Boosting DC Revenues

There are a couple of ideas floating around in my head for a while to boost revenues in the District--and make people's lives a bit easier.

 

Here they are:

1.  Get rid of SmarTrip cards.  For those of you not from the District, SmarTrip cards are the local reusable, rechargeable public-transportation cards.  The kind of thing you leave in your wallet so you don't have to fiddle with crumpled up bills every time you get on a bus or a metro. 

 

So why get rid of them?  Because the same functionality should be in DC ID cards.  This way, people who live in the district and who ride the metro regularly will just be able to use his/her ID card or driver's license. 

 

This would be a good thing because there are a lot of people who live and work in the District who don't pay taxes in the District--because they manage to retain residency "back home".  But if we start getting people who live in the district to actually assert that they live here, I think the District's revenues would go up (or, everyone's taxes would decrease a bit).

 

What about people who live in Maryland and Virginia?  I'm glad you asked.

 

2.  (This isn't particularly original, but it's been percolating for a while anyway.)  Many people commute from Maryland and Northern Virginia into the District for work.  They like suburban living, and the lower taxes out of the District.  That's all well and good for them, but they are clogging the streets and making the commute longer for those of us who actually want to live in the District.  So I propose another idea that will help lower congestion, reduce traffic, free up more parking, and raise revenue for the District.  A driver-fee for those driving into the District with vehicles plated in Maryland or Virginia.  Nothing extravagant.  Maybe about $8 a day.  Or, for those looking to be frugal, a monthly pass for $120.

 

I can hear the complaints coming: it's undemocratic.  It's not fair to charge people to drive to work.  We have to drive. 

I disagree.  I know very few people who drive within the city to get to work.  Most DCers I know take transit.  Because it's faster and it's cheaper.  The majority of people I know within the District don't even own cars.  So why should we be subsidizing the convenience of your commute from the 'burbs--when part of the reason you left the city in the first place was to avoid paying taxes?

 

What else? Oh, yeah.  If all the people living in 'the burbs' had to start thinking about ways to make public transit better--instead of simply building wider roads--I have a feeling that the transportation system would get a lot better in a hurry.  As to those who say that this is an economic hardship on those who can least afford it?  I doubt it.  Most of the people I see riding the bus every day look like they spend more of their time behind a restaurant stove then a mahogany desk.  So they wont be paying this anyway.

Terrors of a One-Story!

A doctor from a suburban D.C. country wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Post today about the problem with American "boys."  Except he isn't actually talking about boys, he's talking about men.  According to the author, 1/3 of men between 22-34 live with their parents.  Based on the census, this means that nearly 10 million men are living in their parents' basement.

 

He doesn't offer any definitive causes, or any probably solutions, but I think it's important that it is at least being addressed.  As a man in the age-bracket, and who is not living at home--but has several friends in the described condition--I'm going to toss out some ideas why this trend is happening.  As usually happens here, these are theories and conjectures based on nothing but my own belief.  Very little data has been acquired or analyzed to arrive at these positions.

 

1.  Social Connection.  I think that many young men feel little connection to a social group.  My sense is that having a social connection is a motivating factor to do something.  It allows one to see that other people are doing things--some enjoying what they do, others not--but this at least offers some sense of a mirror to help one navigate through one's own life.  Without social connection, it's harder to find that motivation.

 

2.  Surrender.  Many young men (and women) have grown up in households watching their parents attempt to achieve.  Not necessarily wealth, or success, or greatness.  But achieve comfort, or happiness, or stability.  And for many of our parents, these things were either unachievable or simply remain unachieved.  It doesn't take too much to conclude, then, that it's not worth it.  Why spend one's entire life working hard and getting frustrated in an attempt to 'be happy' if you've already found something that's comfortable?

 

3.  Male-lion syndrome.  One of the info-points touched on in the op-ed is that many young women are also living with their parents--but frequently do so while pursuing some other goal: school, or saving money to start a business.  Young men pursue these goals less often, and just list-about.  I don't consider these two data-points independent.  I think, for many men, the idea of being the "bread winner" is an important piece of their psychology.  So when young men see the women they know pursuing goals they either don't have, or don't believe they can achieve there are mixed emotions: The first is happiness for the friend who is achieving something great.  But the second (and I'm willing to guess this frequently is completely unnoticed by the men themselves) is a sense of loss.  Loss in the sense that our women friends are moving "beyond us" in what they do.  Their success makes us feel less capable of maintaining relationships with them--after all, it's men who should be successful, right?

 

It's something my friend Genya writes about from time to time in her blog--from the perspective of one of the highly talented, highly educated women in the world, who experiences men's lack of ambition from a different side.

Communism, not just for the Communists any more

It looks like those in and around my generation in France may be attempting to revive communism.  Or if not communism, then at least the Iron Rice Bowl.

 

French youth have been protesting a law, passed out of the French Assembly, that would make it easier for employers to (among other things) fire those under 26.  Because apparently, it's really hard.  But it sounds like its not just hard to fire those under 26.  It sounds like it's hard to fire anyone in France.  Several generations of strong unions--and the union-culture considering the getting of a job a lifetime appointment--have pushed the French economy to the breaking point several times in the recent decades.  (For more, see "The Commanding Heights" by Daniel Yergin.)

 

It's interesting that since the new year both segments of France's youth population have been rioting in the streets.  First it was the children (or grandchildren) of North African immigrants who believe they should have the opportunity to become French citizens and participate in the economic and political transactions of the country; and presently, the "French" youth who are terrified that they wont be able to receive lifetime appointments from their employer (who apparently is expected to operate more like a politburo than a business, but I digress).

 

There are, of course arguments to be made in favor of the present French system.  Many of them involve preserving French culture and traditions.  But the downside to that is that the French will preserve them as they currently exist for a couple of years and then lose them into the depths of the past, or allow changes bit-by-bit and continue to have a working economy.  Ultimately, I guess it's their choice.

