Getting back to democracy and related issues. In this blog, I will opine on a rather local issue. Voting for the President of the US in Massachusetts.
The US is a federal system with distributed power shared among the states. For the most part states can set their own laws so long as they don't contradict the Constitution. Inter-state commerce and related activity is governed by the federal government and so on. States have their priorities that may differ from other states. States come in various sizes, small and large. It may be obvious that larger states in the absence of any laws can influence smaller states, inequalities may prevail. Thus the framers of the US constitution made provisions to provide some "fairness" in the governance of the nation. For example, a bicarmel legislature with the Senate providing equality for the states no matter what size and the House of Representatives having representation bases on population.
And so it is with the election of the President. In the US, technically, the states elect the president not the people. Which in my opinion works just fine. The Electoral College is a set of representatives from each state that casts ballots for the President. How the representatives vote is totally dependent on state laws. In some cases, in most, all the electoral votes go to the winner in that state. In other states, the electoral votes are divided based on the vote of the population, so if 60% of the people vote for Candidate A, the Candidate A gets 60% of the electoral votes for that state. And obviously there may be other ways of selecting the votes of the electoral college for a state.
Why is this fair, at least in my opinion? It allows power sharing among the diversity of the nation. Consider the example of a state the has the majority of the population of the nation, say for example California, then during a presidential election all activity would be focused on one state, they rest of the country would become irrelevant. While the dominance of one state may not be realistic, the dominance of several states is realistic. Consider, California, Texas and New York, these states can dominate a presidential elections. Thus people living in much smaller states essentially have very little impact on the election.
This is where the electoral college comes in. Each state has votes proportional to the population of that state. More populous states have more votes, less populous states have less votes. But, and this is important, no state or a few states have enough votes to dominate an election. The election of the President of the United States is a country-wide event. All regions have input into the selection of the President.
So we come to Massachusetts. A couple of years ago a law was passed whereby all the electoral college votes from Massachusetts will go to the candidate who has the most votes in the country. To me this means that Massachusetts is making itself irrelevant in a Presidential election. From a personnel perspective, mine, why bother voting if you live in Massachusetts. The electoral college votes from Massachusetts are determined by the rest of the country not by the good citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Is this democracy at work? I certainly don't think so. At best it is a good example of rational thinking gone awry. Let's hope that the good people of the Massachusetts legislature come to their senses and change the law so that we, citizens of Massachusetts, again have impact on Presidential elections.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Democracy
One notion that has always fascinated me is the nature of democracy. Like many abstract philosophical items, everyone has an opinion but no one has a clear definition. Clearly, one of the main aspects of democracy is voting. So be it. But is voting the main prerequisite for democracy? Voting for what? Was the US a democratic country when slavery was allowed? When women could not vote? Is a nation democratic when only a percentage of the population can vote?
I won't have clear cut answers, just a list of observations and I welcome feedback.
While not a definitive source, wikipedia does have interesting text. Accordingly,
"While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution."
Let us recall that Plato, going back to the birth of democracy in Greece, was not very fond of democracy. He called it the rule of the mob, meaning that democracy very much controlled not by rational thinking but immediate emotional responses. In other words you elect people who look nice and tell you what you want to hear.
Clearly democracy seems to entail people electing a set of representatives to govern them, along with a chief administrator be it a president or a prime minister. Leaders are not institutionalized, meaning they are not like kings where the leader is a heriditary positions. Leaders are not bound by family name to be next in line.
So why is this interesting?
Currently there are some interesting elections that will occur in the near future. The most publicized are the US and Russia. Of course there are many other elections occurring due to the Arab Spring manifestations. Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, all electing leaders through a mostly untampered process. Furthermore, the financial crisis in Europe has developed into a philosophical debate about democracy and capitalism.
In a recent article in the Atlantic, the notion of democracy in the EU is questioned
With the financial crisis, the debt crisis, and the worldwide coverage of Occupy Wall Street, capitalism has been under fire publicly for quite some time in Europe. Since the debt crisis started to show real potential for damaging the euro zone, both the euro and the European Union have had their futures dissected as well. The question has been this: can the European federal project survive the debt crisis? But now, that question is being repeated with a more melodramatic substitution: can democracy survive the debt crisis?
One of my objections is the notion that capitalism and democracy are somehow joined at the hip. I believe you cam have a market-driven economy without democracy and similarly you can have democracy without capitalism. And in any case desperate times require desperate measures. Thus in times of crisis why not appoint leaders that are best suited for the job. And when a sense of normality returns have elections and restore democratic process with the hopeful understanding that people learn through adversity and would elect smarter leaders.
So we will see how all this plays out in the next few months. I'm certainly curious how the Russian elections play out, how much support Putin will actually get. Especially interested in the US elections, who the Republicans select. And Egypt, what kind of democracy can exists in a country dominated by religion. Not too long ago, nationalism and socialism was dominating the so-called third world, now it's religion.
Anyway, enough for now more to come. This is a very broad and interesting topic, and certainly of very immediate concern.
I won't have clear cut answers, just a list of observations and I welcome feedback.
While not a definitive source, wikipedia does have interesting text. Accordingly,
"While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution."
Let us recall that Plato, going back to the birth of democracy in Greece, was not very fond of democracy. He called it the rule of the mob, meaning that democracy very much controlled not by rational thinking but immediate emotional responses. In other words you elect people who look nice and tell you what you want to hear.
Clearly democracy seems to entail people electing a set of representatives to govern them, along with a chief administrator be it a president or a prime minister. Leaders are not institutionalized, meaning they are not like kings where the leader is a heriditary positions. Leaders are not bound by family name to be next in line.
So why is this interesting?
Currently there are some interesting elections that will occur in the near future. The most publicized are the US and Russia. Of course there are many other elections occurring due to the Arab Spring manifestations. Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, all electing leaders through a mostly untampered process. Furthermore, the financial crisis in Europe has developed into a philosophical debate about democracy and capitalism.
