means truth in Russian). And. It still leans mightily toward a pro-Russian/communist point of view (just as say a NY Times leans mightily toward a pro-American/democratic point of view).
Anyway.
I cruise the Pravda website on occasion and their columnist editorials never fail to screw my head up.
Their point of view on a variety of topics will make your head spin.
They write about the Caucasus (which I will comment on later).
McCain … this one is a real headache maker .. “the bleating of senile old goats” should inspire you to take a look at this one … http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/25-08-2011/118867-senator_mmccain-0/ …)
Moslems.
Oh. And Libya … On one side of the divide, the Satanic and dark forces of NATO and on the other side, those who see themselves as the guardians of what is right and good and just. It is good versus evil, it is God versus Satan, it is about implementing international law.. http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/31-08-2011/118919-libya_truth-0/)
Yeah. There is stuff in this paper that will truly make your head spin.
And at the same time make you think a little … a little about “how much does our own media spin the story?”
For wouldn’t we be foolish to completely disregard what we read in this paper (named Truth)? At minimum there should be a grain of truth in what they write and in their opinions.
And, also at minimum, millions of Russian readers are reading this paper and, similar to the USA, millions of points of view are being molded by what they are reading.
And maybe that alone is a good reason to read foreign newspapers on occasion. If only to be exposed to what other people are creating points of view from.
Yes. We may scoff. We may scratch our heads in disbelief. And we may even believe it is all blarney.
But it is news to someone.
And a lot of someones.
And a lot of someones who are building their own points of view on things.
And if we were the ones reading it every day there would be a boatload of people right here who would be taking it as unassailable fact and truth.
Ok.
And then I read the following article about the Caucasus.
And of all the seemingly insane points of view I read this one hit with like a hammer of sanity.
We in the USA very quickly jump to the popular (and in theory I also like it and agree with it) self determination theory (likeminded people creating countries) when discussing the dissolution of the old Soviet Union (Russian and extended ‘states’).
But, honestly, there is a practicality which eludes us when discussing it simply in platitudes.
And this article did a nice job of pointing out some really practical issues.
Practical issues surrounding country/geographic boundaries. And in bringing that up it seems like we should have some facts as we grapple with this topic. Some background.
The Caucasus a geopolitical region at the border of Europe and Asia. It is home to the Caucasus Mountains, including Europe’s highest mountain (Mount Elbrus).
North Caucasus comprises:
* Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Adyghea, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachai-Cherkessia, North Ossetia, Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai
South Caucasus comprises:
* Armenia
* Azerbaijan (including disputed Nagorno-Karabakh)
* Georgia (including disputed Abkhazia and South Ossetia)
I believe the article below focuses on North Caucasus region which has about 5.5 to 6 million population, at least a dozen languages, a lot of raw mineral wealth, high unemployment and a lot of confusion about its desire for independence (because Chechnya desires an independent state and the other components have not expressed a large desire to be independent).
The article:
Russia may bid farewell to Caucasus?
The program for the Development of the Northern Caucasus in 2012-2025 prepared by the Ministry of Regional Development stirred up the “separatist” wave in the society that threatens to erase once and for all Adygeya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, North Ossetia, and of course, Chechnya from the map of Russia.
The “pro” arguments are well-known: 1) we feed them (huge subsidies from the federal budget; 2) they are blowing us up (the Caucasus as a permanent source of terrorism), and 3) they do not respect us (a number of facts ranging from ethnic crime to the national dances at the Manege Square).
Certain circles believe that only radical measures will solve all aforementioned problems in one swoop and then everyone else will be happy. The “separatists” do not bother with the practical side of the issue of the construction of the “Great Caucasus wall.” It is very simple: strip them off the Russian citizenship, move them out of Russia, install a barbed wire fence and ban the re-entry.
It is hard to come up with a better excuse for a civil war. Does anyone think that the process of disengagement will be quiet and peaceful? It would seem that the example of the “independent” (factually) Chechnya of 1996-1999 should have once and for all shown that even being separated the Caucasus would not leave Russia and would not dissolve. On the contrary, the following would happen:
- The power on the rogue territories will be taken by the rogue, whose raison d’être would be a constant battle with the hated neighbor. This means that at least chronic border disputes are guaranteed;
- There will be an endless series of lawsuits against Russia with territorial and property claims, with the full approval and even whole-hearted support of the Western countries;
- The final solution of the “Russian issue” in the North Caucasus will be just around the corner. Objections that there is no Russian-speaking population left there are not true. Besides the nearly mono-ethnic Chechnya, there is Adygea where the Russian population is the majority (approximately 65 percent), and Russian Mozdok in North Ossetia, as well as numerous Cossack villages scattered throughout the region. In a full-scale conflict aggravated by a forced relocation, the Russian-speaking inhabitants would perish first.