The Christians and the Pagans sat together at the Table...

Thanks to Dar Williams for the title of this post.  And thanks to the "War on Christians" for giving me reason to use it.  Check it out in the Post, the Lawrence Journal World, and the Post again (via the SF Chronicle).

 

According to Tom DeLay, Sam Brownback, and a host of other well known figures, there is a War on Christians.  They claim it is being prosecuted by "radical secularism."

 

I'm not going to go into full force here--I have constraints on my time, after all.  But I do want to pick at the crux of these two sentences:

"War on Christians," and,

"Radical Secularism."

 

War?  I don't think so.  No more than our invasion of Iraq should be considered a war against Islam.  In fact, even less so.  I'm not sure if anyone's noticed recently, but there are guns and bombs and bullets and bodies in Iraq.  Some of them caused by U.S. led military forces.  Most of them not.  BUT, I'm not seeing any bullets or bombs directed at Christians in this country.  At least not expressly because they are Christian.  Further, how much accommodation, affirmation, and acceptance does the Conservative Christian movement need before it stops proclaiming that it is oppressed?  (And for the record, I don't find it coincidental that the same people who spent the 1990s belittling the "feel-good" movement of PCism are the very same people who are now embracing it for their own ends.)

 

Lastly on this, I can understand Christians feeling they were persecuted when they were forced to battle lions in the Coliseum.  I can understand them believing there was a war against Christianity when the Caliphate rampaged through Europe, or even when the U.S. backed government of a sovereign country views conversion to Christianity as a capital crime.

 

Radical Secularism?  According to Dictionary.com, Secular has several meanings. The first two are pertinent to this discussion:

Worldly rather than spiritual.

Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.

 

I'm not sure what's so radical about that.  I believe it was Jesus who said, among other things, that to enter the kingdom of heaven one should renounce the worldly and follow him.  He also said that before removing the spec from someone else's eye, we should make sure to take the plank from our own.  It's been a while since I studied the Bible closely, but I don't remember anything in the New Testament about raising a faux-holy fervor every time the world doesn't accommodate our specific demands on it.

 

Maybe if those who spend so much of their time and effort demanding the rest of us live up to/accommodate their religious belief system actually went about practicing the supposedly world-bettering tracts they are so quick to assert, the world would actually be better.  Just a thought.

 

 

 

 

News and Views from Dongbei

There are a couple of stories floating around the net that I want to bring up here. I've decided that just citing the post and BBC is probably very little value-added for all my loyal readers out there. I know who each and every one of the 12 of you are!

First, sad news. There was a tragedy in Meihekou, Jilin province.


It was reported in Xinhua, Agence France Press, and a few others. Aparently a friendly card game turned not-so-friendly, and the insulted party came back with a grenade. It went off. 4 people died.

I spent Lunar New Year 3 years ago with a friend of mine and her family. It was a nice town--and it seemed to be on the verge of being able to prosper. Additionally, there is a community of Benedictine Sisters in Meihekou who run a hospital. These things are always terrible to read about. But having been in the town makes it even worse.

In other news, it appears that China may be preparing to annex North Korea. At least this is the position put forward by columnist Han Ki-heung. Following a fall and early winter of positive statements between China and North Korea, he seems convinced that China is attempting to pursue a policy of economically integrating the DPRK into the regional economy of China's North Eastern three provinces of Jilin, Liaoning, and Heilongjiang.

Whether this is true or not remains to be seen, but it is a phenomenon, which if true, is likely to backfire on the Chinese. The South Koreans are remarkably sensative to their position between China and Japan in Asian affairs, "the shrimp caught between two whales." I can only assume that North Koreans--possibly more patriotic and jingoistic than even the Chinese themselves--would take such affront to that type of Chinese action as to spoil the possibility of China and North Korea having reasonable relations into the futre.

Drat! One-upped again!

It looks like the U.S. attempts to set China apart as a big scary monster have been made to seem like efforts of "girlie men" by the Macho Macho Man, himself--Silvio Berlusconi.

 

What could a rough-and-tumble Italian billionaire have done to ruffle Chinese feathers?  Definitely nothing as bad as publishing a dubious drawing of the Prophet in his newspaper.  No, instead he claimed that during the cultural revolution under Mao, the Chinese boiled their babies to use as fertilizer. 

 

I guess we misunderestimated the strategery of our President when we thought no one else talked as good as he does.

Specialized Obsolescence

Global Specialization.  How the specialization of market niches is bringing the world closer together—and closer to conflict.

 

The process of specialization, of the evolution of economies from generalists to specialists isn’t a new phenomenon.  It’s not even remarkable.  Adam Smith described it/prescribed it in 1776 with the seminal tract on economics.  It has been explored and tweaked by the likes of David Ricardo and Allyn Young. 

 

For a long time, large countries had economic advantages over small countries—not just because they were likely to have more resources (the U.S. has more space to fit trees, iron ore, gypsum, oil, and arable land than Ireland does, for example)—but also because the size of the economy allowed for great specialization.  The guy the mined the ore didn’t also have to smelt it, and then turn it into a kitchen knife.  One person for each process meant that each process was done better (and cheaper) than if one guy did all three processes. 

 

The lowering of international tariffs and the subsequent increase in trade has allowed countries that are not large to specialize and compete with countries that are large: South Korea and Japan have economic power unimaginable based on size, only 80 years ago. 

 

There is a broader problem here that I don’t know is being considered—but I would love it if someone could point me in the right direction to learn more about the thinking that is happening—and that is the consequence of national-specialization on the stability of the international order.

 

The world, for a long time, consisted of a couple of super powers who did everything well, quite a few middling powers who did many things decently, and a bunch of bottom-countries who might have done one or two things well, but mostly just trundled along from one day to the next.  Not so any more.