In a recent article in the Atlantic, the notion of democracy in the EU is questioned
With the financial crisis, the debt crisis, and the worldwide coverage of Occupy Wall Street, capitalism has been under fire publicly for quite some time in Europe. Since the debt crisis started to show real potential for damaging the euro zone, both the euro and the European Union have had their futures dissected as well. The question has been this: can the European federal project survive the debt crisis? But now, that question is being repeated with a more melodramatic substitution: can democracy survive the debt crisis?
One of my objections is the notion that capitalism and democracy are somehow joined at the hip. I believe you cam have a market-driven economy without democracy and similarly you can have democracy without capitalism. And in any case desperate times require desperate measures. Thus in times of crisis why not appoint leaders that are best suited for the job. And when a sense of normality returns have elections and restore democratic process with the hopeful understanding that people learn through adversity and would elect smarter leaders.
So we will see how all this plays out in the next few months. I'm certainly curious how the Russian elections play out, how much support Putin will actually get. Especially interested in the US elections, who the Republicans select. And Egypt, what kind of democracy can exists in a country dominated by religion. Not too long ago, nationalism and socialism was dominating the so-called third world, now it's religion.
Anyway, enough for now more to come. This is a very broad and interesting topic, and certainly of very immediate concern.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Another version of MAD?
During the Cold War, yes remember the Cold War, a time of peace and stability in comparison to today's "age of crises", a philosophy emerged regarding superpower politics. Known as MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), this policy prevented all out nuclear war by acknowledging the fact any attack by one country no matter how destructive would be matched in kind by the other country. Thus since there could never be a clear winner in a conflict, peace was achieved.
And now to the present.
Israel is acquiring 3 more submarines from Germany, for a total of 5 of these type of vessels. These Dolphin-class submarines are supposedly capable of firing missiles with nuclear capability. No doubt that this provides Israel with more insurance regarding any existential threat.
There is presumably one major threat to Israel currently, that being Iran. With Iran threating Israel, the concept of a more localized MAD starts making sense. Presumably, Iran is not irrational when dealing with its own survival, so with a multi-submarine threat Iran would not be so bold as to launch any missiles. On the other hand, diatribes by either side should not confuse the issue of actually taking any irreversible courses of action by either side. Talk as much as you want, but don't push any buttons.
Of course this brings us to a more fundamental question, given the proliferation of very sophisticated weapons systems, will the concept of a localized MAD philosophy proliferate to other regions. Rather then fighting a conventional war, nations will refrain from fighting simply because of mutual self-destruction? Can MAD work between nations of varying size? Can a much smaller nation prevent a larger nation from actions beneficial to the larger nation? In a world of cheap and available WMDs that may be the case.
And now to the present.
Israel is acquiring 3 more submarines from Germany, for a total of 5 of these type of vessels. These Dolphin-class submarines are supposedly capable of firing missiles with nuclear capability. No doubt that this provides Israel with more insurance regarding any existential threat.
There is presumably one major threat to Israel currently, that being Iran. With Iran threating Israel, the concept of a more localized MAD starts making sense. Presumably, Iran is not irrational when dealing with its own survival, so with a multi-submarine threat Iran would not be so bold as to launch any missiles. On the other hand, diatribes by either side should not confuse the issue of actually taking any irreversible courses of action by either side. Talk as much as you want, but don't push any buttons.
Of course this brings us to a more fundamental question, given the proliferation of very sophisticated weapons systems, will the concept of a localized MAD philosophy proliferate to other regions. Rather then fighting a conventional war, nations will refrain from fighting simply because of mutual self-destruction? Can MAD work between nations of varying size? Can a much smaller nation prevent a larger nation from actions beneficial to the larger nation? In a world of cheap and available WMDs that may be the case.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Brazil and the other BRICS
Stating the obvious, the world is changing, both in terms of politics and economics. The crises we face today impact how the world will look in the future. There is a movement away from the modern concepts of countries to post-modern views where power is relegated to non-governmental organizations. The centers of power are also very fluid, while the US is the dominant military power and probably will remain so for so time, simply because of its current stockpile of weapons and technology; it's military is dependent on the well-being of the countries economy. Economics dictates policy or at least it should. So how is economics changing the global perspective? This brings us to the BRICS.
BRICS is defined as a set of countries that, through their growing economies, are changing the centers of economic dominance. These are Brazil, Russia, India, China and added sometime later South Africa, B-R-I-C-S. I find that although grouping these countries together is an interesting concept, they are certainly in different leagues and probably make no sense being grouped together. India and China are in a league of their own. Each with over 1 billion people and large land mass, they in no way resemble the other countries. Russia is problematic. Extremely large land mass, a declining population and an economy highly dependent on commodities such as oil and gas, Russia has a multitude of social and economic infrastructure problems it needs to deal with. And South Africa is still evolving, more on that in a later blog. That brings us to Brazil.
I, for whatever reason, am highly optimistic about the rise of Brazil as an economic power. Clearly Brazil is blessed with natural resources. A large land mass and a large diverse population make Brazil a potential for sustained economic growth. But there is another factor that I think adds to Brazil's potential. Economics drives politics and politics drives economics. Both are linked and both play a role in defining success. Along with that is the nature of relationships a country can develop out sided it's own boundaries. For Brazil it is a common language that it shares with several other counties, specifically Portugal, Angola and Mozambique.
Angola and Mozambique are also blessed with natural resources and while Portugal does not have the scale of the other countries, it does provide a gateway into the EU. Just think of a greeter common bond then language, add to that religion. In the English-speaking world, the links between the UK, US, Canada and Australia are very strong. These links invite a strong sense of cooperation. There are other examples of language commonality that I will not dwell on but are obvious.