Separatists from other autonomous regions such as Tatarstan and Sakha Republic will get an example to follow. The country will experience the formation of the notorious “fifth column”, this time capable of blowing Russia up from within. The new “foreign countries” will be happy to help.
I repeat: we can certainly say goodbye to the Caucasus, but it will not leave us. The desire to wait it out behind the proverbial wall is equivalent to the decision to lock oneself in the apartment and not go outside because there may be hooligans there. If someone does not want to abide by the rules of human coexistence, it is necessary to punish the rogue specifically, without making global generalizations.
It is even stranger to call this position “patriotic.” Patriotism, for those who do not know, in ancient Greek means “fatherland” and dictionaries treat the term more broadly – “the love for one’s country.” Dr. Samuel Johnson who uttered his immortal “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” in 1775 meant that the scoundrel has still some hope if he loves his country.
It seems that in the 21st century the aphorism of Johnson is turned the other way around. Patriotism in a distorted understanding has truly become a refuge for scoundrels, for it is a very convenient cover for stupidity, cowardice and betrayal behind the hypocritical mask.
Stupidity – because there is no simple, painless and effective mechanism to remove the Caucasus problems. Have people failed to learn from the last parade of sovereignties? First we said goodbye to the “unnecessary” Baltic States, then bid farewell to the Soviet Union.
Cowardice – because the withdrawal from the Caucasus can be described by a brief, but telling slogan – “Holes instead of mountains.” Betrayal – because even though Russia is great, there is not enough space to retreat.
Ok.
Excellent article. Makes you think. Maybe enlightens a little.
And I love the fact a Russian editorialist quotes Samuel Johnson of all people.
This all seems to have come to a head not through anything Chechnya did but rather in January 2010, the Kremlin announced the establishment of the North Caucasus Federal District (which includes all the republics of the North Caucasus except Adygea). With the creation of that district the North Caucasian republics were separated from the Southern Caucasus (and united Northern republics under one federally administered district). The explanation behind this move was that it would allow for better focus to be paid to addressing the shared problems across the republics of the North Caucasus. However, this decision could also be seen as an attempt to improve the effectiveness of Moscow’s financial support to the North Caucasus, and ultimately a step toward establishing the region’s financial independence from Moscow, which has become particularly urgent considering that Kremlin funds are becoming increasingly stretched due to economic constraint and its costly development projects.
Other theories have been stated to explain the move but suffice it to say none of this kind of detail enters (r very rarely does) into our discussions here.
To us Americans is “give them freedom.”
And it really isn’t that simple.
Is the Pravda giving us “the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” I doubt it. But does it give us something to think about?
You bet.
It is always good to see what other parts of the world think.
It is always good to at least know other people’s points of view.
different point of view part 2
Sep 16th
Ok. I admit. I haven’t picked up a (Time or a Newsweek magazine in a very long time. I read the Economist and the Guardian and Pravda and Financial Times (among several international rags) to get a global perspective. So when I picked up a Time magazine out of curiosity it provided a slightly different perspective for me.
This one has “the decline of Europe” on its cover. And I picked it up because it was so obviously American focused versus what I currently read. And it was enlightening in its perspective. Did I learn anything ? Nope. But the perspective was interesting.
And while a lot of people could get grumpy with me I decided to put this post right after my Pravda post. Because it makes the same point.
Whether we like it or not, even in the flat world of internet and youtube, our media shapes our point of view.
We may dislike what we read in the Pravda but what makes our media “righter” then theirs. But more importantly. It shapes the majority’s thinking. It is just a guess but the readers of my site are a minority. We happy few probably scan a variety of global perspectives and develop our own point of view.
But. We are a minority. We aren’t any smarter than other people. We are just different.
The truth is the majority of people read only Pravda (Russian), or Guardian (English) or USA Today (online or paper) … all depending on one’s locality.
And the reader doesn’t cross over. And most readers only get one perspective.
And because that is what most people take in that is what they put out in perspective.