 

We have ultra-specialist countries/jurisdictions now in several sectors.

 

Hong Kong, Singapore, and Dubai are international Trade specialists.  The Swiss, and Caymans do banking.  India is cornering the market on anything between front desk and delivery-of-finished product.  Countries in the Gulf region are specialists in Energy.  Korea and Japan are specialists in electronics and automobiles.  China specializes in low-cost consumer goods.  Insofar as it has a specialty, the United States specializes in information: collecting it, storing it, analyzing it.

 

What concerns me here is that we are moving towards conditions for monopoly.  Just like JP Morgan built an unprecedented financial empire over a century ago because he had the most control over a highly desired commodity within a single market—Oil in the U.S.—the specialization of the world’s countries makes it increasingly likely that one of them, by design or by coincidence, will start exerting undue influence over the world. 

 

I don’t know how it would happen—exactly.  I don’t know what it would look like, or what sector it would be in (or I’d be rich and not have time to write this blog).  But I think there is value in stopping to consider the fate of animals that become extreme specialists in their ecosystems: when the eco-system changes, the animal likely dies.  In the example, the world economy is the eco-system, and single-market countries are the uber-specialized animals.  Is there value in a diversified economy, even if there isn’t profit?

 

Too little, too late?

Interesting news out of China today.  Not the kind you'll find on Xinhua, the BBC or in the NYTimes.  This is news in the best of Chinese tradition: word of mouth.  The following paragraph floated across my inbox this morning, and lends a Chinese perspective (translated through a couple of non-Chinese) about the state of affairs in China.

"Then he talked about the developing ; social unrest. People can no longer afford to go to the doctor; doctors are constantly receiving kick-backs from the pharmaceutical companies to prescribe the most expensive medicines and from the hospitals to prescribe CAT scans and X-rays that the poor cannot afford. Housing is becoming prohibitively expensive and developers just move into areas, pay off local government and party people and take over land that has been part of families’ and community holdings for generations and the poor are left with no place to go... A fascinating evening with a really great guy who has a tremendous heart."

 

The man presenting this opinion isn't some disgruntled peasant, shoved off his land for development.  He's a well-educated professional living in a (big) city.  By nature of the work he does, though, he comes across people from across the social and economic spectrum.

 

China's leadership has recently begun taking steps to attempt to ameliorate the condition of those living in rural China.  Repealing the agricultural tax, holding local elections, putting more government investment into rural areas.  But a hallmark of Chinese actions since the arrest of the Gang of Four has been "baby steps."  Everything done slowly, little-by-little.  Statements like the one I read this morning make me wondering when "little by little" turns into "too little, too late?"

Where there's a will, there's a way

If you think stories of China's booming economy, America's blossoming debt, and the approaching apocalypse that is Iraq, here's a story to remind you that when Americans--of any age--put their mind to something, it's just going to happen.

Cliff's Notes version:

3 year old boy not willing to settle for one toy from the retracto-claw machine at an Austin, Minn. Godfather's Pizza (Who knew they even still existed!??), instead CRAWLS INTO the machine so he can play with all of them. Really. There are pictures!

Keep in mind, this child received no special training or coaching, and was likely only vaguely supervised by his parents. Some would term this to be poor parenting. I call this the miracle of American Initiative. The greatness of Capitalism. A victory for human imagination and seizing the moment.

Good, rule-following, law abiding children--the ones afraid of or unwilling to innovate (like me)--would have simply pulled on Dad's pant-leg for a quarter. Then not gotten the toy, and repeated the process for about $1.25 in quarters until Dad finally told me, "No more. I'm out of quarters." At which point I would have been crestfallen at showing myself a failure--unable to master a simple 2-button machine.

Not this 3-year-old. He saw an entire basket full of toys. Probably reminiscent of a laundry basket full of toys. Or a toy chest--because what self-respecting 3-year-old doesn't have a toy chest to climb in (and subsequently launch toys all over the room from!)? So he just climbed in!

Kiddo, you're a great American and an inspiration to us all!

From Transparency to...something Else

While I may be the last person to comment on this story...since it's about a week old, I still thought it worth bringing up.  (Special Thanks to Times select for discouraging me from reading the NYTimes.)  And much more sincere thanks to Genya for passing the story on to me.

 

After this morning's story in the Post about Bernanke trying to open the Fed up to be more transparent, we are given an example of a system that, well, isn't really known for its transparency either: China's tax system.  Law week China announced changes in the taxes on vehicle sales: cars with bigger engines will have higher taxes, and those with smaller taxes will have lower taxes.  Chinese manufacturers tend to like this policy, as their engines are smaller while American manufacturers tend to dislike it as their engines are larger. American firms instead advocate a fuel-economy standard: one in which their larger engines compare favorably to China's smaller (but less efficient) engines.

 

The remarkable piece, in my opinion, is that the changes will take effect on April first.  Just more than a week after the announcement.  Regardless of where comes down on the idea of this tax--good, bad, or other, my concern is the way it was presented.

 

If China wants to create a climate that actually is good for business--as opposed to the present situation where cheap labor, massive government investment, and lots of international hype--it will have to start drafting and passing laws in a more transparent way.  In a way that is more predictable.  Or at least in a way that allows businesses the opportunity to adjust to changes, rather than running into them as though they are brick walls.

 

I'm no business manager.  I don't have an MBA.  But I pay enough attention to know that one thing business avoids with a passion is surprises.  Getting a package a day later than expected--not high up on a "favorite things list" for most people I know.  Having the cable guy show up on Thursday "just to be nice" instead of on Friday when he said?  Just as bad.  A government operating in what constitutes 'radio silence' on issues that impact your market suddenly changing the rules you play by?  Almost as bad as a government saying it will do one thing but implementing the opposite.

