Here's a stick I gotta get on. When I bought my house in the middle of 2005 - just minutes before the market peaked and started its long, sad decline - I spoke with many of you about my prediction that the investment would decline in value and my desire to short the investment. At the time, most people looked at me even funnier than they were already - after all, I was supposed to be celebrating the acquisition of a new home for my family in a wonderful community (it really is a wonderful community). But instead, I was warbling about designing a vehicle to short the investment, to protect myself against the declining value, much like one can short securities and commodities. Unfortunately, at that time, no nut-case thought any such possibility was sensible.
Roll forward a couple years. Now the idea has not only escaped the realm of my personal lunacy, but the product has been designed and is available on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange! Have a look here if you do not believe me. I have yet to figure it all out, but there is now the (theoretical) possibility for me to buy protection in the futures markets against my house's continued value decline. This is something that I plan to study. If I am going to lose my shirt, I may as well keep my shorts!
Friday, November 30, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
I guess we're not scared enough
What would the United States be if there were not some major threat for the population to fear aimlessly? 9/11 must be too distant, Iraq must have numbed to many, and Pakistan and Iran must be too complicated. Heck, even subjects like carbon emissions, starvation and slaughter in Africa, elimination of the rain forests, and natural disasters in Bangladesh and Indonesia all are a little thin for the US media. Yawn.
Good thing there's China. Those guys are trying to kill our kids, if you believe the media. Every week, there is another story about another Chinese-manufactured toy that has to be re-called. And their dastardly currency policy - when will the US persuade them to let the thing reflect what the US thinks it's worth? But most recently I was entertained by a couple headlines. Yahoo!'s front page ran a cover story over the weekend about satellites and how they avoid orbital collisions. Amusingly, the "sub-question" below the headline was "Will China shoot down satellites?" I guess I am so out of touch that I have missed the recent China policy of shooting down satellites** - good thing the ever-sharp editorial crew at Yahoo! was there casually to scare me out of my pants.
Also, the New York Times Sunday paper ran a story about rock concerts in China. Apparently, concerts are getting more profitable there, so stars are traveling there to perform. The photograph of the latest star to show up in China was amusing - a shot with the star at the center, on the stage in the distance, framed by massive close-ups of two police security guards. Thanks to the New York Times, I now know that concerts in China are tightly-secure affairs, and the presence of the police can overwhelm the concert itself. Never mind the state of security at public gatherings in the US - the Chinese are just so strange!
Reflecting on the stream of enemies that the US Government and media has had us all afraid of over the span of the 20th and 21st centuries, it is amusing to watch the commencement, in earnest, of the next chapter. Welcome to the China House of Horrors.
** It turns out that the Chinese have inexplicably tested a satellite missile. How much can we make of that over the next months? I can't wait to find out.
Good thing there's China. Those guys are trying to kill our kids, if you believe the media. Every week, there is another story about another Chinese-manufactured toy that has to be re-called. And their dastardly currency policy - when will the US persuade them to let the thing reflect what the US thinks it's worth? But most recently I was entertained by a couple headlines. Yahoo!'s front page ran a cover story over the weekend about satellites and how they avoid orbital collisions. Amusingly, the "sub-question" below the headline was "Will China shoot down satellites?" I guess I am so out of touch that I have missed the recent China policy of shooting down satellites** - good thing the ever-sharp editorial crew at Yahoo! was there casually to scare me out of my pants.
Also, the New York Times Sunday paper ran a story about rock concerts in China. Apparently, concerts are getting more profitable there, so stars are traveling there to perform. The photograph of the latest star to show up in China was amusing - a shot with the star at the center, on the stage in the distance, framed by massive close-ups of two police security guards. Thanks to the New York Times, I now know that concerts in China are tightly-secure affairs, and the presence of the police can overwhelm the concert itself. Never mind the state of security at public gatherings in the US - the Chinese are just so strange!
Reflecting on the stream of enemies that the US Government and media has had us all afraid of over the span of the 20th and 21st centuries, it is amusing to watch the commencement, in earnest, of the next chapter. Welcome to the China House of Horrors.
** It turns out that the Chinese have inexplicably tested a satellite missile. How much can we make of that over the next months? I can't wait to find out.
Friday, November 16, 2007
A World Diminished
The World was lessened substantially this week when scholar and Emory University Law Professor Harold J. Berman passed away in New York City. Professor Berman was a leading thinker in so many important fields, including Law and Religion, Russian Law, Chinese Law, his beloved World Law, ethics, history, culture. He was a true Renaissance Man, except that he did not just dabble in anything. He was excellent in everything he pursued. His many writings and their popularity go a long way to make that case.