Anyway. I read Time magazine. And it was odd to me. Because all of a sudden Europe was crumbling (because usa wasn’t there to prop them up) and a variety of issues they were facing suggesting they were screwed (Europe).
Note: that was a very simplistic recap of a long well written article …
Do I agree? No.
Do I sort of agree? Sure.
They have a nifty graph (which the economist has never shown) showing relative economic strength by country. I cannot show it because I don’t subscribe to Time online but suffice it to say they rate countries where Scandinavian countries move up into the positive upwards left side quadrant and as you move left to right you get Germany, then France and then USA (which isn’t as far to the right lower bad quadrant where Italy and Greece reside.
In the chart I will ignore the quasi socialist Countries (Scandinavian) because … well … they are quasi socialist (which while we in the USA get nervous with that word it simply translates into less economic highs and lows because of the inherent wealth distribution).
Anyway. Looking at the graph truly made me think about what is happening globally and why it is happening in each country.
And while it is certainly a complex combination of factors and issues I felt like cutting to the chase rather than get hung up on politics and government and taxes and whatever.
The easiest way to say what’s happening.
Germany good. They make a lot of shit.
USA not so good. We make some shit but generate more money in intangible services (we use money to make money).
Greece. They don’t make shit (except olive oil).
That said.
If you want to be depression free, make shit. That is my economic lesson for the day.
travels of reading part 1
Sep 7th
So.
This is part a rant about people who don’t take advantage of reading and part simply a plea for people to read as often as they can.
Let me begin with the traveling ‘thing’ I mention upfront.
I have been extremely fortunate in my life to have had the opportunity to travel the globe. And experience lots of things. And see a lot of different things.
But even with that.
I tend to believe books and reading have offered the best travels I have ever experienced. Yeah. I do love reading and I believe reading books really is like traveling.
Traveling to places. To thoughts. To others minds. To other types of thinking. To fresh ideas.
It is an absolute fact that everyone has the opportunity to see so many things through reading.
And imagine things with limitless boundaries.
And experience thinking and ideas and combinations of words that energize the mind and the heart and the soul.
Reading just gets you … well … thinking. Just thinking about things.
We all have found those moments in books when reading.
There are those moments when you actually traveled through a slice of someone ‘else’s life living it word by word.
As I typed that I remember I was fortunate to be given a proofers copy of The Horse Whisperer and asked my opinion. I know I gave it a great review.
And I believe it made me cry in the first 50 pages (which may be one of the most heart wrenching tangled emotional ‘stepping into a moment’ sections of a book I have ever encountered).
That is an example of traveling through someone else’s life experience.
You travel through their experience and feel it. In your gut. You live it. You get so close to the moment through the words you feel like you have traveled there.
I find the same (but different) feeling when I read The Economist.
Anyway.
Anyone who reads knows about the moments when you come across a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things that you’d thought and it was lurking in your own mind and it appears on a page articulated by by someone else, someone you’ve never met, maybe even someone long passed.
It’s as if someone has heard your thought and knew you couldn’t figure out a way to put it in words and has traveled to say “here it is, worry no more, for now you know what it is.”
And, of course, (because I am consistent on this issue and I am who I am) reading an easy path to knowledge.
Of course you can gain knowledge through experience, or discussion, or other paths … but reading is so freely available and simple that it can only be deemed a great failure to anyone who doesn’t encourage it as a core activity … if not privilege.
I do know I would like to see America become a place that’s proud of intellectual curiosity. But I fear too often intellectual curiosity is belittled by people whose idea of culture is determined by television or People-type magazines or internet blogs.
You would like to think that knowledge should be a lifelong goal and not something satisfied by high school mandatory reading lists or four years of college … but rather a lifetime of reading.
Here is the issue (ok. some issues).
Okay. Some statistics.
From bookstatistics.com:
- 58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school.
- 42% of college graduates never read another book.
- 80% of US families did not buy or read a book last year.
- 70% of US adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.
Ok.
Did you know that there are approximately 30 million adults in the U.S. who can’t read?
Yikes.
THAT last one sends a shiver down my spine.
While I would like to think most people would like to read (like I do) but I guess I also assume they can actually read.
But.
Look at number 2 on the list. 80% of families did not buy or read a book. 80 frickin’ percent.
Whew.
What happens to us (from childhood where we seem to have endless supplies of books to read)?
I do know that one of my favorite childhood memories is “reading” The Hobbit.
Ok. I didn’t read it. Our teacher read it to us in installments in elementary school in ‘reading time.’