 

To grow and profit, businesses need stability, predictability.  Abruptly changing taxes (and the concomitant production and sales incentives) is not the way to instill the market with confidence.

 

 

Clear Messages, Mixed Signals

The Federal Open Markets Committee will be meeting today--the first since Ben Bernanke became Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  According to this story in the Post, he will start pushing for changes to make the Fed more transparent.

 

Before you day traders and currency speculators start salivating, this transparency is going to look nothing like the real time data we can pull from the NYSE (for a huge fee) or documents to be Foiled shortly after meetings to help corner a market or predict future actions.  I'm afraid the proposed changes might be even more, if I can steal a word from my favorite septuagenarian economist, pernicious.

 

As much as markets only function when there is fair and open access to information, and people have a reasonably equal ability to act on it, when a body that--in effect--moderates and modulates the market is too open for observation, I worry there might be too much room for market speculation.  This is going to be somewhat strange, since one of the positives of Greenspan's tenure at the helm of the Fed was that he was methodical about telling the markets what he wanted to do with the FOMC before they would actually do it.  This allowed the markets to start adjusting to potential changes, or encouraged them to continue as normal if the status quo was upheld. 

 

Bernanke's goal of the FOMC setting inflation targets, seems to me to be--in another stolen word--oversharing.  I don't care if the Fed wants to set inflation targets.  In fact I think it's probably a good idea.  But that doesn't mean I want the markets to know exactly where those are set.  Because if something happens to the market or the economy that was unforeseen, or even unforeseeable, missing the inflationary targets could start a huge scare on the market.  It could begin to erode people's confidence in the Fed.  And if that happens, convert your Dollars to Loonies and get to Toronto in a hurry!

 

Don't just know, Respect, your enemy

Respect your enemy.  It might require a hard sell, but at this time of year it seems an apt phrase to use as a basis for a redrafting of America’s foreign policy.  And yes, in the next 700 words, that is what I will propose.

 

America’s enemy has been defined as Islamic Extremism—anywhere and upheld by anyone.  We are no longer bound by the strictures of the Westphalian nation-state, nor the norms of the Geneva Convention.  But when engaged in war, no country ever was, really.

 

Why did General Lee personally surrender to General Grant at Appomattox Courthouse at the end of the civil war?  Because there was a fundamental respect for the other side in the conflict.  While disagreeing over motive, goals, and world-view the General Staff of the South and the General Staff of the North fundamentally respected their adversary.

 

Why is there still an Emperor in Japan?  Because Gen. Macarthur had spent years learning about the Japanese, and had a fundamental respect for Japanese people and their culture.  Out of this respect grew an understanding that a people may be defeated, but to be rebuilt, they could not be destroyed.

 

Traveling through Andalusia in southern Spain offers one an opportunity to tour castles, mosques, and palaces built by the Moors during their 800 year rule of the region.  Why?  Because for all the xenophobia and religious persecution prosecuted under the Inquisition, Ferdinando and Isabella respected the culture and sophistication required to accomplish what the Moors did in Spain—and throughout the world.

 

This respect is virtually absent in our latter-day unilateralist attempt to Americanize the world.  As a country, and certainly our political leadership, is lacking in a modicum of respect for those of different nationalities—to say nothing of different faith or culture traditions.  When U.S. policy manages to get France and Germany on the same side of an issue—along with a majority of the British populace, it should be a sign that the policy might not be great.

 

When our policies in the Mid-East have Iran meeting with us to discuss what they can do to help stabilize and strengthen Iraq—it is a signal that a line has been crossed (and the line is called the River Styx). 

 

The U.S. policies of preemptive strike, of unilateral invasion, and of Marlboro Man diplomacy are out of touch with how the world is presently operating.  More fundamentally, though, we are disrespectful to those whose behavior we wish to change.  Regardless of U.S. opinions to the contrary, we cannot point a finger around the world and chastise friends, allies, and enemies alike as though we are a disappointed parent and they a misbehaving 6 year old. 

 

If we truly wish for success in the Middle East, if we truly wish for success in East Asia, we must change our tack, and start interacting with people in a way that respects their culture, their religion, their world-outlook, and the goals they have for themselves and their country.  We can no more impose a democracy on Iraq (or Syria, Iran, North Korea, or Libya) than we could have installed a successful democracy in Japan in 1945, Taiwan in 1949, or South Korea in 1953.  Each of these took time.  In Japan, we had the presence of hundreds of thousands of troops; a devastated populace, and a compliant national deific figure—the Emperor—to help us accomplish our democratization plant.  In Taiwan and South Korea, democracy didn’t begin to grow until the protests and violence of the 1980s, and didn’t take hold until the early 1990s.  What makes us think Iraq would be any different?  Why would we believe a country that has never been unified under anything but a strong-man will coalesce into a Shangri-La, or Oasis Mirage Democracy; materializing out of nothing?

 

Without finding a way to engage moderate elements within Muslim societies.  Not just in the Mid-East, but in Indonesia, in Bangladesh, we will not be able to pursue policies of change.  Because rather than finding areas and issues of agreement and working towards those, the U.S. will be setting priorities first, and seeking to gather vassals second.  As our experience in Iran from the 1950s-1979 should have pointed out, that way is not likely to lead to long-term success.

International Businesses, Start your engines

It looks like FedEx is coming to China.  Not like it was before, little by little, but in a much more concerted, and wholly-owned sort of way.  And even though it is one of the basic facilitators of modern capitalism, it got itself covered in the Chinese national news agency, here.

 

As someone who's considered starting a business in China, the idea that there could exist a reliable, rapid, and known agent to get packages in or out of China is a huge improvement.  No offence to the hard working folks at the China Postal system, but things--somehow--manage to disappear from packages and envelopes a bit more frequently than, say, in D.C.