But much more than what he wrote, for me, was his boundless personal energy and his pure desire to see his students fly. He was a teacher in every way. He carefully planned his lectures and his informal seminars so they were designed to bring out the best in the participants. He never retreated from difficult subjects that might have put off his audience. Instead he plowed forward until the students had become better people. He welcomed odd or left-field thinking, especially if it shed light on his topics that he had not seen before. And he profoundly respected those with whom he worked. He was far and away the single greatest influence on my education, having taught me central things about the world that I had missed throughout my youth and the plentiful opportunities in my liberal and earlier legal education.
I had not seen Professor Berman for a number of years. The last time was at his home on Martha's Vineyard. We joined a family dinner there, and the discussion was as expansive and enticing as his classes had been. The conversation was disciplined and challenging, and ultimately enlightening. All that at a picnic table over grilled steaks and apple pie. I will always treasure that memory. In this world cluttered with unimportant junk, mis-information, and lazy analysis, I will miss you dearly Hal.
But much more than what he wrote, for me, was his boundless personal energy and his pure desire to see his students fly. He was a teacher in every way. He carefully planned his lectures and his informal seminars so they were designed to bring out the best in the participants. He never retreated from difficult subjects that might have put off his audience. Instead he plowed forward until the students had become better people. He welcomed odd or left-field thinking, especially if it shed light on his topics that he had not seen before. And he profoundly respected those with whom he worked. He was far and away the single greatest influence on my education, having taught me central things about the world that I had missed throughout my youth and the plentiful opportunities in my liberal and earlier legal education.
I had not seen Professor Berman for a number of years. The last time was at his home on Martha's Vineyard. We joined a family dinner there, and the discussion was as expansive and enticing as his classes had been. The conversation was disciplined and challenging, and ultimately enlightening. All that at a picnic table over grilled steaks and apple pie. I will always treasure that memory. In this world cluttered with unimportant junk, mis-information, and lazy analysis, I will miss you dearly Hal.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Chilly Mist of Sovereignty
It has been a couple years since I have had a direct window into the inner workings of tools of sovereignty in an emerging market country. But I had the opportunity again this month, and I am as convicted as ever about the "commercial" nature of the enterprise. I find it remarkable how, in every country, there are folks who are instinctively good at grabbing and pulling the levers of sovereign power. No matter how poor, how small, or how newly-emerged from sectarian violence a country, such people exist there, and they make it to the halls of government. They know how to dress, how to speak judiciously, how to demonstrate control over their subordinates - how to exude power. They generally also master the language of serving the best interests of their constituents.
In many places, however, they also know something else. They know how to work behind this imagery in a relentless pursuit of personal or business enrichment. While the public facade is all about subjects that would play well in any IMF consultation, UN General Assembly session, or press conference, discussions behind the scenes can quickly turn quite concretely to the subject of the personal or business "take" for the minister or other official in question. Of course, there should be no surprise in any of that behavior. This kind of "corruption" (as it is termed in the west) is all too-well understood. But seeing it up close and personal can be quite a shock, no matter how many times one has been through it before. It is very easy to become wrapped up in the language of helping a poor population, and considering what can be done legitimately to advance its health, education, and general welfare. Perhaps it is the heat of that excitement which exacerbates the shocking chill of the next part of the discussion. And, in my experience, an unwillingness to engage the chillier topic usually prevents any role in the warmer work.
I harbor no criticism, either of the system that creates the officials who behave this way, or of the system that has molded my thinking and that causes my reactions. I see vast numbers of people suffering deeply under both systems. And I see stark enrichment at the "top" of both systems. I suppose what I lament most is the persistence of the inaccurate mythology about sovereignty. It is fundamentally not about helping others; it is fundamentally about helping ones' self to the national cookie jar, whatever its size or contents, limited only by the strength of domestic political organization. Of course, I would prefer things to be different, and I would welcome global leadership that would work in practical ways to effect change. But until we at least openly recognize the current reality, change will never be possible.
In many places, however, they also know something else. They know how to work behind this imagery in a relentless pursuit of personal or business enrichment. While the public facade is all about subjects that would play well in any IMF consultation, UN General Assembly session, or press conference, discussions behind the scenes can quickly turn quite concretely to the subject of the personal or business "take" for the minister or other official in question. Of course, there should be no surprise in any of that behavior. This kind of "corruption" (as it is termed in the west) is all too-well understood. But seeing it up close and personal can be quite a shock, no matter how many times one has been through it before. It is very easy to become wrapped up in the language of helping a poor population, and considering what can be done legitimately to advance its health, education, and general welfare. Perhaps it is the heat of that excitement which exacerbates the shocking chill of the next part of the discussion. And, in my experience, an unwillingness to engage the chillier topic usually prevents any role in the warmer work.