Afterwards? I couldn’t wait to get my own hands on it.
Since then I have read it and the entire Lord of the Rings maybe 10 times. I have no idea at what age was my first time but it has to be very young. I remember being fascinated, excited and impatient waiting for the next chapter to unfold. I created pictures in my mind at each reading and the next day another picture would be drawn.
So.
I am not suggesting everyone love reading as much as I do.
But understanding what reading has to offer is important.
Not everyone can physically travel and books not only give someone an opportunity to travel anywhere in the ‘now’ but they give you an opportunity to travel through time … and see ideas past, present and future.
Look. I know reading books certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on becoming “smart.”
I’ve read some amazing stuff online, and I’ve read amazingly thought provoking newspaper articles (not in local papers but the NY Times or The Guardian). And I do think staying open to new media is a key sign of intellectual curiosity.
I don’t know.
In any case, I don’t know if people who don’t read lack intellectual curiosity. I think there can be other ways to satisfy intellectual curiosity (particularly in today’s web crazy world).
But I do think if you don’t read you can find yourself with a lack of ability to think in the abstract and the potential.
You may have heard the term “lifelong learning.”
Though learning begins when we are children education is truly a never ending process (and reading can play an important part of learning for everyone). Reading not only keeps us informed about the world around us but also provides intellectual stimulation and helps keep us mentally sharp.
Reading offers benefits not found in more “passive” media.
It gives the brain a much better workout than does watching television. When we watch TV, we take in the information in a passive way. But reading allows the mind to:
- pause, reflect, think
- operate more actively
- use intellect and emotion together
- develop a longer attention span.
Oh.
And on that last bullet point. To those of you who may say “I don’t have the attention span to read.” Well. There ain’t anyone out there who has a shorter attention span than I do. I have the attention span of a gnat. And still a book can suck me in to a place where it doesn’t become about ‘attention’ any more but rather ‘involvement.’
Ok.
Regardless of all my own personal ramblings on the greatness of reading there are some actual studies (if you doubt that this whole reading is traveling thing is really for you).
- Carnegie Mellon scientists discovered that the volume of brain white matter in the language area of the brain increased after study participants followed a six-month daily reading program. The Carnegie Mellon study proved that the brain structure can be improved by training poor readers to become better readers.
- In 2009, Mayo Clinic conducted a Study of Aging that offered some good news for middle-aged and senior adults. Reading a book and other cognitive activities could decrease the risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI is associated with Alzheimer’s disease.
This says we should assume the brain is like a muscle. Studies prove that exercising it and stimulating it makes it stronger. Reading stimulates brain activity. Reading a variety of “things” (blogs, books, newspapers, etc.) challenges the brain to think in new directions and absorb new concepts and information.
And children?
Children benefit from reading on many levels. Parents actively stimulate their child’s brain by sharing a reading time with them. Interactive reading time creates a shared bond between parent and child along with provoking a child’s natural curiosity about the world and environment.
Giving a child a chance to ask questions, express an interest in a particular topic, and hear new vocabulary and ideas forms a positive impression on a child that lasts a lifetime. Children with poor reading skills have a tendency to feel more anxious and sad (that comes from a study but I lost the source).
Reading also means we are in more control of how we learn and absorb different ideas. We can skim over portions that interest us less, move backwards and forwards, reread and, as in my case, make notes or write spectacularly articulated things down.
Reading helps keep us oriented and engaged.
Science, history, biographies, self help, religion, philosophy … the list is really endless … all make our ‘world’ a little more ‘full’ (but it is a glass that can never actually be completely filled) with each book we read.
I left this to the end because people who haven’t really figured out how to enjoy reading don’t “get” this. But there is an amazing pleasure to sitting down with a good book. It’s kind of like traveling to anywhere in the world (imagined or real) without leaving the comfort of our own chair. We can visit a fantasy realm with JRR Tolkien, or the American West with Louis L’Amour, or solve a mystery with Sherlock Holmes or see the intricacies of war with Tom Clancy. (that list could truly go on and on)
So.
In the end.
Some people will never ever be interested in learning unless dragged, kicking and screaming.
My biggest hope is that we adults (the ones who don’t like reading) don’t hinder our kids natural curiosity about the world and still encourage them to read (it is unfortunate that kids typically do as they see … so … if you don’t read they don’t feel compelled to do so).
I do know that I will never quit trying to give everyone the opportunity to love reading and knowledge and encouraging curiosity.