Brazil being the largest of these economies can become a major power by cultivating relationships with these countries. Not only a common economic zone, but maybe something akin to OPEC where power is shared among them. Plus from an interesting geopolitical perspective, a grouping such as this would be the first in the southern hemisphere.
We are moving quickly into a post-modern world where notions of country and nation and state are changing drastically. Countries rich with potential such as Brazil can take advantage of this changing world and become major players in the world arena.
BRICS is defined as a set of countries that, through their growing economies, are changing the centers of economic dominance. These are Brazil, Russia, India, China and added sometime later South Africa, B-R-I-C-S. I find that although grouping these countries together is an interesting concept, they are certainly in different leagues and probably make no sense being grouped together. India and China are in a league of their own. Each with over 1 billion people and large land mass, they in no way resemble the other countries. Russia is problematic. Extremely large land mass, a declining population and an economy highly dependent on commodities such as oil and gas, Russia has a multitude of social and economic infrastructure problems it needs to deal with. And South Africa is still evolving, more on that in a later blog. That brings us to Brazil.
I, for whatever reason, am highly optimistic about the rise of Brazil as an economic power. Clearly Brazil is blessed with natural resources. A large land mass and a large diverse population make Brazil a potential for sustained economic growth. But there is another factor that I think adds to Brazil's potential. Economics drives politics and politics drives economics. Both are linked and both play a role in defining success. Along with that is the nature of relationships a country can develop out sided it's own boundaries. For Brazil it is a common language that it shares with several other counties, specifically Portugal, Angola and Mozambique.
Angola and Mozambique are also blessed with natural resources and while Portugal does not have the scale of the other countries, it does provide a gateway into the EU. Just think of a greeter common bond then language, add to that religion. In the English-speaking world, the links between the UK, US, Canada and Australia are very strong. These links invite a strong sense of cooperation. There are other examples of language commonality that I will not dwell on but are obvious.
Brazil being the largest of these economies can become a major power by cultivating relationships with these countries. Not only a common economic zone, but maybe something akin to OPEC where power is shared among them. Plus from an interesting geopolitical perspective, a grouping such as this would be the first in the southern hemisphere.
We are moving quickly into a post-modern world where notions of country and nation and state are changing drastically. Countries rich with potential such as Brazil can take advantage of this changing world and become major players in the world arena.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Some thoughts on the Electrical Grid
The Electrical Grid, simply referred to as the “grid”, is technology developed over the last 100 years, and has been described by the National Academy of Engineering as the greatest engineering achievement of the 20th century, eclipsing even the Internet.
A comparison with the “other” grid (the Internet) is worth considering. It seems that the current popular focus on a national and perhaps even global level is the Internet. There is tremendous hype about new companies (and applications) such as Facebook, LinkedIn and others. And who is not glued to their email on a daily basis? In fact, daily commerce has become highly dependent on the use of the Internet. But on a personal level, if Facebook is inaccessible or we can’t read our email for a day or several days, it may be an annoyance, perhaps even a major annoyance, but it is nothing compared to loss of electrical power.
The failure of proper operation of the electrical grid can impact millions of people. One of the best illustrations, but certainly not the only one, is the infamous August 2003 Northeast blackout that impacted eight US states and two Canadian provinces. The number of people who lost power was upwards of 50 million. And the economic cost of this outage numbered in the billions of dollars.
Therefore, correct operation of the grid is important not only on a personal level but also for modern society to function properly. The grid is indispensible for how we work as a society. But currently the grid is facing severe challenges:
• There is continuing need for more electrical power, yet construction of generation resources and transmission lines is constrained by financial limitations and siting concerns.
• Federal and State regulations require utilities to accommodate higher levels of renewable resources. These levels (up to 40%) are higher than today’s grid can manage.
• The US Department of Energy has mandated that utilities improve their equipment and procedures to prevent occurrence of cascading blackouts like the Northeast Blackouts of 1965 and 2003.
• Utilities must conform to urgent requirements to ensure cyber-security under the Federal “Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)” program.
On top of these severe challenges; the utilities are burdened with an aging infrastructure (both human and mechanical) as well as by needing to conform to increasingly environmental regulations. For example, North American electric systems in some cases are based on 40-year-old technology that is reaching obsolescence and needs to be replaced.
In order to meet the challenges noted above, utilities, must modernize their transmission and distribution systems. It seems that utilities across the globe are implementing initiatives to increase the efficiency, safety, and reliability of the electricity transmission and distribution systems. Of course they are hampered by nature and economic policies. Earthquakes can impact the type of energy source, e.g. nuclear vs solar. Increased supply of carbon-based resources can decrease the amount of renewable resources.
But, hopefully, by transforming the current electric grid into an interactive service network based on advanced communication and control systems, the “Smart Grid", we all can benefit by lower energy prices and more efficient supplies.
A comparison with the “other” grid (the Internet) is worth considering. It seems that the current popular focus on a national and perhaps even global level is the Internet. There is tremendous hype about new companies (and applications) such as Facebook, LinkedIn and others. And who is not glued to their email on a daily basis? In fact, daily commerce has become highly dependent on the use of the Internet. But on a personal level, if Facebook is inaccessible or we can’t read our email for a day or several days, it may be an annoyance, perhaps even a major annoyance, but it is nothing compared to loss of electrical power.
The failure of proper operation of the electrical grid can impact millions of people. One of the best illustrations, but certainly not the only one, is the infamous August 2003 Northeast blackout that impacted eight US states and two Canadian provinces. The number of people who lost power was upwards of 50 million. And the economic cost of this outage numbered in the billions of dollars.
Therefore, correct operation of the grid is important not only on a personal level but also for modern society to function properly. The grid is indispensible for how we work as a society. But currently the grid is facing severe challenges:
• There is continuing need for more electrical power, yet construction of generation resources and transmission lines is constrained by financial limitations and siting concerns.