I harbor no criticism, either of the system that creates the officials who behave this way, or of the system that has molded my thinking and that causes my reactions. I see vast numbers of people suffering deeply under both systems. And I see stark enrichment at the "top" of both systems. I suppose what I lament most is the persistence of the inaccurate mythology about sovereignty. It is fundamentally not about helping others; it is fundamentally about helping ones' self to the national cookie jar, whatever its size or contents, limited only by the strength of domestic political organization. Of course, I would prefer things to be different, and I would welcome global leadership that would work in practical ways to effect change. But until we at least openly recognize the current reality, change will never be possible.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Who's Afraid of Stephen Colbert?
What does it say about the US Presidential race and the media when comedian Stephen Colbert writes about his candidacy in Maureen Dowd's New York Times column in the heat of the campaign? - less than 13 months before the election! I can promise you that no small group of voters thought approvingly about a Colbert presidency upon reading the column. Heck, his, or John Stewart's, candidacy has been raised at more cocktail parties this year than I can remember.
The US Presidency is one of the most powerful offices in the world. And the New York Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world. Together, these institutions embody enough gravitas for a black hole. How can it be that Stephen Colbert can switch all that off? What does the New York Times editorial board know about US voters' attitudes that enables a "thumbs-up" for publication of Colbert's ramble?
The editorial decision might just have been taken just so the paper could look "hip" by tossing a bone to popular culture. That doesn't sound quite on to me, but it is possible. More likely, the New York Times has had to acknowledge that Comedy Central is nipping at its heels. And Comedy Central has been doing much more than nip when it comes to the White House. So to decline to publish Colbert not only would make the New York Times seem uncool, it would make the paper seem out of touch. Imagine Colbert telling the story on his show of arriving at Dowd's place, writing his column, and having the paper decline to publish. Ouch.
The US Presidency is one of the most powerful offices in the world. And the New York Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world. Together, these institutions embody enough gravitas for a black hole. How can it be that Stephen Colbert can switch all that off? What does the New York Times editorial board know about US voters' attitudes that enables a "thumbs-up" for publication of Colbert's ramble?
The editorial decision might just have been taken just so the paper could look "hip" by tossing a bone to popular culture. That doesn't sound quite on to me, but it is possible. More likely, the New York Times has had to acknowledge that Comedy Central is nipping at its heels. And Comedy Central has been doing much more than nip when it comes to the White House. So to decline to publish Colbert not only would make the New York Times seem uncool, it would make the paper seem out of touch. Imagine Colbert telling the story on his show of arriving at Dowd's place, writing his column, and having the paper decline to publish. Ouch.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
George and Dick - Who Knew?
David Brooks and Thomas Friedman came to the same view within the past couple days in their columns on the New York Times editorial page, although neither was so bold as to state the ultimate conclusion in black and white:
George W. Bush is a screaming liberal.
So, therefore, is Dick Cheney, I say. And I use "liberal" in the same vitriolic way that Republicans do when discussing "tax and spend" Democratic candidates. David and Tom describe a pretty highly appealing version of conservatism. A conservatism that is learned in the ways of individuals and societies. That is pragmatic about how far societal goals pragmatically ought to be set outside of range of what has already has developed. Conservatives observe that which is proven over the course of a given history. Steeped in the failure of revolutions, but the abiding success of evolution(ary change - apologies to those on the religious right), thinking conservatives choose their objectives and their means carefully. They may have lofty objectives, and they may desire big change. But they choose to get there incrementally, as they recognize that is the way most likely to succeed, statistically at least.
Liberals, on the other hand, first have grand ideas. They observe injustices in the world, and they then go about evaluating what could be done to address those injustices. Romantic about revolution(ary change - apologies to those who would not want to associate their thinking with Chavez' or Castro's), liberals seek "to think outside the box" in designing solutions that others are not considering. Solutions that may have unforeseen costs and unpredictable consequences, given their new or non-traditional nature. Liberal ideas occasionally succeed in a very big way, and the afterglow drives another generation of big thinkers.
Using essentially this framework, both David and Tom describe how George and Dick have let down a good segment of traditional Republican support. Rather than assembling a considered set of goals and means, based on critical examination of societies and cultures, George and Dick have opted to let their administration be dominated by a war which was poorly planned in the extreme and which has always had nothing but idealistic goals, untempered by obvious realities. I could see 60's hippy personalities being quite proud of the Bushies' grand aspirations and desire to spread democracy (if not US petrochemical profits) all around the world, all at a revolutionary stroke.