 

Now if we could just get the U.S. to drop its tariffs on goods for which the U.S. doesn't even have a domestic manufacturing market, life would be good.

Paen to Performance

Sebastian Mallaby's piece in today's Washington Post is a composite of slap-on-the-back, and falsely modest "why are we so great" when it comes to American businesses.

 

He extols the performance and productivity gains in the U.S. economy over the past 10+ years, especially in comparison to our first-world competitors in Japan and Europe.  He describes how our businesses and business models, for some reason, provide more efficient management of capital, how our workers are more productive per hour, and how generally the U.S. is just much better at motivating service- and knowledge-sector workers than we are at motivating factory workers.  Apparently the latter is something excelled at by Japan and Europe.

 

He mentions a "perverse anti-Wal-Mart campaign," spreading in America.  It comes across as an implicit comparison to inefficient European and Japanese zoning and regulatory laws, because in the world of the market price is the only determinant and the lowest price is always best.

 

What is surprising is that no where in the column does it talk about rising wage-disparity in this country--especially as compared to Japan or Europe.  It doesn't mention that while perhaps over-regulated, the European system has established a different set of priorities for their societies (as different than market) than simply, "Lowest Price Wins."  It's a short piece--a column--but no where does he give hint of the idea that there may be consequences to outsourcing mid-skill-level jobs to overseas.

 

I'm not being protectionist.  I'm not being xenophobic.  I think one of the greatest things that could happen for the American economy is for large parts of the rest of the world to become middle class.  But this is a different concern than that.  What concerns me is that in outsourcing what I'm calling middle-skill jobs: x-ray techs, back-office accounting, call centers, while at the same time eliminating the "working class" jobs of manufacturing (mostly because of inept management and business models in, say, our auto industry), we will become a bifurcated nation.  There will be doctors, lawyers, and the white-collar jobs of the 18th century British empire occupying an ever-smaller and ever-more-heavily-guarded portion of the country, with a tiny "middle class" of car mechanics, beauticians, up-scale restaurant servers, plumbers, electricians, and skilled-construction workers, and an explosion of under-class Americans working at Wal-Mart, the GAP, or fast food employees.

 

If anyone out there thinks this is a good direction for our society, please let me know--I'm interested to learn how this is an improvement.  For those of you with an inkling of doing a little thought on this, and how it might look in America, I'd encourage you to think about Brazil's phenomenally under-achieved potential of the last 3 decades; or look at how the dispossessed in France have handled their exclusion from economic opportunity; or the stories of how calm China's agricultural base is when seeing the privileged few of the cities grow wealthy while the farmers themselves have almost no chance of earning some of the wealth for themselves. 

 

Never do battle with a mountain

Never do battle with a mountain. Especially not one with a deceptively passive name like "Old Rag." Just when the mountain has lulled you into thinking you've won the immediate battle, it's likely that the mountain will win the war.

At least that's how my body is feeling after hiking up Old Rag today. As threatened, my roommate had me out of bed at an early hour (for me) to meet with her hiking posse in the DC suburbs just at about 9 am this morning. After a bit of a drive (and a stop for food) we landed at the base of the mountain.

Even though I was driving on the way into the parking lot at the bottom, my body was telling me it was too early to be fully cognicent of my surroundings. So I didn't ever think to look up towards the peak we aspired to. At least not until we were under the cover of the (still bare from winter) trees. That's why I didn't know the 7 mile hike would also involve a 2200 ft. elevation gain. All in all, though, it's probably better that I didn't know. Knowing would have made me far less likely to get out of bed.

The first scenic stopping point on the hike was sufficiently high up to have woken me up from my sleep-addled self, and I looked out on a great view of the Virginia countryside. The day was cold and windy, but that also meant fairly good visibility because there wasn't a lot of humidity to get in the way.

Three scenic way-points (and some slippery rock scrambling) later, we made it to the top. Which had a spectacular 360 degree view. And it was worth it. Even with a winter-landscape. Brown, rather dormant and barren looking, there were pockets of green. The rolling of the farmlands, the grey-green shadows of nearby mountains, all contributed to something quite worth it.

Then began the downward trek. The part where the euphoric moment of accomplishment, of fulfillment is over. The part where the legs that were tired at the top, but momentarily forgot, are reengaged for the exact opposite purpose than before. Instead of exerting themselves with every step to bring me higher, my legs fought with every step to modulate the speed of my descent. For me, this part has always been the more painful. Especially since, with the burning feeling in my legs increasing with every footfall, it gave me plenty of time to contemplate whether the view was really worth it.

Today my answer is yes. If I succumb to the frailties of the out-of-shape tomorrow, and hobble around the office because my body mutinies tomorrow for stresses I put on it today--then the mountain may truly have won the war.

Winners, and Everyone Else

Apologies to myself for the early post, but am going to try something dangerous today: get out of the city and go for a hike--gasp!--outside!

Edward Cody, whom I refer to frequently here, writes for the Washington Post. His story today is about the winners and losers in China's growing economy. Not revolutionary, since any time there is change there are winners and losers. But what is interesting to me is that this is a recurring story, about every 3 or 4 months here in the states. And it's been recurring for several years now. And until recently, the Chinese Communist Party has done very little to recognize the situation, much less remedy it.

Maybe this is something I'll ponder, and write more on when I get back--if I survive the contact with non-city life.

Students of Hegemony, not of History; or How Republicans have failed to apply their own rise to power to the rest of the world

The Republican ascendancy in this country was largely built on the idea that Conservatives are an oppressed majority.  People who are in the mainstream, but are being cut-out of American political life by the “bad guys” of Hollywood, academia, and the media.  Over the past twenty years they have built a network of people in key positions in media and research organizations to provide national-level framing of issues, and a ready-made network for distributing these ideas to like-minded people around the country.