• Federal and State regulations require utilities to accommodate higher levels of renewable resources. These levels (up to 40%) are higher than today’s grid can manage.
• The US Department of Energy has mandated that utilities improve their equipment and procedures to prevent occurrence of cascading blackouts like the Northeast Blackouts of 1965 and 2003.
• Utilities must conform to urgent requirements to ensure cyber-security under the Federal “Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)” program.
On top of these severe challenges; the utilities are burdened with an aging infrastructure (both human and mechanical) as well as by needing to conform to increasingly environmental regulations. For example, North American electric systems in some cases are based on 40-year-old technology that is reaching obsolescence and needs to be replaced.
In order to meet the challenges noted above, utilities, must modernize their transmission and distribution systems. It seems that utilities across the globe are implementing initiatives to increase the efficiency, safety, and reliability of the electricity transmission and distribution systems. Of course they are hampered by nature and economic policies. Earthquakes can impact the type of energy source, e.g. nuclear vs solar. Increased supply of carbon-based resources can decrease the amount of renewable resources.
But, hopefully, by transforming the current electric grid into an interactive service network based on advanced communication and control systems, the “Smart Grid", we all can benefit by lower energy prices and more efficient supplies.
Economics of being Productive
One thing that has always puzzled me is the economics of efficiency and productivity. We all learn that increased productivity is good. Keeping things simple, this means that if in a month two persons can produce a car and a month later one person can produce a car then we have increased productivity and our economic well-being has increased. No matter that our unemployment has increased. The assumption perhaps is that the unemployed person can find a new job in a different industry. Good luck.
I would argue that increased productivity can in fact be bad. Maybe at a micro level, meaning from a corporate perspective it can be good, meaning lower labor costs produce more profits. Assuming that we measure goodness as maximizing profits. But on a macro level, meaning the society at large, increased productivity if measured in labor costs can increase unemployment and thus be bad for society. Of course, I am assuming that the large the amount of idle people is not a good thing.
I am not advocating that people be employed doing useless work (although the thought had crossed my mind). Rather, I would change the concept of productivity to include minimizing unemployment. Simply put, this may and probably does conflict with efficiency in production. But it many not conflict with social well-being. Where social well-being is partly defined as minimizing unemployment.
Again, consider a rather simple example. If there are two people working on building a car, then both of them have disposable income to purchase goods and services. If only one person is employed then of course then number of people that contributes to economic activity has gone done. So disposable income has gone down and thus other consumer industries have been impacted.
So why is this important and does it really matter?
In an isolated environment, meaning in a country with limited external trade, then I suppose we could maximize economic activity by limiting efficiency and unemployment. But with globalization and companies with a high degree of trans-national activity, maximizing the economic well-being of any specific country is not a high priority. Maximizing profits is, and that could be at the cost of higher unemployment in one country while employing more people in another country.
So this is a prelude to discussing large trans-national corporations such as GE who have no or very limited sovereign loyalty. In other words they don't care if they create unemployment by moving their labor force around to different countries as long as they maximize their profits. For example, GE moving jobs from the US to other countries certainly contributes to unemployment in the US. But what does it care? As long as it can maintain or increase sales world-wide then increasing unemployment (in the US for example) but increasing profit is a good thing.
OK, so I dealt with productivity and globalization and efficieny. Maybe it was a little disconnected. What I want to do is create/examine policies whereby a country can use a measure of productivity that includes unemployment as a mechanism to limit the impact of globalization on it's economic well-being. In other words, keep the jobs at home.
I would argue that increased productivity can in fact be bad. Maybe at a micro level, meaning from a corporate perspective it can be good, meaning lower labor costs produce more profits. Assuming that we measure goodness as maximizing profits. But on a macro level, meaning the society at large, increased productivity if measured in labor costs can increase unemployment and thus be bad for society. Of course, I am assuming that the large the amount of idle people is not a good thing.
I am not advocating that people be employed doing useless work (although the thought had crossed my mind). Rather, I would change the concept of productivity to include minimizing unemployment. Simply put, this may and probably does conflict with efficiency in production. But it many not conflict with social well-being. Where social well-being is partly defined as minimizing unemployment.
Again, consider a rather simple example. If there are two people working on building a car, then both of them have disposable income to purchase goods and services. If only one person is employed then of course then number of people that contributes to economic activity has gone done. So disposable income has gone down and thus other consumer industries have been impacted.
So why is this important and does it really matter?
In an isolated environment, meaning in a country with limited external trade, then I suppose we could maximize economic activity by limiting efficiency and unemployment. But with globalization and companies with a high degree of trans-national activity, maximizing the economic well-being of any specific country is not a high priority. Maximizing profits is, and that could be at the cost of higher unemployment in one country while employing more people in another country.
So this is a prelude to discussing large trans-national corporations such as GE who have no or very limited sovereign loyalty. In other words they don't care if they create unemployment by moving their labor force around to different countries as long as they maximize their profits. For example, GE moving jobs from the US to other countries certainly contributes to unemployment in the US. But what does it care? As long as it can maintain or increase sales world-wide then increasing unemployment (in the US for example) but increasing profit is a good thing.
OK, so I dealt with productivity and globalization and efficieny. Maybe it was a little disconnected. What I want to do is create/examine policies whereby a country can use a measure of productivity that includes unemployment as a mechanism to limit the impact of globalization on it's economic well-being. In other words, keep the jobs at home.
Friday, November 25, 2011
World War 1, Imperialism, and Current Nation-States
Having just celebrated a holiday rooted in World War 1, it might be interesting to understand the consequences of that conflict. WWI ended on the eleventh month, eleventh day, eleventh hour, thus November 11th.
Given that WW2 is usually more explored and WWI is relegated as some ancient conflict, it is interesting to note how much of today's trouble spots are based on decisions made by Imperial powers post WWI. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan, all created by the winning side, the then European Imperial powers. In this case mostly Britain and France, but others were involved as well.
