April 2007 has been the month of lucky number 13,* at least for New York City. The Yankees' A-Rod (whose jersey is #13) has been the hottest thing they have, with more than 13 home runs already and hits in most every game this season, while all else about the team is seemingly going to seed. And the Dow Jones Industrial Average has finally hit 13,000. Wow, amazing stuff.
For those in the game. I have never understood people's patience - neigh lust - for following the victories, trials, and tribuations of others' sporting efforts. Think about the amount of content in the US media dedicated to sports and to the results of folks gambling in the financial markets. That stuff truly sells, pretty much as well as any other soap opera. Then consider how much of your friends' and colleagues' idle banter relates to the same subjects.
I am lost in this universe. I absolutely love playing sports (baseball, football, tiddlywinks, etc.), and I follow my investments more closely than any rational being should follow anything. But I have never much enjoyed following or discussing the similar efforts of the rich and famous, unless there is something to learn that I can actually use.
I really do not like being this out of touch with most folks' delights, however. I have $13 for the person who can enlighten me and interest me in the New York Daily News.
* 4 + 2 + 0 + 0 + 7 = 13. Coincidence? I think not.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
"Corrupt" - "Altered from the Model" or "Morally Depraved"?
Caution: if you believe that Western means of government are the best, you will likely find this post patronizing.
China is often said to be corrupt. It is widely agreed that unpublished and therefore unpredictable fees - bribes - must often be paid to government officials if businesses wish to obtain results (e.g., licences, concessions, approvals, etc.). There are laws against this kind of behavior, within China, in the USA, and elsewhere. And violation of these laws in practice is certainly an alteration from the model.
But is it morally depraved? And could the answer to the latter question depend on the culture from which one comes? If one is willing to consider that sovereignty is a commercial enterprise, then how could one consider that a government official - say, one in charge of a particular agency whose approval is needed - should not be able to charge whatever price for the requested approval that the prevalent conditions will bear? In fact, that is just how things have long been viewed and worked in many parts of the world.
But, Western minds generally consider that sovereignty is not a commercial enterprise (query what it is then), and they elevate governments to a different plane. A plane where it is somehow morally depraved to demand a market-clearing price for a requested approval or other service. The best argument that occurs to me for this position is that the government has a kind of monopoly - it sets the requirements and also administers them, and it should not be able to command such concentrated power without published constraint. It is for this reason that no self-respecting Western society would countenance anything close to such a concentration of power in commercial markets, aside perhaps from the odd minor exception like the energy industry or the defense industry.
When the WTO joined the PRC, it took on a cultural integration project, and mutual understanding of longstanding business and bureaucratic attitudes and practices is critical - in both directions - if the team-up is going to work. The PRC states that it wants to tackle "corruption" in the Western sense, though I doubt the Chinese have attributed a "morally depraved" aspect to their definition. As we should well understand by now, that tackling process will evolve very slowly, growing out of the previous system. To expect sudden change to the Western model is silly. And to label thousands of years of customs as "morally depraved" is not constructive.
China is often said to be corrupt. It is widely agreed that unpublished and therefore unpredictable fees - bribes - must often be paid to government officials if businesses wish to obtain results (e.g., licences, concessions, approvals, etc.). There are laws against this kind of behavior, within China, in the USA, and elsewhere. And violation of these laws in practice is certainly an alteration from the model.
But is it morally depraved? And could the answer to the latter question depend on the culture from which one comes? If one is willing to consider that sovereignty is a commercial enterprise, then how could one consider that a government official - say, one in charge of a particular agency whose approval is needed - should not be able to charge whatever price for the requested approval that the prevalent conditions will bear? In fact, that is just how things have long been viewed and worked in many parts of the world.
But, Western minds generally consider that sovereignty is not a commercial enterprise (query what it is then), and they elevate governments to a different plane. A plane where it is somehow morally depraved to demand a market-clearing price for a requested approval or other service. The best argument that occurs to me for this position is that the government has a kind of monopoly - it sets the requirements and also administers them, and it should not be able to command such concentrated power without published constraint. It is for this reason that no self-respecting Western society would countenance anything close to such a concentration of power in commercial markets, aside perhaps from the odd minor exception like the energy industry or the defense industry.