 

Rarely is the conservative message as successful as when it harkens back to how the “American way of life” is being attacked by an elitist group of late-drinking, Gucci-wearing stuffed shirts who are disconnected with “real” Americans.

 

After twenty years of being out of power—or more often having to share power (as Democracies tend to want their factions to do) the past several years have found the Republicans (and their conservative supporters) at the helm of a party-line unified federal government.  The successes are theirs to take credit for, but the failures are equally hard to shovel off on to the Democrats.  In spite the fact that Republicans have held the Presidency and both houses of Congress for several years, the domestic rhetoric—issues like gay marriage, health care, or corporate malfeasance—is based on the idea that liberals are out to ruin America; that Conservatives are still an oppressed majority.

 

Stay with me for a second as I both turn 180 degrees and switch from the microscope to the telescope.  Look now at the international community.

 

Yesterday, the Financial Times published a piece by Madeline Albright with the headline: “Foreign Policy Good vs Evil does not work.”  She rightly points out that the “Axis of Evil” was an over-simplification of the realities of the world (from a supposedly “realist” administration).  Albright points out the conflict areas between Iraq, Iran and Al Qaida.  First, Iran and Iraq fought a war for nearly a decade—during which we supplied Saddam with military equipment.  An Al Qaida affiliate killed a delegation of Iranian diplomats.  And Al Qaida frequently mocked Saddam’s equanimity in persecuting Shia and Sunni religious leaders.

 

Currently the Bush administration seems to be pursuing a policy of antagonizing undesirable regimes into greater power.  And these regimes power is coming from the same psychology that has won Republicans elections in the U.S. for at least 20 years: by creating an enemy for those in power to oppose.  It’s more than that, though.  By being outspoken in opposition to the present Iranian government, the Bush administration is giving that same regime the opportunity to go to the Iranian people and say, “Follow us.  The United States is opposed to Iranian independence.  The only way to succeed is to stand up to the oppressor!”  Albright says as much in her piece.

 

So why have I spent the last page re-describing points said more articulately by a former secretary of State than I’m likely to be able to do?

 

Because I want to point out the irony of a political faction (conservatives) bolstering undesired adversaries and regimes by following the precise playbook that allowed them to come to power in the first place.  I know there are smart people in the administration.  I know there are people who understand politics, geopolitics, and the theatre of governance.  And yet, through oversimplification, hyperbole, and strict adherence to a one-act script even though we now enter the third act, these same people are allowing their own desired policies to evaporate into the political atmosphere they themselves are creating.

The marginal costs of war

It used to be that when a country went to war--any kind of country--it required the mobilization of a significant amount of resources from a very large portion of it's population.  In the case of an offensive war, this was the case because you had to send in enough people, with enough bullets (or swords) and enough food to A. kill the other people, and B. hold their land long enough to convince them to give up.  In the case of a defensive war, your population was mobilized to defend itself against an invading army.  Neither of these things were decisions made out of caprice, and neither could be effectively pursued without the backing--or at least capitulation--of a large portion of the population.

 

This is no longer the prevailing situation of war.  At least not for the United States.  We've invested so much of our national productive capability into designing better bombs, better guns, smarter planes, and training better warriors--in short we have achieved such an expensive (and effective) fighting force, that fighting wars has become cheap. 

 

The U.S. can pursue operations, skirmishes, battles, campaigns, and even full-blown wars, with the fighting force it has on a day-to-day basis.  We don't have to mobilize new resources.  We don't have to ask society to bear a burden or, really, notice much of a change.  Unless they have loved ones fighting, or they feel a sense of need to pay attention to what is happening.  Most Americans, sadly, have neither in today's conflict.

 

This leads to a bigger challenge when we recognize that no army can fight the U.S. No navy can challenge ours for supremacy of the seas.  Our country faces no credible risk of an air assault that will significantly impact the continental United States.  In short, we've become so powerful that only the weak, the marginalized, and the desperate can attack us.

 

The world no longer suffers from a Bismarkian balance-of-powers system.  We no longer have an on-par rival in the Soviet Union.  Those traditional actors who wish to pursue some geo-political strategy against the United States no they can only fail in challenging us militarily.  Enter terrorism.

 

Present-day terrorists benefit from a century of anti-colonial powers honing their guerilla tactics combined the best-practices of 60 years of fortune-500 multi-national corporations.  They exploit comparative advantages they see in their market niches: instability, dissaffectedness, and those unwilling or unable to integrate into a globalized marketplace.

 

Of greater importance is the fact that the United States has nearly no options for dealing with another terrorist attack.  The first one was easy: al Qaida is based in Afghanistan, if we invade Afghanistan, we eliminate their headquarters.  The next attack will not be so easy.  Terrorism, almost by definition, involves the acts of a sub-set of a minority.  It is a tiny percentage of any population who is willing to do the types of things that the 9/11 hijackers did, or Hezbollah suicide bombers do.  Their actions may impact a few lives, or a few dozen, or tens of thousands.  But in a country the size of the U.S., few of us are likely to be directly impacted by their actions--just as few of us had more than a peripheral real connection to the events of 9/11. (Real is different than emotional, compassionate, or psychological connection.)

 

But if the U.S. responds to the next act of terrorism on U.S. soil in a similar method to the last one, we will likely have an enormous impact on an entire population.  If, for example, the United States was attacked by terrorists who had lived or trained in Iran (with or without consent of Iran's government) it is conceivable that the U.S. would invade, much as we did to Afghanistan, and set up our own government. 

 

Except we tried that in Iran once before.  It's utter disregard for the wishes of the Iranian people is what led to the Iran-hostage situation in 1979-1981.  A whole generations of Iranians, which many signs indicate are starting to come around to the U.S.--even if they're leaders aren't--would likely rally against the invader, and the U.S. would set back stability and prosperity in the country for yet another generation.