So why do the Western powers persistent in maintaining the nation-state charade?
Certainly it was not the case in the former Yugoslavia. There the country was split mostly along ethanic lines. So why not Iraq? Why not Afganistan? Especially in the case of Afganistan, it is a hodgepodge of ethnic groups. In the case of Libya, it was created by Italy from three former Ottoman provinces.
Let the people decide, not unlike the case of the newly formed state of South Sudan.
Given that WW2 is usually more explored and WWI is relegated as some ancient conflict, it is interesting to note how much of today's trouble spots are based on decisions made by Imperial powers post WWI. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan, all created by the winning side, the then European Imperial powers. In this case mostly Britain and France, but others were involved as well.
So why do the Western powers persistent in maintaining the nation-state charade?
Certainly it was not the case in the former Yugoslavia. There the country was split mostly along ethanic lines. So why not Iraq? Why not Afganistan? Especially in the case of Afganistan, it is a hodgepodge of ethnic groups. In the case of Libya, it was created by Italy from three former Ottoman provinces.
Let the people decide, not unlike the case of the newly formed state of South Sudan.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Is Europe Doomed?
The simple answer is "of course not". Europe still has much going for it, certainly a large population, albeit an aging one. There is still much technology and now-how in many of the European countries. And certainly a stable lifestyle that is still in demand by many immigrants.
As the saying goes, you learn by your mistakes not by your successes. Certainly, the recent mistakes encountered by a collection of nations with different languages and cultures is huge. But I do believe that there is a desire to have a notion of a "collective" Europe. Of course, different nations have different views of that means. Does this mean a common currency, common government, no passport required? Depends on who you ask.
Europe has lots of potential, but that is meaningless unless that potential is applied. The idea of a cooperative union among european counties is wonderful. This certainly is an alternative to the wars that were inflicted on the continent during the last century. The devastation brought on the continent is something that the peolple of Europe desire to avoid.
Europe is a continent that is a polyglot which makes integration highly difficult. It does not share a common language or cultural identity the way China or the US do. Can a linguistically and culturally diverse set of nations come together under a single cohesive union? Can there me a modicum of mutual trust the transcends old rivalries and prejudices? Time will tell.
The financial crises exposes bad economic management, but that is no different from what is happening in the US. If the powers that be in Europe can deal, and not resolve because resolution is probably impossible, then maybe there is hope. If a major crisis is avoided then maybe Europe can move forward towards integration albeit at a much slower, wiser pace.
As the saying goes, you learn by your mistakes not by your successes. Certainly, the recent mistakes encountered by a collection of nations with different languages and cultures is huge. But I do believe that there is a desire to have a notion of a "collective" Europe. Of course, different nations have different views of that means. Does this mean a common currency, common government, no passport required? Depends on who you ask.
Europe has lots of potential, but that is meaningless unless that potential is applied. The idea of a cooperative union among european counties is wonderful. This certainly is an alternative to the wars that were inflicted on the continent during the last century. The devastation brought on the continent is something that the peolple of Europe desire to avoid.
Europe is a continent that is a polyglot which makes integration highly difficult. It does not share a common language or cultural identity the way China or the US do. Can a linguistically and culturally diverse set of nations come together under a single cohesive union? Can there me a modicum of mutual trust the transcends old rivalries and prejudices? Time will tell.
The financial crises exposes bad economic management, but that is no different from what is happening in the US. If the powers that be in Europe can deal, and not resolve because resolution is probably impossible, then maybe there is hope. If a major crisis is avoided then maybe Europe can move forward towards integration albeit at a much slower, wiser pace.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Teaching new tricks
Past experience is certainly a guide to the future. And as the old cliche goes, "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it", and so we are at this age where economists are trying to figure out what happened and what new models we should be using to predict the future, at least the economic one.
Over a year ago, I wrote about problems facing Greece. In as much as the problems in Greece are economic, they are also social. We accept conditions as they are as long as they do not impact our day to day activities. Well, the economic infrastructure was bound to collapse. Too much borrowing. And now the economics dictate the behavior of society. I guess the simple moral of the story is live within your means. I wonder if that lesson is lost these days. And is the US doomed to follow Greece.
Over a year ago, I wrote about problems facing Greece. In as much as the problems in Greece are economic, they are also social. We accept conditions as they are as long as they do not impact our day to day activities. Well, the economic infrastructure was bound to collapse. Too much borrowing. And now the economics dictate the behavior of society. I guess the simple moral of the story is live within your means. I wonder if that lesson is lost these days. And is the US doomed to follow Greece.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The iPAD and I ... Part 1
Best thing since sliced bread? Well, maybe. So a quick summary of my current opinion.
OK, I like my iPAD very much. Perhaps Apple should have named it the iPED for Personal Entertainment Device, it really is a wonderful gadget. So why do I like it so much? For one it is highly portable, no mouse, no physical keyboard. The UI (user interface) is very nice. I suppose since I never owned an iPOD, the UI is new to me. The use of icons for programs and Web pages is very handy. The browser is very nice, very capable even without FLASH.
I do have a couple of issues mostly minor at this point.
For one, there does seem to be a problem with the browser, if you have a window within your main window, it does not scroll. This is very annoying, there are a variety of sites that use this feature, for example, a menu might be a "subwindow" in the main window, you only get to see the top portion. In fact there are many lists that are used by some WEB sites where you get to see only the top part.
Second, if you browse a book on Amazon, you have the option to look at front cover, back cover, table of contents, first few pages of the book and perhaps a few pages randomly selected. Like the previous issue, the browser does not handle this very well. You can see the top 2/3rds of the page but not the rest. So after viewing the partial table of contents pages, the text pages of the book get squished. Very annoying. I have tried the Amazon app, specifically fitted for the iPxDs but I still prefer the Amazon Web site.