When the WTO joined the PRC, it took on a cultural integration project, and mutual understanding of longstanding business and bureaucratic attitudes and practices is critical - in both directions - if the team-up is going to work. The PRC states that it wants to tackle "corruption" in the Western sense, though I doubt the Chinese have attributed a "morally depraved" aspect to their definition. As we should well understand by now, that tackling process will evolve very slowly, growing out of the previous system. To expect sudden change to the Western model is silly. And to label thousands of years of customs as "morally depraved" is not constructive.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Caveat Emptor
Very interesting letter to The Economist from James Hutchin published in the April 14th-20th 2007 volume. Mr. Hutchin asks if it is rational for US taxpayers to support a further investment in the Iraq war, an enterprise "without a business plan, and with no targets and deadlines". How many folks think of their tax payments to the goverment in the same way they think of their other large investments? But why should things not be as he articulates them? Would you spend 15, 20, 30% or more of your gross income on anything else without critical study of what the investment was getting you? Think how carefully you track your home's value, your 401(k) plan's returns, or just your houshold budget for most folks.
Most people seem to send checks to their government - not without complaint often, mind you, but without requesting any direct accountability. The most folks might do is tune in to the public debate on the media-selected "political" issues of the day and consider which side of those force-fed issues they take. Usually the talking heads present two of the many possible views as the two "sides". That way, we barely have to think. To appear knowledgeable and interested in a government's activities to our similarly-behaving friends and family, all we have to do is know and chat about what's on the front page of our newspaper or in the lead stories on the national TV network news program.
Here's an idea. Challenge yourself to track your investment in your government as closely as you track your other large investments. Investigate how much gets spent on what, and how successful the effort is. Focus on the subjects that concern you the most, regardless of what the media has decided is hot. And understand how other governments are dealing with the same issues. For US taxpayers, the OMB publishes these charts, which make for a fascinating start.
Most people seem to send checks to their government - not without complaint often, mind you, but without requesting any direct accountability. The most folks might do is tune in to the public debate on the media-selected "political" issues of the day and consider which side of those force-fed issues they take. Usually the talking heads present two of the many possible views as the two "sides". That way, we barely have to think. To appear knowledgeable and interested in a government's activities to our similarly-behaving friends and family, all we have to do is know and chat about what's on the front page of our newspaper or in the lead stories on the national TV network news program.
Here's an idea. Challenge yourself to track your investment in your government as closely as you track your other large investments. Investigate how much gets spent on what, and how successful the effort is. Focus on the subjects that concern you the most, regardless of what the media has decided is hot. And understand how other governments are dealing with the same issues. For US taxpayers, the OMB publishes these charts, which make for a fascinating start.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Bush's accelerated Iraq pullout
Don't believe what the White House says. Not only is the White House unopposed to a scheduled withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, the US has effectively already withdrawn. As it stands today, a major Baghdad bridge over the Tigris can be brought down and a suicide bomb set off in the heavily-protected Parliament building (killing legislators) within hours of each other. And these things can be done with all the force and surge of the US military seeking to prevent them from happening.
In what sense, then, is the US "there"? To the distant observer, only two sad answers appear. First and foremost, US children are putting their lives at risk, and they are dying "there". Second, the US is seen throughout the world as the military force that is unable to control security "there" in any real way.
Acknowledging that these are HUGE ways to be "there", I am unwilling to consider that these are the goals of the Bushies in their stated opposition to scheduled withdrawal. So perhaps the latest events will persuade the Bushies that we have already withdrawn under the current strategy. If not, the world should give up any remaining hope that the reality of the at-risk kids (US and Iraqi) can ever match the Bushies' reckless and inexplicable fantasies.
In what sense, then, is the US "there"? To the distant observer, only two sad answers appear. First and foremost, US children are putting their lives at risk, and they are dying "there". Second, the US is seen throughout the world as the military force that is unable to control security "there" in any real way.