 

In an effort to get to the point, the methods and the means of conducting war--who conducts it, who is responsible, and who bears the burdens--have changed significantly in the past 30 years.  In becoming a superpower bar-none, the U.S. has also radically transformed the nature of threats it must face.  Until policy-makers recognize this new type of threat and devise responses appropriate to the circumstances, U.S. response to actions against it will only make the U.S. worse off.

Entrepreneuring Health Care

An idea just popped into my head--not really in keeping with the Asia-focus that I try to keep, but it's definately wonky, so I'm putting it up.  If you have thoughts on this, please let me know.

 

1.  One of the main reasons the United States has been so successful over the last 80 years is that government has worked hard to nurture an environment that encourages innovation and entrepreneurship.  It has allowed people to develop knowledge and expertise through schooling, work, and experience of the market.  Then translate those assets into business structures that exploit new market segments, market niches, and help bring new products to market.

 

2.  Health care costs in the United States are currently extremely high--either from the point of view of individuals who see premiums taking larger and larger shares of their paychecks, or from the pov of employers who, if they can even afford it, are facing diminished profit-margins and greater potential for their businesses to fail.

 

3.  Entrepreneurs tend to be young people with less to risk than more established people (i.e. it's easier to go out on your own when you don't have a family or an established career).  However, young people tend not to have access to the capital (in the form of savings, or credibility with a bank) to secure the resources needed to start a business.

 

4.  Because of the rising costs of health care, even if someone is able to start a business, it is unlikely that he/she will be able to offer health care to his/her employees because the costs are too high, and too unstable to allow for safe budgeting of those expenses

 

5.  A major reason people fear losing their jobs or having to change jobs is the loss of health insurance--especially if they have a family (it's relatively easy for young, healthy me to live without health insurance for 8 months.  It's much harder for young healthy me to think it's OK for my 2 year old--hypothetical of course--to spend 8 months without health insurance).

 

6. Because of this, I venture to guess that establishing some form of government health care system--or private if someone can figure out a way to make money on it--that offers decent or better coverage, reasonable prices, and predictable changes/rates of change in premiums, there would be an entrepreneurial boom in the economy, stimulating it in the neo-con sense in a way to compensate for a substantial portion of the incurred tax revenue.  Though there would probably be a 3-4 year lag before seeing the effects come full circle.

 

I don’t think people are looking for handouts, they’re just trying to make sure that if they try something new they wont send their family into a deep abyss.

Not your father's 12 Step Program anymore

Once again improving on an American invention, led by President Hu Jin Tao, the Chinese are now seeking to rival the Japanese for adding value to existing ideas and products. What did they do this time? I'm sure most of you are following the details of China's government-led moral crusades more closely than I, but I just came across an improvement on an American tried-and-true. The 12 Step Program.

All the math and science degrees in the Middle Kingdom must be paying off, because China's President has made the 12 Step Process more efficient. If that seems impossible to you, then you are simply an unbeliever. Because he did it. He took the 12 Step Process and shrank it down to 8. That's right, now a 12 step process can be completed in only a week (if one does a step a day and twice on Sunday!)

Why does a country with such excess labor need this kind of efficiency? Wouldn't it really be better to stretch it out to help employment numbers and to fill people's free time? Absolutely not. And it's a point addressed in the 8 Steps themselves.

• Love, do not harm the motherland.

• Serve, don't disserve the people.

• Uphold science; don't be ignorant and unenlightened.

• Work hard; don't be lazy and hate work.

• Be united and help each other; don't gain benefits at the expense of others.

• Be honest and trustworthy, not profit-mongering at the expense of your values.

• Be disciplined and law-abiding instead of chaotic and lawless.

• Know plain living and hard struggle, do not wallow in luxuries and pleasures.

What genius leads to this type of innovation? I have a couple of ideas, but I'll hold off for now. This is the language of the six-party-talks. Absolutely amazing. Skillful. Dare I say it, Inspired. I've always been amazed at those who can pull together seemingly disconnected phrases and make them sound 1. like they are somehow connected, and 2. give them sufficient weight and meaning that they mean anything to anyone.

I guess maybe another Chinese Nobel Laureate may be in the wings. Maybe this one will even be allowed to live in China.

A little Texas Two-step

As I was sitting in the waiting room at the doctor's office today, I was surprised to see President Bush on the screen.  Not just waving after a speech or coming down from Air Force One, but actually interacting with the press corps.  CNN has a decent transcript.

 

Before I get into deconstructing the rather sophisticated way our President handled himself today, I'm going to say that I'm impressed.  I didn't think I'd see him at a microphone more than once a month or so for the rest of the Presidency, and now, twice within a week I've seen him.  I guess he's having to resort to personal appeal, with his numbers nearly bottoming out.

 

Anyway, one quick comment on a statement in response to questions about the possibility for staff changes:

BUSH: I've got a staff of people that have, first of all, placed their country above their self-interests. These are good, hardworking, decent people. And we've dealt with a lot, we've dealt with a lot. We've dealt with war. We've dealt with recession. We've dealt with scandal. We've dealt with Katrina.

Take a second and think about that paragraph.  It's all in the past-tense.  As if the war, the scandal, the rebuilding of Katrina have all come and gone, and we're moving on to other things.  We've finished them.  At least that's the sense I draw from the paragraph. 

 

Hearing occasional updates on the state of Louisiana from friends down there; reading accounts of Iraq; breathing the fearful perspiration in the air around 17th and E in D.C.  To me these all point to the fact that none of the 'challenges' this administration has thrown the American people into has passed. 

 

What concerns me most from all this is that nothing bad will happen before Bush leaves office.  Not because of conspiracy, but because the structures that hold the country, our politics, and our economy together are strong enough to withstand the next 22 months.  But not much longer.  And the next President, whomever it is, will be a good person.  I have this hunch that it'll happen--a good person as President.  Regardless of party, he (or she) will begin working with Congress to implement reforms: in our tax system; in the federal budget; in our foreign policy; in Social Security and Medicare.  But once those reforms start, the 'challenges' Bush's administration have given America will bring many angles crashing down--and the next President will be left holding the pieces--not only of Bush's disaster, but the could-have-beens of the next administration.