Perhaps those drug-infested days at Yale in the 1960s remain powerful influences in Bush's mind after all?
George W. Bush is a screaming liberal.
So, therefore, is Dick Cheney, I say. And I use "liberal" in the same vitriolic way that Republicans do when discussing "tax and spend" Democratic candidates. David and Tom describe a pretty highly appealing version of conservatism. A conservatism that is learned in the ways of individuals and societies. That is pragmatic about how far societal goals pragmatically ought to be set outside of range of what has already has developed. Conservatives observe that which is proven over the course of a given history. Steeped in the failure of revolutions, but the abiding success of evolution(ary change - apologies to those on the religious right), thinking conservatives choose their objectives and their means carefully. They may have lofty objectives, and they may desire big change. But they choose to get there incrementally, as they recognize that is the way most likely to succeed, statistically at least.
Liberals, on the other hand, first have grand ideas. They observe injustices in the world, and they then go about evaluating what could be done to address those injustices. Romantic about revolution(ary change - apologies to those who would not want to associate their thinking with Chavez' or Castro's), liberals seek "to think outside the box" in designing solutions that others are not considering. Solutions that may have unforeseen costs and unpredictable consequences, given their new or non-traditional nature. Liberal ideas occasionally succeed in a very big way, and the afterglow drives another generation of big thinkers.
Using essentially this framework, both David and Tom describe how George and Dick have let down a good segment of traditional Republican support. Rather than assembling a considered set of goals and means, based on critical examination of societies and cultures, George and Dick have opted to let their administration be dominated by a war which was poorly planned in the extreme and which has always had nothing but idealistic goals, untempered by obvious realities. I could see 60's hippy personalities being quite proud of the Bushies' grand aspirations and desire to spread democracy (if not US petrochemical profits) all around the world, all at a revolutionary stroke.
Perhaps those drug-infested days at Yale in the 1960s remain powerful influences in Bush's mind after all?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Who's creating these days?
7:35 am, express train to Grand Central Terminal. Leading luminaries of Wall Street and the New York City bar populate most every seat as far as one can see. All monthly commuters. All headed in to their high-flying, high-paying positions in the world's leading financial center. The financial center that has spread its ways and wares to all corners of the globe, in the form of debt and equity securities, syndicated bank loans, project finance and other structured financings, commodity and currency derivatives, and complex credit and equity derivatives, to name just a few high-lights. These structures have worked pretty well in the US market and legal system, but they have fared quite poorly in some other parts of the world.
With all the power and influence riding the train right next to me, what strikes me most is what these folks are reading. Almost to a person, they are all reading the Wall Street Journal, and a few are reading the New York Times business section. That's it - I can see scores of the papers, often open to the same page and read at roughly the same pace. Like lemmings. These people are all informing themselves, but only with the same data as their colleagues and competitors.
I have to imagine that such market behavior helps put a kind of frame around what these people create. All the time spent catching up on what your competitors are reading cannot be spent preparing to enter markets and build ideas and products that the competitors are not. Although my evidence is purely anecdotal, my clear sense is that most of these folks do not read other news sources that would inform them better about developments in other fields and from other countries' perspectives. OK, they all have Bloomberg terminals, so they can follow throughout the day whatever Bloomberg thinks is important - but that seems to be much of the same stuff as appears in their morning papers, only more hastily written.
Is it any wonder that this closed information loop leads to Wall Street products that so often merely replicate - culturally - what has been done in the past, even when those products have badly failed investors in parts of the world far away from New York. I have been there when many fixed income products failed investors in the wake of currency and political crises, so I am awed that the international finance products Wall Street and their lawyers still trot out today are complete replicas of the failed deals.
I am sure that institutional compensation structures drive this dynamic as much as anything - it is expensive and risky to adapt deal structures to other cultures, especially when the existing deals continue to sell so well - to a buy-side with complementary compensation structures, and informed by the same news sources. I expect there is opportunity out there for creative people to build new, more culturally-sensitive approaches to investments, approaches that will be more lucrative, even to the deal designers, in the longer term. But somebody will have break out of the "Wall Street Journal on Metro North" model of self-education first.
With all the power and influence riding the train right next to me, what strikes me most is what these folks are reading. Almost to a person, they are all reading the Wall Street Journal, and a few are reading the New York Times business section. That's it - I can see scores of the papers, often open to the same page and read at roughly the same pace. Like lemmings. These people are all informing themselves, but only with the same data as their colleagues and competitors.