Why?
Because not all of us have the privilege to travel.
And books give everyone the privilege to travel.
Doesn’t get much simpler than that.
memory part 1: 65 years ago
Aug 20th
So. This is about amnesia.
Or lack of long term memory.
Look.
We Americans certainly have a pattern of historical amnesia on occasion.
And the day I am going to refer to edges upon an amnesia moment.
VJ Day.
Huh?
Known most for this picture to the right.
VJ Day is the day that Japan officially surrendered to the US and ended World War 2.
Of course everyone has seen the picture but if you think about it (beyond the obvious joy of two people – regardless of whether it was staged or not) it is a peek into a world none of my generation knows.
A world that believed total victory was possible. A world that said large sacrifices needed to be made to gain large things (democracy, freedom … stuff like that). A world that said you made hard decisions that often in retrospect may look not as black & white as you would like but in the moment achieved what needed to be achieved.
The Cold War (a 50 year silent war) was on the horizon.
This is a world difficult for any of my age group or younger can fathom.
It was on August 14th in 1945 that Americans were greeted with a two-word newsflash, “Japan Surrenders” World War II was over.
(note: it was August 15th in Japan, but, because of time zone differences, it was August 14th in the US.)
Most of us greeted the VJ Saturday as a day away from the office. Just a weekend day that gave us an opportunity to spend time with family, to shop or just relax.
It should have been a big day for remembrance.
August 14th marked the end of a conflict that claimed more human lives than any in history.
Many people believe that WWII ended with the dropping of the two A-Bombs on Hiroshima on August 6th and Nagasaki on August 9th but the Japanese did not immediately surrender after these attacks. In fact, there were Japanese rebels who wished to prolong the war
All Americans should take time to remember days like V-J Day and remember the men and women who fought to preserve the precious freedoms we almost lost.
War brought America together. Our military and citizens performed heroically, sacrificing on the home front as well as in combat. Political and personal disagreements were set aside. Output from our factories soared as the country became the arsenal of democracy in this global conflict. Americans united and labored as one, working toward a single goal: victory against the forces of totalitarianism and racist ideologies.
Victory would come, but it was hard won. On May 8, 1945, Germany capitulated. Then, following the atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan surrendered on august 14th.
There is urgency to addressing our historical amnesia. WWII veterans are dying at the rate of 800 a day, according to statistics from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. This year there are 1,981,216 surviving veterans in the USA. In 2020 there will only be 269,721. Those who experienced V-J Day are leaving us.
Nowadays, it seems VJ Day celebrations are muted mostly because as we look in retrospect we tie the end of the war with the Air Force B29s, Enola Gay and Bockscar, dropping Little Boy and Fat Man, the atomic bombs on the essentially civilian targets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombs killing over 200,000 people, including many women and children.
My opinion?
Muted celebrations.
What’s done is done and don’t think for a moment that the Japanese wouldn’t have dropped a couple on the Allies (Americans and/or America) if they had them.
War is an ugly. And WW2 was all that. But one cannot suggest that the Allies should have sacrificed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of their own troops in an invasion of Japan in order to spare Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But. War is about winning (within a morality structure) with the least expenditure of your own soldiers and people. Period.
Oh. I would also like to point out, even without an atomic bomb, the Japanese managed to kill more innocent Chinese civilians at Nanking alone than the two atomic bombs together.
Historical amnesia.
Now. Historical amnesia is a scary thing. Because in generations and cycles and recurring actions (recurring mistakes) and memories it means we forget. And if we forget it means we are more likely to do again. Sound silly when you talk about something like a war the size of World War 2? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … not really.
At the end I have some casualty graphs.
I sometimes believe World War 2 is becoming just a phrase.
As time goes by the true extent of that conflict (versus say a 9/11 which admittedly did happen on our home land which WW2 did not) is stunning in comparison. It may not be fair to compare 3000 to 1 million but numbers are numbers are numbers.
And if we do not remind ourselves of things like this on occasion we are doomed to make similar mistakes in the future and allow it to happen all over again.
Why? Because, of course, it could never happen to us (or so we say to ourselves).
Anyway.
Thus, while we may be a forward-looking people, I encourage all Americans to pause and reflect on the sacrifice of the Hero generation. The GI generation.
Remember V-J Day. Remember all remembrance days of World War 2 and the Korean War.
Seek out a GI veteran (heck. any veteran actually) and thank him or her.
They really did change the world.