Those Heady 1980s

If the hype lives up to the news, Taiwan is going to be in for some excitement over the next couple of years. President Chen Shui Bian is being targetted by street demonstrations calling for him to tone it down.

The stories in the BBC seem to be describing a Taiwan moving back towards those days in the 1980s when students and trade unions led pushes for democratization in Taiwan.



In other, unrelated news, the current issue of Foreign Affairs has quite a few good articles. I've been reading it all day today, and my brain is a bit washed out as a result.

Lost in the Beltway

Dear Dr. Hasaclue,

 

I'm really confused.  I've been watching the Bush administration tread roughshod over the previously held standards of conduct for an administration for the past 5 years now.  I've seen them squander 50 years of accumulated international good will in less than two years.  I've watched as the Democrats' challenge to this President was a lackluster candidate with an insipid campaign.  I've waited five years to see a spark of vitality, or even just plain decency to come from the party that used to champion the 'little fellas, not the Rockefellars." 

 

Well, I'd thought this tiny little spark finally arrived in Sen. Russ Feingold's censure resolution: S. Res 398.  It's well written, it's concise.  It states facts without the rhetoric or bombast that has so often clouded coherency in our recently televised national tantrums. 

 

Unfortunately, Democrats have responded to this flare-up of spinal fortitude with the responses one would expect from millennia of Confucian enculturation: beat down the nail daring to stick up.  Not quite the same type of leadership, vision, or willingness to embrace the blindingly obvious that an 'educated' "western democracy" believes itself to deserve.

 

Dr. Hasaclue, can you please help me understand why Democrats think they should win elections why Democrats think people will vote for them if they chose not to do the wrong thing, instead of choosing to do the right thing?

 

Lost in the Beltway

 

China's Quebec

China's own version of Quebec is at it again. Some call it Formosa. Some call it Taiwan. Others call it the Republic of China. It doesn't really matter what you call it. It's a Mandarin speaking Quebec: a province that rattles its saber at the idea of recognized independence, but when push comes to shove is smart enough to know it has greater autonomy and flexibility under the currently ambigous position it is in.

The most recent gambit by the increasingly unpopular president of this paper-tiger independent province-state is recounted in the Post, and with a different thrust on the BBC. Basically, though, it comes down to Chen Shui Bian trying to push hard to his "base" in order to gain the support he needs for an election. Except it's not going to work. While many Taiwanese may support independence in a conceptual or abstract way, they also recognize that there is almost no situation in which they will be able to achieve both independence and buildings still standing in Taipei. Like most people around the world given a few options, they are more likely to follow the money than the bombast. Just like Quebecers decided they'd rather stay part of Canada and reap the rewards offered, rather than fight their way through a world alone.

Avast ye! I be needing your warez!

China is setting up a piracy court.

 

Because, apparently, the country has a, "burgeoning market for fake goods."

 

Yeah.  Right.

 

China might have an ENORMOUS market for fake goods.  It's probably the biggest in the world.  But I don't know that it would be possible to call it, "burgeoning."

 

Burgeon:

1 a : to send forth new growth (as buds or branches) : SPROUT b : BLOOM
2 : to grow and expand rapidly : FLOURISH

 

I'm going to have to call, "no way" on this one.

 

China's "fake goods market" is already SO big.  SO huge. SO 'endemic' that the idea that it would grow or expand significantly is just something I can't fathom.  Why is this?  Because the last time I was there--last June--the only "legal" CD or DVD's I saw were simply pirated copies of the material, sold at U.S. prices in Chinese-government run stores.  The rest of the goods were for sale at market prices (between 35 and 75 cents per disc) by entrepreneuring sole-proprietors. 

 

NEXT. The idea that American businesses lose $3.8 Bln a year to piracy in China is absurd.  Based on nothing but my own conjecture, I'm guessing Microsoft ALONE loses more money than that every year to China.  Or at least, that's one way to look at it.  On the other hand, Microsoft does make some money in China.  And the fact that it's product is so widely available--for next to nothing--gives it some room to maneuver.  Specifically, it discourages any competitor from setting up in China, and developing a better product that Microsoft for use in the Chinese market.  Music companies/MPAA?  I'm not going there.

 

Finally.  The concept that a "piracy court" is going to do anything to stem the trade in pirate goods in China?   Sure.  Just like prohibition stopped people from drinking, and just like the "war on drugs/terror" has stopped either of those enterprises in this country.  Until individuals have legal property rights, and until companies start targeting their prices to the countries their goods are for sale in (i.e. not trying to charge Chinese folks two month's salary for MS Office), people will continue to buy the warez at market prices.  The Chinese judicial and law-enforcement systems are in no place to curtail the Chinese market.  It doesn't matter how much U.S. business complains about it.

Are Singaporeans really --that-- dirty?

A story in today's BBC has to make one ask, "how clean is clean enough?"

 

A good friend of mine is from Singapore, and it's a place I've never been. Both reasons to hesitate when criticizing.  There is still a question though: how clean is clean enough?

 

The statement, attributed to a "manpower ministry" official is rather unambiguous:

 

"Prescribing minimum terms and conditions for the maids would inconvenience many households, a manpower ministry official said."

 

Another person I know--a doctor--has described Singapore as very similar to a hospital: You're glad to go there when you need to, but you're also happy to leave.  It's clean, it's orderly, it's sterile. 

 

Maybe Singaporeans aren't actual as clean as their image belies.  Maybe it's all the Indonesian, Sri Lankan, and Philippina maids who keep the place tidy.