I have to imagine that such market behavior helps put a kind of frame around what these people create. All the time spent catching up on what your competitors are reading cannot be spent preparing to enter markets and build ideas and products that the competitors are not. Although my evidence is purely anecdotal, my clear sense is that most of these folks do not read other news sources that would inform them better about developments in other fields and from other countries' perspectives. OK, they all have Bloomberg terminals, so they can follow throughout the day whatever Bloomberg thinks is important - but that seems to be much of the same stuff as appears in their morning papers, only more hastily written.
Is it any wonder that this closed information loop leads to Wall Street products that so often merely replicate - culturally - what has been done in the past, even when those products have badly failed investors in parts of the world far away from New York. I have been there when many fixed income products failed investors in the wake of currency and political crises, so I am awed that the international finance products Wall Street and their lawyers still trot out today are complete replicas of the failed deals.
I am sure that institutional compensation structures drive this dynamic as much as anything - it is expensive and risky to adapt deal structures to other cultures, especially when the existing deals continue to sell so well - to a buy-side with complementary compensation structures, and informed by the same news sources. I expect there is opportunity out there for creative people to build new, more culturally-sensitive approaches to investments, approaches that will be more lucrative, even to the deal designers, in the longer term. But somebody will have break out of the "Wall Street Journal on Metro North" model of self-education first.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Sovereign Resurgence?
This post is only to re-direct you to a piece in last week's Economist (sorry for my delay) on the subject of my favorite "bone" - global liquidity. In this piece, Buttonwood helpfully introduces what has been going on in the credit markets of late. The author's final words are resonant in my mind.
Perhaps my bone is tastier than I knew. All gnawers are welcome.
Perhaps my bone is tastier than I knew. All gnawers are welcome.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Join me in Hell
In most human activity, hidden opportunities are plentiful. The world's most capable and effective people know how to seek out and capitalize on those chances. So it must also go in the game of international relations, US politics, and the war on terror. On the basis of that premise, leap with me into the abyss. Osama bin Laden is the most widely-recognized terrorist, and perhaps the most inhumanely savage murderer, in recent memory. There is no case for supporting anything that he does or supports, he must be stopped, and there can be no credible argument against that view. At the same time, however, responsible and thinking warriors on terror MUST consider carefully what Osama has to say. His chosen subjects and his choice of words almost certainly loom large in the minds of the terrorist enemy. So, if we are to prevail in the war on terror, we must understand his means and his meaning. We must learn from his tireless efforts to corrupt Islam and to coopt the world's Muslims, and we must deploy what we learn as an important weapon in the war. It cannot be that the war on terror is the sole form of human activity in which there are no hidden opportunities.
If you are still with me down here (is it hot enough yet?), let's have a quick look at important parts of Osama's latest. First, I think noteworthy the broad span of world and religious history that he recites in his speech. The fellow speaks to the world once every couple years, and he chooses to describe the details of centuries of relations among Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. He must know that the US population has little understanding of the subject, and perhaps even less patience for it, so he cannot seriously believe his words will persuade. Instead, he must know that these words will be described as "strange", if not outright offensive, and they will be perceived that way. In the western coverage I have seen, the point that is most frequently identified is his invitation for the US to convert to Islam. How odd, and what hubris!
Second, Osama goes to great lengths to inform the US population that their ways and means have led them astray from monotheism - the belief in one god. According to Osama, corporate wealth, consumerism, and democratic power have each risen to the level of a god in the western mind and in western pursuit. So today's Jews and Christians (those in power at the least) cannot rightfully claim to be monotheists. Instead, they have reverted to pre-Abraham paganism and idol worshiping (the idols being the latest country invaded, the latest pool of oil reserves controlled, the latest collection of corporate profits expanded). That such barbarians so completely rule the world today is seemingly Osama's greatest complaint.
Finally, Osama explains important similarities among Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. As many people know, all of these religions emanated from the same Abrahamic tradition in the middle east. Judaism was the first religion/tradition to form, based on what was revealed to Moses at Sinai. Christianity was a branch of Judaism whose rabbis were persuaded that Jesus Christ was the messiah who had been promised in Judaism's Torah. Islam came along five centuries or so after the birth of Christianity, and it came in the form of the Koran as revealed to the Jew Mohamed. Osama well understands this common history, and, it seems to me, he seeks a sympathetic ear by referring to it. Though his call is clearly for US conversion to Islam (the purest form of monotheism in his opinion), one could read his speech as stating that he would be satisfied were the world made up of pure and true monotheists (in his judgment) of any stripe. He even states that submission to the one and only god is the most important truth in human activity, even if the laws people use in that pursuit differ among themselves.