To end this.
Some historical numbers to remember. Many many people took part in World War 2 and sacrificed a lot for us to be living the lives we lead today.
And we shouldn’t forget what they did … for us.
about china 4: struggles of African democracy
Aug 2nd
So. As I discussed in about china part 3 that Africa is becoming an economic battleground where (simplistically because there are others in play) you have china on one side and USA on the other where government (or let’s say “ruling ideology”) and finance are the weapons.
First. Let’s remind ourselves of what Africa offers economically. Africa is a big continent. Like really big. And sorry to say to all of us Americans … much much bigger than USA.
Okay.
Second. That said there is a lot at stake economically which means their politics should matter to us. Because democracies “play” with us (the USA) and non-democracies don’t like to play with us as much.
(that was simple global economics 101).
So what is happening? (because I titled this that democracy is struggling in Africa).
By the end of December almost half of the sub-Saharan Africa’s 48 countries will have gone to the polls for an assortment of local, regional and national elections. This is a big year for African voters. The electoral calendar has never been so crowded and crowed with some key “elections” (Kenya even has a constitutional referendum up for vote).
However. Let’s not be fooled. Elections are often a poor guide to a country’s overall state of democracy and civil liberties.
So. A total number of elections can be deceptive.
The Economist published this awesome map of Africa in their recent article “The democracy bug is fitfully catching on”. the map reflects how countries “rate” in terms of democracy (they had some nifty criteria to measure but suffice it to say the do a nice job of giving us a quick overview of the true state of democracy in Africa).
The Economist is hopeful. They believe the sheer number of coming elections is cause for hope (on the other hand, am not so hopeful).
But. The advance of African democracy remains spotty at best. It is true the “big men” (or authoritative if not dictative leaders) find a way to stay put, whatever the voters may want.
And I am less hopeful than The Economist because I also see the underpinnings of China’s economic influence.
China does not publicly condone democracy yet they certainly do not condone authoritative ruling systems either (and they invest a LOT of money).
In fact their economic support suggests a supportive stance to ‘dictatorship-like’ countries.
China has always been adept at ignoring and even stigmatizing western criticism of its foreign policy or human-rights record. It would be much harder for China to ‘ignore’ if African leaders consistently held China to account with regard to transparency and human rights. But the struggles of democracy point to China not being put in this position but rather being in a position of continuing strength and tight ties to the large number of “flawed” to hybrid to even nonexistent democratic countries.
We in the West would like to emphasize the ultimately unsustainable strategy of courting dictators in key resource-rich African states. However, that strategy certainly looks quite sustainable in the existing, and foreseeable, political environment because democracy seems to be struggling.
Looking at The Economist map it, frankly, becomes difficult to foresee it becoming possible to change China’s oil ventures from the amorality of “business is business” into something more tangible and positive for Africa and its peoples.
The hope?
Elections have become a normal occurrence on a continent once better known for the frequency and violence of its coups and civil wars. Since the late 1990s the number of coups has fallen sharply whereas the number of elections has increased, sometimes in the unlikeliest of places.
It also helps that it appears gone are the days of the cold war when West and East propped up their favored dictators for geostrategic reasons (although China is once again playing by their own rules).
It helps that a lot of aid money and diplomatic support are tied to progress in governance and democracy. Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir, for example, held the country’s recent election as part of a peace deal with the country’s southern rebels, brokered largely by the United States in 2005. Countries such as Ghana and Mali have every incentive to stay democratic to get billions of dollars of aid from America’s Millennium Challenge Account, started in 2002. This requires Africa countries to prove a commitment to good governance and elections if they are to get the money.
(although, once again, I will point to the chart I placed in China part 3 with the billions of dollars being invested by China into Africa … hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm has anybody else noticed this is suddenly beginning to look like a high stakes poker game?).
And it’s not just the money. There is also a true belief beginning to take hold. Africa’s own regional groupings, notably the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), have also started punishing member states that fall prey to coups.
Now.
It is clear that in the long term, a stable and prosperous Africa is certainly in China’s interest. And, The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in Beijing is clear evidence that that China is invested in Africa for the long term.
So. They ain’t leaving soon in other words. And they are interested in stabilizing the continent (in their best interest of course).
Someone else said this but I agree that the rest of the world (see USA although the UN has also stepped up lately) cannot ignore or stigmatize China in Africa. The only feasible strategy is to engage. And by engage I mean take them on.
Militarily? Nope.