Acknowledging that these are HUGE ways to be "there", I am unwilling to consider that these are the goals of the Bushies in their stated opposition to scheduled withdrawal. So perhaps the latest events will persuade the Bushies that we have already withdrawn under the current strategy. If not, the world should give up any remaining hope that the reality of the at-risk kids (US and Iraqi) can ever match the Bushies' reckless and inexplicable fantasies.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Connect the China Dots
The Economist ran a special report on China last week. A couple articles buried separately toward the back of the issue were as helpful as the report itself. These articles alone would tell a very useful story were somebody to connect them. The first article asks whether multinational corporations are really investing as much in China as one would expect given all the hype about China's increasing commercial importance. The article states that multinationals' revenues and especially business growth potential in China far outstrip their infrastructure and human resources in China.
The second article points out how corporate borrowers globally these days command ever more leverage in negotiating debt terms with their lenders. The article describes the evolution of the world's commercial lender base from multinational banks to multinational funds of various stripes, and it points out that fewer lenders seem to be bothered with loan terms that regulate borrowers' business activities in any way at all.
Spot the connection? Neither did The Economist. A very real and important story here, though, is how much money is flowing into China (and elsewhere) on the kinds of terms that have proven so dangerous in the past - institutionally and anonymously, without regard for investor-investee (eg, lender-borrower) relationships or commercial leverage points. Post-Asian currency crisis, it should be clear that the first kind of investor to be forgotten in a time of stress is the anonymous investor who has nothing further to offer a struggling business - and no ability to hurt it. On the other hand, that business' critical and ongoing commercial/trading relationships are treated better longer. But these relationships require resources "on the ground".
Multinationals are over-weighting the known-to-be dangerous kinds of investment in China and under-weighting the more secure. And they likely haven't done enough homework even to notice. But Chinese business owners must be delighted.
The second article points out how corporate borrowers globally these days command ever more leverage in negotiating debt terms with their lenders. The article describes the evolution of the world's commercial lender base from multinational banks to multinational funds of various stripes, and it points out that fewer lenders seem to be bothered with loan terms that regulate borrowers' business activities in any way at all.
Spot the connection? Neither did The Economist. A very real and important story here, though, is how much money is flowing into China (and elsewhere) on the kinds of terms that have proven so dangerous in the past - institutionally and anonymously, without regard for investor-investee (eg, lender-borrower) relationships or commercial leverage points. Post-Asian currency crisis, it should be clear that the first kind of investor to be forgotten in a time of stress is the anonymous investor who has nothing further to offer a struggling business - and no ability to hurt it. On the other hand, that business' critical and ongoing commercial/trading relationships are treated better longer. But these relationships require resources "on the ground".
Multinationals are over-weighting the known-to-be dangerous kinds of investment in China and under-weighting the more secure. And they likely haven't done enough homework even to notice. But Chinese business owners must be delighted.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Oh Dick
So Dick Cheney remains a dog with a bone. Saddam was cooperating with Al-Qaeda, no really. Really, he was.
This latest pronunciation comes on the heels of yet more DoD evidence that Saddam was in fact not cooperating with Al-Qaeda. Dick, that's your own DoD. If you ain't got them, who have you got? And what is the limit on your perception of the stupidity of the US voters?
That Dick could engage in this 1984-speak, without material consequence - other than appearing utterly out of touch to anybody who is thinking (a trivial loss) - is just amazing. That he would choose to pursue the subject some three-four years after the idea was discredited wholesale is also pretty amazing. There must be something for Dick to gain from the step. Who among us knows what it is?
This latest pronunciation comes on the heels of yet more DoD evidence that Saddam was in fact not cooperating with Al-Qaeda. Dick, that's your own DoD. If you ain't got them, who have you got? And what is the limit on your perception of the stupidity of the US voters?
That Dick could engage in this 1984-speak, without material consequence - other than appearing utterly out of touch to anybody who is thinking (a trivial loss) - is just amazing. That he would choose to pursue the subject some three-four years after the idea was discredited wholesale is also pretty amazing. There must be something for Dick to gain from the step. Who among us knows what it is?