Third, this is probably by design, the keyboard as far as I can tell does not support a "backspace". Yes it does have a backspace that earses but not a cursor backspace. You have to use your fingers to position the cursor. This makes editing annoying as you can't fix a error in the middle of a string without some ackward finger positioning.
In any case, these seem relatively minor issues as compared to the entire package. So, if you don't have an iPOD but enjoy surfing the Web without being tied to an ackward laptop or even a NetPC, I suggest you get one.
OK, I like my iPAD very much. Perhaps Apple should have named it the iPED for Personal Entertainment Device, it really is a wonderful gadget. So why do I like it so much? For one it is highly portable, no mouse, no physical keyboard. The UI (user interface) is very nice. I suppose since I never owned an iPOD, the UI is new to me. The use of icons for programs and Web pages is very handy. The browser is very nice, very capable even without FLASH.
I do have a couple of issues mostly minor at this point.
For one, there does seem to be a problem with the browser, if you have a window within your main window, it does not scroll. This is very annoying, there are a variety of sites that use this feature, for example, a menu might be a "subwindow" in the main window, you only get to see the top portion. In fact there are many lists that are used by some WEB sites where you get to see only the top part.
Second, if you browse a book on Amazon, you have the option to look at front cover, back cover, table of contents, first few pages of the book and perhaps a few pages randomly selected. Like the previous issue, the browser does not handle this very well. You can see the top 2/3rds of the page but not the rest. So after viewing the partial table of contents pages, the text pages of the book get squished. Very annoying. I have tried the Amazon app, specifically fitted for the iPxDs but I still prefer the Amazon Web site.
Third, this is probably by design, the keyboard as far as I can tell does not support a "backspace". Yes it does have a backspace that earses but not a cursor backspace. You have to use your fingers to position the cursor. This makes editing annoying as you can't fix a error in the middle of a string without some ackward finger positioning.
In any case, these seem relatively minor issues as compared to the entire package. So, if you don't have an iPOD but enjoy surfing the Web without being tied to an ackward laptop or even a NetPC, I suggest you get one.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Illinois ... An American Joke
In a previous post I wrote about the monetary issues plaguing Illinois. Well it has not gotten any better. By the end of June, the state needs to pay over $7 BILLION which it does not have. According to the following article, "Mr. Quinn presented a budget in March that would still leave the state with a $10.6 billion deficit. ". Mr. Quinn is the current governor of Illinois.
So if you think Illinois bares no resamblance to Greece, think again. Once Illinois has to make deep cuts to its budget, will there be people with bricks in the streets. I guess we will see.
But as in Greece the legislature is unwilling to make appropriate changes to how money is spent. Acting in a cowardly fashion, saving their electoral skins, they will defer making important decisions until it is too late.
"Illinois Comptroller Daniel Hynes said in his April report that the state's cash position for the quarter ending June 30 "looks exceedingly difficult." By June 10, Illinois must repay $1.75 billion, plus interest, in short-term borrowing.
Meanwhile, the state still owes billions of dollars to hospitals, universities, social-service providers and others. Mr. Hynes said the state's backlog of unpaid bills probably will exceed $5.5 billion at the end of June."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703686304575228582377071698.html?mod=WSJ_article_LatestHeadlines
So if you think Illinois bares no resamblance to Greece, think again. Once Illinois has to make deep cuts to its budget, will there be people with bricks in the streets. I guess we will see.
But as in Greece the legislature is unwilling to make appropriate changes to how money is spent. Acting in a cowardly fashion, saving their electoral skins, they will defer making important decisions until it is too late.
"Illinois Comptroller Daniel Hynes said in his April report that the state's cash position for the quarter ending June 30 "looks exceedingly difficult." By June 10, Illinois must repay $1.75 billion, plus interest, in short-term borrowing.
Meanwhile, the state still owes billions of dollars to hospitals, universities, social-service providers and others. Mr. Hynes said the state's backlog of unpaid bills probably will exceed $5.5 billion at the end of June."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703686304575228582377071698.html?mod=WSJ_article_LatestHeadlines
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Can the military keep its edge?
As nations scramble for raw materials, the US military is thrown into the fray. As China and India as well as the rest of the world demands more raw materials, the US military must deal
with limited quantities of resources scattered around the world.
More to be said on this topic later. But the following article illustrates the current predicament for the Defense Dept.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608104575220112898707130.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEForthNews
with limited quantities of resources scattered around the world.
More to be said on this topic later. But the following article illustrates the current predicament for the Defense Dept.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608104575220112898707130.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEForthNews
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Republicans are Anarchists
Whatever happened to the party of "Law and Order"?
Growing up during the Vietnam War, the Left was considered anti-government and the Right was pro-government. How times have changed.
Democrats are accused of becoming socialist because they support government rules to manage an orderly process in the governance of the country. At the same time, Republicans have become the party of removing government rules that manage orderly regulatory laws. They seem to prefer a lawless, "wild-west" approach to medical and financial approaches to the US economy.
So in the grand scheme of things, if Democrats are portrayed as the party of Socialism, then Republicans should be portrayed as Anarchists.
Anarchists support an anti-government society. That to me is certainly the mindset of the Republican party. Why have laws?
This push for an anti-government philosophy seems to have been pushed by right-wing extremists. It seems, looking at developments over the past several months, that Republicans accepted an opportunity to join groups opposed to Barack Obama. Whether the opposition is beneficial for the country seems secondary, the focus seems to be to oppose Obama at any cost.
Thus as an alliance of convenience in opposition to Obama, Republicans connected with these right-wings extremists. Is this the best for the country or just people with a grudge seems unclear. Similarly what is the connection with respect to the Republican party with the "Tea Party" movement and the rise of "militias".