Economically? Yup.
And, as noted earlier, it behooves us to tie the economics to government because in the long run that is sustainable (and a good sustainable for USA).
But China is going full bore using aid, diplomacy, weapons sales and Chinese ex pats with the intent to become the preeminent power in the region. And China’s increased activity in Africa has emerged at a time when the continent’s democratic evolution is at cross roads.
The rash of current elections is a reflection of the fact most African countries embraced democracy and open market economies only in the 1990s. Progress towards consolidation of democracy and respect for human rights has been very slow in most African countries, due to the narrow depth of internal democratic forces, high levels of poverty and role of military in governing but it is happening now.
Most of the democratic concessions obtained in Africa in the 1990s were certainly gained thru western government assistance (conditional economic support).
So. All that said. What are the implications of Chinese economic presence in Africa (and ultimately their presence will impact international relations, democracy, and human rights)?
Now, poverty in Africa is pervasive, and has hardly spared any one, including the political leaders. The Chinese are aware of this, and are preying on the poverty of many African political leaders.
How?
- In Rwanda, the big modern Chinese embassy bristles with communication antennas and dishes serves as a gateway to the Eastern Congo and its untold mineral wealth. It has been widely reported that China recently purchased half the farm land under cultivation in the Congo.
- Roads in Nairobi are being widened and repaved with large billboards telling Kenyans that the work is a gift from the people of China. Yet the fact is the roads create a modern infrastructure to move African commodities to ports for shipment to China.
- Rural South African towns that have been losing population for two decades are seeing an influx of Chinese small businesses. It has been suggested many of the small businessmen who have fanned out across rural farming and mining constituencies have ties to Chinese intelligence.
- In neighboring Namibia, China established its first overseas military base to track its satellite and manned space flights.
So. Here is the tricky part.
America is in a unique position to promote freedom of choice/thinking and free markets in Africa. The United States can compete with China diplomatically and commercially in the region. The United States does not carry baggage from a colonial past as do European countries. Sub Saharan Africa is a place where America remains truly popular. The Millennium Development Corporation is better known there than here. The United States is lead by a President of African descent, widely admired on the continent, and American pop culture rules in Africa.
Okay. That isn’t tricky. It is actually doing it that is tricky.
To stem the Chinese tide and to give Africans the opportunity to have a better future, the United States must strongly advocate for human rights, democracy and freedom on the continent. We cannot be reticent to criticize African strongmen in forums such as the UN. The people of Africa are looking for us to bolster them as they struggle against tyranny and corruption.
Oh. And, yes, bolster means money (and that is where it gets really tricky).
We should support those countries such as Botswana, Rwanda and South Africa (and any country that appears as democracy, flawed democracy or hybrid on The Economist map) that are committed democracies and nurture any countries that are making progress in the right direction with increased trade, investment and tourism. The budget of the Millennium Development Corporation should be increased and focused on Africa. America should remain at the forefront of funding HIV/AIDS, polio vaccination and anti-malaria programs on the continent.
Ah. But right now the US people are just not interested in spending money elsewhere when we have 10+% unemployment and we want to spend money at home. But. We gotta do it.
So.
Why us?
(I have two answers to that)
First. A non economic reason.
We are the voice of democracy. Like it or not that is our role. We stand for “freedom of” and no matter how much we want to bitch and moan about “focusing on us” our country has a responsibility. Particularly when a bully enters the schoolyard (China).
Look.
I write a lot about letting other countries govern as they see fit. Yes. I believe we should sometimes let China govern their own country & people as they see fit (or how about just because they don’t have a democracy we shouldn’t be so high and mighty to a country that has a history that makes our looks like a dot on a page). But. There is a difference when they seek to bully another kid in the playground.
We are the one, and should be the one, to step up and say “not in this playground.” We encourage democracy and do not stifle freedom to … whatever. So. That said. We need to step up to the plate with emerging governments and give them a chance to really govern. And make a choice. So. That’s that.
Second. Economically.
This where short term pain cannot dictate long term gain development. A free and transparent Africa will be a friendly place for the United States and a partner in trade and culture long into the future. An Africa dominated China is unlikely to be such a partner.
All that said. The time for America to fully engage in Africa is now. Because if we don’t we won’t be allowed to play in the playground. And this is a really really big playground. And our wallets will look a lot slimmer in the future. And none of us want that.
The economic battle for Africa is on. Clearly China has taken the field. USA must also.