Hmmmmmm. So what do we make of all this? (Bear with me as I seek out the hidden opportunities and, for the moment, I ignore the truly offensive parts of his speech - particularly where he refers to his responsibility for 9/11 and where he reveals obvious antisemitism and disdain for Christians, etc., etc., etc., etc.) How do we think the Islamic world perceives his words (I imagine they are fairly well-received)? What opportunities exist for the warriors on terror to design countervailing messages that would be credible in the minds of those Muslims who are disposed to be sympathetic to Osama's words? I am no expert, though I certainly hope that the US Government is carefully wrestling with these questions and any related opportunities, from the White House on down.
Were I in the White House, I would consult my best Islam (and Islamic) experts to learn just how powerful Osama's words are among Muslims in various places and various traditions. I would ask if there are important sections of Islam that are receptive to a co-existence of Islamic tenets and human culture (business, society, democracy), and if so, what could be done to speak to the people in those traditions. I would ask if there are concrete investments that the US could make to become credible in that universe - whether re-constructing destroyed mosques in Iraq, promoting Islamic awareness within the US, strengthening the position of peaceful Islamic leadership in critical locations, etc. I would ask those and other experts whether an education campaign in the US about the deep commonalities among monotheistic traditions would be useful, whether a substantial education and re-direction of the western media on these subjects would be helpful in focusing the US on the opportunities for peace, and also the specific hot-spots where military engagement is completely unavoidable.
I contend that using Osama's speech against him, educating the warriors on terror so they can be smarter and more appealing and effective in the world's hot spots, must be the right thing to do. I am constrained by my limited knowledge of Islam and the details of the war on terror. But the way the western media presents the whole subject, I am left with the impression that the US Government is falling short and missing opportunities that may be in the best interests of the United States and international security.
If you are still with me down here (is it hot enough yet?), let's have a quick look at important parts of Osama's latest. First, I think noteworthy the broad span of world and religious history that he recites in his speech. The fellow speaks to the world once every couple years, and he chooses to describe the details of centuries of relations among Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. He must know that the US population has little understanding of the subject, and perhaps even less patience for it, so he cannot seriously believe his words will persuade. Instead, he must know that these words will be described as "strange", if not outright offensive, and they will be perceived that way. In the western coverage I have seen, the point that is most frequently identified is his invitation for the US to convert to Islam. How odd, and what hubris!
Second, Osama goes to great lengths to inform the US population that their ways and means have led them astray from monotheism - the belief in one god. According to Osama, corporate wealth, consumerism, and democratic power have each risen to the level of a god in the western mind and in western pursuit. So today's Jews and Christians (those in power at the least) cannot rightfully claim to be monotheists. Instead, they have reverted to pre-Abraham paganism and idol worshiping (the idols being the latest country invaded, the latest pool of oil reserves controlled, the latest collection of corporate profits expanded). That such barbarians so completely rule the world today is seemingly Osama's greatest complaint.
Finally, Osama explains important similarities among Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. As many people know, all of these religions emanated from the same Abrahamic tradition in the middle east. Judaism was the first religion/tradition to form, based on what was revealed to Moses at Sinai. Christianity was a branch of Judaism whose rabbis were persuaded that Jesus Christ was the messiah who had been promised in Judaism's Torah. Islam came along five centuries or so after the birth of Christianity, and it came in the form of the Koran as revealed to the Jew Mohamed. Osama well understands this common history, and, it seems to me, he seeks a sympathetic ear by referring to it. Though his call is clearly for US conversion to Islam (the purest form of monotheism in his opinion), one could read his speech as stating that he would be satisfied were the world made up of pure and true monotheists (in his judgment) of any stripe. He even states that submission to the one and only god is the most important truth in human activity, even if the laws people use in that pursuit differ among themselves.
Hmmmmmm. So what do we make of all this? (Bear with me as I seek out the hidden opportunities and, for the moment, I ignore the truly offensive parts of his speech - particularly where he refers to his responsibility for 9/11 and where he reveals obvious antisemitism and disdain for Christians, etc., etc., etc., etc.) How do we think the Islamic world perceives his words (I imagine they are fairly well-received)? What opportunities exist for the warriors on terror to design countervailing messages that would be credible in the minds of those Muslims who are disposed to be sympathetic to Osama's words? I am no expert, though I certainly hope that the US Government is carefully wrestling with these questions and any related opportunities, from the White House on down.