So looking into the future, will Republicans become ever more polarized by continuing to promulgate an anti-government philosophy? Or will they distance themselves from the fringe splinter groups such as the "Tea Party".
Taking back government? Less taxes? What does this mean other than empty slogans. Perhaps someone can explain what taking back government means. Less taxes? Under Eisenhower and Kennedy the upper end of the tax rate was 92%, it is now somewhere around 35%. I do believe the US was not socialist under Eisenhower.
"Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2] It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations." [from Wikipedia]
Growing up during the Vietnam War, the Left was considered anti-government and the Right was pro-government. How times have changed.
Democrats are accused of becoming socialist because they support government rules to manage an orderly process in the governance of the country. At the same time, Republicans have become the party of removing government rules that manage orderly regulatory laws. They seem to prefer a lawless, "wild-west" approach to medical and financial approaches to the US economy.
So in the grand scheme of things, if Democrats are portrayed as the party of Socialism, then Republicans should be portrayed as Anarchists.
Anarchists support an anti-government society. That to me is certainly the mindset of the Republican party. Why have laws?
This push for an anti-government philosophy seems to have been pushed by right-wing extremists. It seems, looking at developments over the past several months, that Republicans accepted an opportunity to join groups opposed to Barack Obama. Whether the opposition is beneficial for the country seems secondary, the focus seems to be to oppose Obama at any cost.
Thus as an alliance of convenience in opposition to Obama, Republicans connected with these right-wings extremists. Is this the best for the country or just people with a grudge seems unclear. Similarly what is the connection with respect to the Republican party with the "Tea Party" movement and the rise of "militias".
So looking into the future, will Republicans become ever more polarized by continuing to promulgate an anti-government philosophy? Or will they distance themselves from the fringe splinter groups such as the "Tea Party".
Taking back government? Less taxes? What does this mean other than empty slogans. Perhaps someone can explain what taking back government means. Less taxes? Under Eisenhower and Kennedy the upper end of the tax rate was 92%, it is now somewhere around 35%. I do believe the US was not socialist under Eisenhower.
"Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2] It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations." [from Wikipedia]
Sunday, April 11, 2010
A Polish Tragedy
Here is a photo list of the most prominent Poles who lost their lives at Smolensk Airport. The list is from a Polish web site so the language is Polish but it does give a prespective of the lives lost in this tragedy.
http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/150325,21,0,0,1,pokaz.html
http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/150325,21,0,0,1,pokaz.html
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
ACM Competition -- MIT, a loser!
US Universities Can't Compute
A lot of literature has been dedicated to education in the US. Much of the discussion centers around K-12. But maybe we should be looking beyond K-12 and what is happening at our colleges, especially considering the results of the ACM competition. This is in light of the fact that there is a battle going on in the Internet. Cyber-attacks are pervasive. Many of them originating in China allegedly (more on that later).
The ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) is a professional organization dedicated to all things related to computers and computing. Once a year, it hosts a competition among colleges and universities world-wide. The competition deals with solving computer-related problems.
MIT is a loser! Rather a bold statement, but when MIT finishes in the "peloton" of a competition related to computers, maybe it is not so outrageous. In fact MIT finished behind Stanford, Cornell and CMU as far as American entries were concerned. Which themselves finished 14th, 15th, and 17th respectively, although they all are listed as 14th.
So who were the winners? Of the top ten, 4 were from China and 4 were from Russia; the remaining two, one was from Ukraine (#4) and the other was from Poland (#8).
While winning competitions is not a predictor of the ability of a nation to deal with the issues of Internet security, it does point out the strength of students and potentially the future workforce for all things Internet. This includes cyber-attacks and cyber-protection.
The Competition
From the news release:
"The contest took place in Harbin, China with 103 teams competing in the final round. Earlier rounds of the competition included 22,000 contestants representing 1,931 universities from 82 countries. The top four teams won Gold medals as well as employment or internship offers from IBM." [http://www.acm.org/press-room/news-releases/2010/icpc-2010]
The Results
The Problems
The problems are listed under the first column in pdf (finals problems). [http://cm.baylor.edu/welcome.icpc]
iPAD Setup
Just a quick link to what I find is a nice description of dealing with your new iPAD. I continue to believe that the iPAD may change the way we interact with the Internet.
http://gizmodo.com/5508769/how-to-set-up-your-ipad?skyline=true&s=i
http://gizmodo.com/5508769/how-to-set-up-your-ipad?skyline=true&s=i
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Pension Debt
It is amazing that whereever you turn in the US, there are huge amounts of debt. Besides the federal and state spending, consider pension funds in the various states. Furthermore, these pension finds are guaranteed by state constitutions, which means they MUST payout before payroll and other state obligations.
One of the most debt-ridden entities in the US seem to be pension funds. As we have mentioned in the past states like New Jersey have an acculmated pension deficit of $46B and the city of Chicago alone has a pension deficit of $18.5B. While Illinois itself has a pension deficit of $35B. Other states and municipalities are not necessarily in better shape.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-07/news/ct-met-public-pensions-cost-0308-20100307_1_pension-funds-public-pension-funding-deficit
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=8191
And yet the pension funds continue to play Russian roulette with their funds expecting Vegas-like returns. Consider the following item reported in the NY Times. The pension funds "gave" private equity firms $17B just so that they can have illiquid assets.
"The nation’s 10 largest public pension funds have paid private equity firms more than $17 billion in fees since 2000, according to a new analysis conducted for The New York Times, as the funds flocked to these so-called alternative investments in hopes of reaping market-beating returns. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03equity.html]
One of the most debt-ridden entities in the US seem to be pension funds. As we have mentioned in the past states like New Jersey have an acculmated pension deficit of $46B and the city of Chicago alone has a pension deficit of $18.5B. While Illinois itself has a pension deficit of $35B. Other states and municipalities are not necessarily in better shape.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-07/news/ct-met-public-pensions-cost-0308-20100307_1_pension-funds-public-pension-funding-deficit
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=8191
And yet the pension funds continue to play Russian roulette with their funds expecting Vegas-like returns. Consider the following item reported in the NY Times. The pension funds "gave" private equity firms $17B just so that they can have illiquid assets.