Friday, March 30, 2007
Let the People Divide Themselves
Everybody except maybe the Bush administration is drowning in the seemingly endless deluge of stories about death and destruction in Iraq. (Fortunately for Bush, there is Justice to worry about.) But when does it become acceptable for those in power to ask if we have been looking at the problem the wrong way? The US Government and the US media clearly define success by whether there is peace within the post-colonial borders. "Can we avoid all-out civil war?"
When do we consider, however, that the West's historical division of the region by borders drawn on a map may have been at the root of the current issues? The West wants folks the world over to be excited by, and loyal to, a map and a flag (and a finance ministry and a UN seat), just the way the West has been since Westphalia. Is it possible, however, that other regions of the world may naturally prefer to divide themselves differently? That there may be other measures - say religious, business, or familial - that other people prefer to consider in determining who is "one of us"?
By introducing wealth along with its means for dividing, the West has enticed people everywhere to adopt, or at least to appear to adopt, the legitimacy of the Western style of division. But how many deaths will it take before we consider that the world may not yet have truly bought the West's global map? That systems empowered by Western wealth will break down, and when that happens, people's innate means for division will re-awaken, often wreaking havoc after having been suppressed and supplanted? I say until we wrestle thoroughly with this possibility, we will never even understand the problems, much less commence a successful solution in Iraq.
When do we consider, however, that the West's historical division of the region by borders drawn on a map may have been at the root of the current issues? The West wants folks the world over to be excited by, and loyal to, a map and a flag (and a finance ministry and a UN seat), just the way the West has been since Westphalia. Is it possible, however, that other regions of the world may naturally prefer to divide themselves differently? That there may be other measures - say religious, business, or familial - that other people prefer to consider in determining who is "one of us"?
By introducing wealth along with its means for dividing, the West has enticed people everywhere to adopt, or at least to appear to adopt, the legitimacy of the Western style of division. But how many deaths will it take before we consider that the world may not yet have truly bought the West's global map? That systems empowered by Western wealth will break down, and when that happens, people's innate means for division will re-awaken, often wreaking havoc after having been suppressed and supplanted? I say until we wrestle thoroughly with this possibility, we will never even understand the problems, much less commence a successful solution in Iraq.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Zbigniew, Where've You Been?
Zbigniew Brzezinski's piece in today's Washington Post is stuff to think about. Z goes to great lengths to point out that the "War on Terror" is primarily a tool designed to augment a culture of fear. Z argues this tool enables ever more questionable activity by the US Government, and it makes the US voters ever more complacent.
In the end, Z argues that the USA's go-it-alone approach to this so-called war has been at the core of the greatest current national security threat. Z is spot on - more so than than most Americans will ever know, since most of them rarely or never leave the USA, and most of them limit their information sources to US-based media. That US voters would want to know so little about the perceived (foreign) sources of the ubiquitous terror threat is amazing, but apparently quite true. So a good piece, thanks Z.
Where he loses me is at the end, where Z urges that America stop the hysteria and paranoia and instead be true to its traditions. Has Z been living in the US during much of the last 40 years? (Think USSR, China, East Germany, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Kuwait, Afghanistan again (for different reasons), Iraq and Iraq, Iran again (for different reasons), Korea again (for different reasons), Venezuela, etc. - and that list is just off the top of my head at midnight.) Because only a lengthy absence from the country - or a dogged limitation of information sources to the US media - could enable a thinking person to put both of these urgings into the same paragraph and miss the irony. There may be more work to do than Z realizes.
In the end, Z argues that the USA's go-it-alone approach to this so-called war has been at the core of the greatest current national security threat. Z is spot on - more so than than most Americans will ever know, since most of them rarely or never leave the USA, and most of them limit their information sources to US-based media. That US voters would want to know so little about the perceived (foreign) sources of the ubiquitous terror threat is amazing, but apparently quite true. So a good piece, thanks Z.