Were I in the White House, I would consult my best Islam (and Islamic) experts to learn just how powerful Osama's words are among Muslims in various places and various traditions. I would ask if there are important sections of Islam that are receptive to a co-existence of Islamic tenets and human culture (business, society, democracy), and if so, what could be done to speak to the people in those traditions. I would ask if there are concrete investments that the US could make to become credible in that universe - whether re-constructing destroyed mosques in Iraq, promoting Islamic awareness within the US, strengthening the position of peaceful Islamic leadership in critical locations, etc. I would ask those and other experts whether an education campaign in the US about the deep commonalities among monotheistic traditions would be useful, whether a substantial education and re-direction of the western media on these subjects would be helpful in focusing the US on the opportunities for peace, and also the specific hot-spots where military engagement is completely unavoidable.
I contend that using Osama's speech against him, educating the warriors on terror so they can be smarter and more appealing and effective in the world's hot spots, must be the right thing to do. I am constrained by my limited knowledge of Islam and the details of the war on terror. But the way the western media presents the whole subject, I am left with the impression that the US Government is falling short and missing opportunities that may be in the best interests of the United States and international security.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Bush's China/Iraq framework, according to the AP
In what one can only hope was a rather hastily assembled (18 minutes ago!) AP headline story on Yahoo! yesterday, there was a discussion of the Bush administration’s current position on China and Iraq. It seems Bush would be concerned about the Chinese military, if China ever “turned hostile”, as he was explaining to the Australian Government. Bush said that his administration spends “a lot of time on China”. Would it be fair to wonder what the Bush administration is actually considering doing about China? What specific actions do you think the folks in the White House have in mind?
Remaining in a hopeful mood, one hopes that we glean nothing on this question from the AP reporter who did the story. Without transition, Bush is stated to have urged all countries considering pulling out their troops “to base their decision on restoring the country’s security”. Oh, that is a reference to Iraq. No need to worry that the Bush administration is promoting military options to address his concern about China turning hostile. Whew.
I imagine President Bush actually addressed China and Iraq in close succession at his press conference in Sydney. And perhaps Bush did so in a way that was somewhat confusing. But come on, the Associated Press ought to be able to find reporters and editors who can sift through the word salad and report something lucid about what the United States President has had to say at a meeting with another head of state. Right? The fact that this AP story is still on the web, largely uncorrected, is bad news indeed for the US media consumer. But do you think anybody cares, or will even notice?
Remaining in a hopeful mood, one hopes that we glean nothing on this question from the AP reporter who did the story. Without transition, Bush is stated to have urged all countries considering pulling out their troops “to base their decision on restoring the country’s security”. Oh, that is a reference to Iraq. No need to worry that the Bush administration is promoting military options to address his concern about China turning hostile. Whew.
I imagine President Bush actually addressed China and Iraq in close succession at his press conference in Sydney. And perhaps Bush did so in a way that was somewhat confusing. But come on, the Associated Press ought to be able to find reporters and editors who can sift through the word salad and report something lucid about what the United States President has had to say at a meeting with another head of state. Right? The fact that this AP story is still on the web, largely uncorrected, is bad news indeed for the US media consumer. But do you think anybody cares, or will even notice?
Friday, August 24, 2007
Temasek's investment leadership
I have been thinking of late about the recently-published annual report of Temasek Holdings, one of Singapore's sovereign wealth funds. Temasek is boasting that it now has more than US$100 billion under management, making it a sizable investor by almost anybody's scale. My recent ramblings on this page have been based on the idea that sovereign wealth funds may, together, make-up the next massive wave of investment around the world. I have also long seen Singapore as a leader in investment-related matters. So I wonder what this report may tell us about Singapore's role in the future of global investment.
Moving things around - "intermediation" may be the more technical term - is among Singapore's core skills. Singapore's deep history is rooted in its being the mid-point - by sea - between major ports in India and China. As a port, Singapore has long made a living getting things in and out of the place. This trans-shipment tradition continues today, as Singapore remains the busiest container port in the world. Singapore intermediates other things as well. Perhaps most importantly these days, oil and money. The amount of money that makes it into Singapore's financial institutions (and tax coffers) is just enormous. In many senses, Singapore is the Switzerland of Asia for Southeast Asia's Overseas Chinese. In its own way, which is quite different from the loud and machismo ways of Wall Street, Singapore serves a very important function in keeping funds flowing throughout Asia from investors to businesses in need.
Temasek is undoubtedly a core part of that activity. US$100 billion, and look at where its annual report tells us Temasek is busiest - China, India, and Vietnam. These are places where intelligent capital is very much in demand. Temasek says it plans to play an expanding role in these places. I also think it is fascinating to note in what industries Singapore invests. Unsurprisingly, 74% of Temasek's investments are in financial services, telecom/media, and transport/logistics - classic intermediation industries. Talk about money that knows what it's doing!