"The nation’s 10 largest public pension funds have paid private equity firms more than $17 billion in fees since 2000, according to a new analysis conducted for The New York Times, as the funds flocked to these so-called alternative investments in hopes of reaping market-beating returns. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03equity.html]
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
The end of the week seemed to be a public relations coup for the Obama administration. They exalted in the employment figures which indicated that payrolls rose by 162,000 workers. And all the paundits were saying how the employment numbers grew by the most in 3 years. All this seems to indicate that the recession is over and happy days are here again.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601010&sid=aDCWdea8_JO0
But in my view there is no silver lining, the US continues to live off printing money. This is indicated by the trade deficit numbers. Consider the deficit numbers in January. There was a deficit of $37.3B. As we have preached in the past, the US must become more self sufficient in manufactured goods. While the US struggles to blame China for currency manipulation, there is no effort to try to deal with increasing manufacturing in the US itself. This is akin to blaming the drug supplier for the demand of the drug user. Irrespective of whatever monetary policies the Chinese chose to follow, the US should encourage in every way possible the return of manufacturing items back to the US. The US must relearn to make shoes, shirts, hats,etc.
And while it is necessary not to begrudge anyone getting a job, it is also important to understand that the more money the government throws into the system, the more likely it is that some if not most of that money will leave the US. Thus incentives like federal-back infrastructure jobs (not to mention the current increase of census workers) hire people (a good thing), pay them so that they can spend money on imported necessities. So the government creates more money only to see that money (or a good portion of it) leave its shores. Again this is not sustainable.
So the bottm line, solving the recession or making the US a strong economic (viable) country is NOT about more jobs, it is about creating an environment so that manufacturing companies are more likely to build in the US. Once that is done, the jobs will come!
"The U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, through the Departmentof Commerce, announced today that total January exports of $142.7 billion and imports of$180.0 billion resulted in a goods and services deficit of $37.3 billion, down from $39.9billion in December, revised. January exports were $0.5 billion less than December exportsof $143.2 billion. January imports were $3.1 billion less than December imports of $183.1billion."
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/tradnewsrelease.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601010&sid=aDCWdea8_JO0
But in my view there is no silver lining, the US continues to live off printing money. This is indicated by the trade deficit numbers. Consider the deficit numbers in January. There was a deficit of $37.3B. As we have preached in the past, the US must become more self sufficient in manufactured goods. While the US struggles to blame China for currency manipulation, there is no effort to try to deal with increasing manufacturing in the US itself. This is akin to blaming the drug supplier for the demand of the drug user. Irrespective of whatever monetary policies the Chinese chose to follow, the US should encourage in every way possible the return of manufacturing items back to the US. The US must relearn to make shoes, shirts, hats,etc.
And while it is necessary not to begrudge anyone getting a job, it is also important to understand that the more money the government throws into the system, the more likely it is that some if not most of that money will leave the US. Thus incentives like federal-back infrastructure jobs (not to mention the current increase of census workers) hire people (a good thing), pay them so that they can spend money on imported necessities. So the government creates more money only to see that money (or a good portion of it) leave its shores. Again this is not sustainable.
So the bottm line, solving the recession or making the US a strong economic (viable) country is NOT about more jobs, it is about creating an environment so that manufacturing companies are more likely to build in the US. Once that is done, the jobs will come!
"The U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, through the Departmentof Commerce, announced today that total January exports of $142.7 billion and imports of$180.0 billion resulted in a goods and services deficit of $37.3 billion, down from $39.9billion in December, revised. January exports were $0.5 billion less than December exportsof $143.2 billion. January imports were $3.1 billion less than December imports of $183.1billion."
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/tradnewsrelease.htm
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
And then there is California - $20 Billion Deficit
Not to be outdone, there is California with a $20 Billion deficit. One problem that is inherent in the system is that we have been living in a dream world of sustained growth and thus more revenue from taxes. But all the money is in China (more on that later). With China holding $3 Trillion, because of the trade deficit, that is money that is not taxable.
"Our forecast of California’s General Fund revenues and expenditures shows that the state must address a General Fund budget problem of $20.7 billion between now and the time the Legislature enacts a 2010–11 state budget plan. The budget problem consists of a $6.3 billion projected deficit for 2009–10 and a $14.4 billion gap between projected revenues and spending in 2010–11. Addressing this large shortfall will require painful choices—on top of the difficult choices the Legislature made earlier this year."
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/bud/fiscal_outlook/fiscal_outlook_111809.aspx
"Our forecast of California’s General Fund revenues and expenditures shows that the state must address a General Fund budget problem of $20.7 billion between now and the time the Legislature enacts a 2010–11 state budget plan. The budget problem consists of a $6.3 billion projected deficit for 2009–10 and a $14.4 billion gap between projected revenues and spending in 2010–11. Addressing this large shortfall will require painful choices—on top of the difficult choices the Legislature made earlier this year."
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/bud/fiscal_outlook/fiscal_outlook_111809.aspx
New Jersey - Take 2
Earlier we wrote of the about the deficit haunting New Jersey. It seems that it was just part of the story. It did not take account of the pension fund which has an accumulated deficit of $46 billion.
Not to pick on NJ, but this shows the predicament that states have gotten themselves into. With few exceptions, most of the country faces similar problems.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-25/new-jersey-pension-deficit-grows-to-46-billion-update2-.html
Not to pick on NJ, but this shows the predicament that states have gotten themselves into. With few exceptions, most of the country faces similar problems.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-25/new-jersey-pension-deficit-grows-to-46-billion-update2-.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)