Where he loses me is at the end, where Z urges that America stop the hysteria and paranoia and instead be true to its traditions. Has Z been living in the US during much of the last 40 years? (Think USSR, China, East Germany, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Kuwait, Afghanistan again (for different reasons), Iraq and Iraq, Iran again (for different reasons), Korea again (for different reasons), Venezuela, etc. - and that list is just off the top of my head at midnight.) Because only a lengthy absence from the country - or a dogged limitation of information sources to the US media - could enable a thinking person to put both of these urgings into the same paragraph and miss the irony. There may be more work to do than Z realizes.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
John John
Stewart had Bolton on the Daily Show last night, and wow. That was nine minutes of worthwhile television. The two appeared diametrically opposed on the subjects they hit, and their repartee was informative and entertaining. Stewart jabbed with whether Bolton's "fox in the hen house" appointment as UN ambassador was emblematic of Bush hubris and failure to understand and utilize compromise as a resource with Congress and other countries. Bolton countered with the need for an elected administration to remain true to its stated policies, even if that means putting people in places where they will seek to effect fundamental change, even creative destruction (OK, I am tossing that last part to Bolton).
Though he didn't say all that much, Bolton had the most interesting lines. Following up on the "true to stated policies" point, he asked, if administrations have to compromise as Stewart suggested, what is the point of having elections? And was Stewart challenging what Bolton called "democratic theory"? I will sound off on elections in another post, but for now, let's just remind Bolton that the President is not the only elected official in the US Federal Government. And Congress was designed to be a check and balance on the executive branch, if I remember my civics correctly.
But, surprisingly, Bolton unknowingly answered his own question a bit later. He stated that elected officials should be judged by their effectiveness. In other words, the point of having elections may be to have the people choose which policies their government should effectuate. Not to have them choose which policies their government will shout about while utterly failing to advance. Recognizing the thin ice onto which he had skated, and after the audience chuckled, Bolton changed his wording ("effectiveness" became "actions"), and returned to the voter loyalty point etc.
Smartly, Stewart retorted "if you you'll give us the first part of that, we'll let you have the rest of it". Bolton was as deer in the headlights as Bush would have been. Then the show ended. Too bad.
Though he didn't say all that much, Bolton had the most interesting lines. Following up on the "true to stated policies" point, he asked, if administrations have to compromise as Stewart suggested, what is the point of having elections? And was Stewart challenging what Bolton called "democratic theory"? I will sound off on elections in another post, but for now, let's just remind Bolton that the President is not the only elected official in the US Federal Government. And Congress was designed to be a check and balance on the executive branch, if I remember my civics correctly.
But, surprisingly, Bolton unknowingly answered his own question a bit later. He stated that elected officials should be judged by their effectiveness. In other words, the point of having elections may be to have the people choose which policies their government should effectuate. Not to have them choose which policies their government will shout about while utterly failing to advance. Recognizing the thin ice onto which he had skated, and after the audience chuckled, Bolton changed his wording ("effectiveness" became "actions"), and returned to the voter loyalty point etc.
Smartly, Stewart retorted "if you you'll give us the first part of that, we'll let you have the rest of it". Bolton was as deer in the headlights as Bush would have been. Then the show ended. Too bad.
Monday, March 19, 2007
It's Justice, After All
I for one hope the Dems get to the rock bottom of US Attorney-gate. Allegations are that the Justice Department might have been infected with -- oh no! -- politics, which might have influenced decision-making about who should serve in what office and what they should do. If the Dems are on track, we may discover that US Attorneys sometimes hear from their appointers (at whose pleasure they serve) about legal work programs and priorities. Of course, this will be just shocking news when it breaks, though you won't be surprised to learn that only Republicans ever engage in this kind of activity. No way would Dems ever be so political, I am sure.
Once again, I am thrilled that the US Government is so wisely using taxpayer dollars. Lord knows where the USA would be if the Government did not occasionally tell folks what they already well know (or should know) about governmental deviation from stated policy. And we certainly would not want the folks at Justice to be spending too much of their time on legal matters that may heavily affect the future of the USA, such as Guantanamo, corporate fraud, and official dealings with nuclear-capable nations.
Look, I get that we need Justice to be as pure as it can be, and politically-motivated investigations at least work toward ensuring that Justice is minimally corrupted. But it sure is unsettling to pay taxes which are supposed to be used (a) to get the job done, but instead have to be used (b) to screw-up the job, (c) to investigate the screw-up, (d) to fight with political opponents about the screw-up and the investigation, (e) to figure out how to present the screw-up and investigation to the media and the public, and then (f) maybe, if we're lucky, to get some part of the job done. That litany's old news, for sure, I understand.