Large sums. Managed quietly. Deployed in businesses the fund's management well understands. These are fundamentals that are becoming more attractive again these days, as we watch Wall Street's labyrinthine financial structures come apart at a few seams. No wonder Temasek sees the Barclays/ABN deal as an opportunity. Expect to see much more of that, if you are alert.
Moving things around - "intermediation" may be the more technical term - is among Singapore's core skills. Singapore's deep history is rooted in its being the mid-point - by sea - between major ports in India and China. As a port, Singapore has long made a living getting things in and out of the place. This trans-shipment tradition continues today, as Singapore remains the busiest container port in the world. Singapore intermediates other things as well. Perhaps most importantly these days, oil and money. The amount of money that makes it into Singapore's financial institutions (and tax coffers) is just enormous. In many senses, Singapore is the Switzerland of Asia for Southeast Asia's Overseas Chinese. In its own way, which is quite different from the loud and machismo ways of Wall Street, Singapore serves a very important function in keeping funds flowing throughout Asia from investors to businesses in need.
Temasek is undoubtedly a core part of that activity. US$100 billion, and look at where its annual report tells us Temasek is busiest - China, India, and Vietnam. These are places where intelligent capital is very much in demand. Temasek says it plans to play an expanding role in these places. I also think it is fascinating to note in what industries Singapore invests. Unsurprisingly, 74% of Temasek's investments are in financial services, telecom/media, and transport/logistics - classic intermediation industries. Talk about money that knows what it's doing!
Large sums. Managed quietly. Deployed in businesses the fund's management well understands. These are fundamentals that are becoming more attractive again these days, as we watch Wall Street's labyrinthine financial structures come apart at a few seams. No wonder Temasek sees the Barclays/ABN deal as an opportunity. Expect to see much more of that, if you are alert.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Second Hand Litter
What is it about smoking? Full disclosure: I am not a smoker, but I am not maniacally opposed to others smoking. I do wonder though, about one aspect of the behavior of many smokers I observe: littering. For most folks I observe, littering is taboo. When the seventies passed by, so did the tacit consent society gave to the litterer. Aside from the occasional apple core or peach pit hurled out a car window, how often do you see somebody just throw their trash on the street these days? Wouldn't it jar the senses to see that?
Now think about smokers. How often do you see them toss their butts to the ground? I see it probably every day, certainly every week. I just saw it again this morning as I was entering my town's train station. A perfectly lovely lady, chatting about her children's affairs, took her last drag, and flicked the rest of her cigarette to the street. She gave no thought to it at all. Perfectly natural. For some reason it jarred me today. So I started looking around. Before I could board the train, which was only about 90 seconds later, I counted four other cigarette butts and an empty package of Marlboro lights flung around the place. No other litter, just this cigarette waste.
What gives? Why should this behavior be OK? There has to be an answer that a non-smoker cannot immediately appreciate. At least for the lit cigarette butts, it could be that disposing them in the normal trash is a fire hazard? So the process of disposing of the butt would include throwing it down, stepping on it, and then (indignity!) bending over to pick it up again before placing it in the trash. Sounds like a lot of work, I have to admit. And perhaps the avoidance of all this work leads folks to be more liberal about disposing anything to do with cigarettes, such as empty boxes.
I wonder if there is any upside in inventing a portable cigarette extinguisher? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Now think about smokers. How often do you see them toss their butts to the ground? I see it probably every day, certainly every week. I just saw it again this morning as I was entering my town's train station. A perfectly lovely lady, chatting about her children's affairs, took her last drag, and flicked the rest of her cigarette to the street. She gave no thought to it at all. Perfectly natural. For some reason it jarred me today. So I started looking around. Before I could board the train, which was only about 90 seconds later, I counted four other cigarette butts and an empty package of Marlboro lights flung around the place. No other litter, just this cigarette waste.
What gives? Why should this behavior be OK? There has to be an answer that a non-smoker cannot immediately appreciate. At least for the lit cigarette butts, it could be that disposing them in the normal trash is a fire hazard? So the process of disposing of the butt would include throwing it down, stepping on it, and then (indignity!) bending over to pick it up again before placing it in the trash. Sounds like a lot of work, I have to admit. And perhaps the avoidance of all this work leads folks to be more liberal about disposing anything to do with cigarettes, such as empty boxes.
I wonder if there is any upside in inventing a portable cigarette extinguisher? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)