And though I want politics out of my Justice as much as the next guy, the fact that it is in there surely ain't news either. The wasted resources and diverted energies, however, now that's a story. Who's been covering that one again?
Once again, I am thrilled that the US Government is so wisely using taxpayer dollars. Lord knows where the USA would be if the Government did not occasionally tell folks what they already well know (or should know) about governmental deviation from stated policy. And we certainly would not want the folks at Justice to be spending too much of their time on legal matters that may heavily affect the future of the USA, such as Guantanamo, corporate fraud, and official dealings with nuclear-capable nations.
Look, I get that we need Justice to be as pure as it can be, and politically-motivated investigations at least work toward ensuring that Justice is minimally corrupted. But it sure is unsettling to pay taxes which are supposed to be used (a) to get the job done, but instead have to be used (b) to screw-up the job, (c) to investigate the screw-up, (d) to fight with political opponents about the screw-up and the investigation, (e) to figure out how to present the screw-up and investigation to the media and the public, and then (f) maybe, if we're lucky, to get some part of the job done. That litany's old news, for sure, I understand.
And though I want politics out of my Justice as much as the next guy, the fact that it is in there surely ain't news either. The wasted resources and diverted energies, however, now that's a story. Who's been covering that one again?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Leadership, finally
It seems the Bushies may have caught on to what Chavez has been building in the Western Hemisphere for a number of years. W took his recent trip through Latin America. And though I suppose it is better for him to go than not (Andy Rooney, what do you think?), being a casual observer of the headlines, I can't escape the sense of W as a kind of late tag along, showing up on the playground only once Chavez' ballgame is well underway.
Does anybody think W knows what Chavez has underway in Bolivia and Ecuador? How about in the Eastern Caribbean? Argentina? I would bet that Cuba gets more airtime in the White House discussions of Chavez than all the rest of the region combined. (At least we're not ignoring Cuba, though, as those concerned with the war on terror might have feared.)
Now, don't get me wrong. W's trip was all about leadership - showing the Brazilians a thing or two about the alternative energy industry - and persuading the region that we care - confirming to the Mexicans that the US is really quite keen for more traders to cross the border (this one is a "strong view").
I'd say Chavez is squarely in check now. A good expenditure of US taxpayer dollars. Thanks W.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Who's Thinkin' at Microsoft?
I can't be alone. I am sure that Internet Explorer 7 is much improved over previous versions in many ways. Must be a heck of a lot less vulnerable to viruses or re-directs or trojans or something. But when it comes to user friendliness, OUCH! A very simple thing - on all other browsers I know of, the basic five navigation buttons (back, forward, stop, refresh, home) are all located in the same place on the browser. Upper left is good. Easy to remember, easy to get to.
Which genius decided that these buttons ought to be scrambled all over the page, in different rows, on different sides of the screen? And then which brighter genius decided that the user should not be able to move these buttons from their pre-set locations, so we are forced to adjust to the new scattering?
I am sure that Microsoft knows something on this subject that I am missing. Something about more efficient web-surfing if I could just get my head out of my a#$ and learn the new, more intuitive way to move the mouse over more real estate to do the same old things. But I wish they would tell me what it is, because I have been at it for weeks (months?) now, and it is totally lost on this sorry surfer. I still sigh every time I open IE7.
Which genius decided that these buttons ought to be scrambled all over the page, in different rows, on different sides of the screen? And then which brighter genius decided that the user should not be able to move these buttons from their pre-set locations, so we are forced to adjust to the new scattering?
I am sure that Microsoft knows something on this subject that I am missing. Something about more efficient web-surfing if I could just get my head out of my a#$ and learn the new, more intuitive way to move the mouse over more real estate to do the same old things. But I wish they would tell me what it is, because I have been at it for weeks (months?) now, and it is totally lost on this sorry surfer. I still sigh every time I open IE7.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)