Dear Sirs and Madams,
You may not have expected it, but Vanity Fair provided the most readable explanation for the financial collapse in Iceland. This article by Michael Lewis in April of this year gave a very detailed and meticulous analysis of Iceland's woes.
I found the following passage extremely interesting:
"This insight is what led Iceland to go from being one of the poorest countries in Europe circa 1900 to being one of the richest circa 2000. Iceland’s big change began in the early 1970s, after a couple of years when the fish catch was terrible. The best fishermen returned for a second year in a row without their usual haul of cod and haddock, so the Icelandic government took radical action: they privatized the fish. Each fisherman was assigned a quota, based roughly on his historical catches. If you were a big-time Icelandic fisherman you got this piece of paper that entitled you to, say, 1 percent of the total catch allowed to be pulled from Iceland’s waters that season. Before each season the scientists at the Marine Research Institute would determine the total number of cod or haddock that could be caught without damaging the long-term health of the fish population; from year to year, the numbers of fish you could catch changed. But your percentage of the annual haul was fixed, and this piece of paper entitled you to it in perpetuity.
Even better, if you didn’t want to fish you could sell your quota to someone who did. The quotas thus drifted into the hands of the people to whom they were of the greatest value, the best fishermen, who could extract the fish from the sea with maximum efficiency. You could also take your quota to the bank and borrow against it, and the bank had no trouble assigning a dollar value to your share of the cod pulled, without competition, from the richest cod-fishing grounds on earth. The fish had not only been privatized, they had been securitized.
It was horribly unfair: a public resource—all the fish in the Icelandic sea—was simply turned over to a handful of lucky Icelanders. Overnight, Iceland had its first billionaires, and they were all fishermen. But as social policy it was ingenious: in a single stroke the fish became a source of real, sustainable wealth rather than shaky sustenance. Fewer people were spending less effort catching more or less precisely the right number of fish to maximize the long-term value of Iceland’s fishing grounds."
Perhaps Michael Lewis is on to something in terms of saving the global stock of fish. The quota system and the government regulation of the fish population is great and all, but my reservation is that it does not solve the issue of fishermen dumping dead fish overboard. I cannot say that I am an expert on the economy of fishing, so I will shut up now.
I hope the sushi fifty years from now won't be too expensive...
Best,
Yong Kwon
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Coffee house economics
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Studies show that women are far better than men in predicting the flow of finance. My mother is no exception.
I was conversing with her over Skype when she shared with me her insight on price and wealth.
In my current residence in Cairo I have noticed the great disparity of prices even within the downtown area. A bottle of water which on average costs less than a dollar (4 LE) in a local Egyptian hotel lobby or shop easily becomes three or four times in tourist destinations. This makes absolute sense, a tourist is willing to pay a higher price because even the inflated price is equal to or below what he is used to back home. However, upon closer observation, this disparity in prices appear as a symptom of a wider problem.
Why are the tourists unable to leave their hotels and take advantage of the cheaper products? Tourist destinations like the Egyptian antiquities museum is not like a sports stadium where you are not allowed to bring in anything nor is it the case that you cannot reenter once you exit the compound. There are many shops across the street from the museum that sell bottles of water for a cheaper price, yet the tourists opt for the more expensive shops within the museum compound.
From what I have seen, I believe that the tourists are absolutely frightened by Egyptian society. The streets are filled with trash and the traffic system is an absolute nightmare. On top of this women have a legitimate cause to be afraid of Egypt. Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights in July 2008 reported that 98 percent of foreign women and 60 percent of Egyptian women are harassed on a daily basis. Another report from the government stated that 47 percent of married women between 15 and 49 are subjected at least once to physical violence.
As a result, tourists travel in packs and never come face to face with the real Egyptian society. The shops in tourist destinations are able to take advantage of the tourists’ fears and sell at prices that seem absurd for Egypt’s cost of living, keeping the Egyptians out. Furthermore, the wealth from tourism is never spread among the masses despite the presence of cheaper local shops across the street or closer.
While my family lived in Amsterdam my mother observed that the price for a cup of coffee in Amstelveen, a suburb of Amsterdam, was the same as one in downtown Amsterdam. The reason for this is because the flow of tourists and population is unregulated by the risk of hazard in the Netherlands. A person is as likely to go to a bar in Amstelveen as she is to go to a bar in Amsterdam because there are no major inhibiting factors.
If Egypt truly wishes to maximize its return from the vast number of tourists it needs to shape up and make serious changes. People need to take care of their own streets and stop pestering foreigners for tips. The dispersion of the tourists into Egyptian society will bolster not only the wealth of the local people but also ease the travel expenses of the tourists themselves.
I say the first step will be to establish a democracy. More on this later.
Best,
Yong Kwon
p.s. an interesting article here
Monday, June 8, 2009
Dear God...
Dear Sirs and Madams,
The results for the European elections are in and I have become more worried for this world than before the elections. Not only was the voter turnout a historic low this year (43%), but the Europeans also managed to put anti-immigration and racist groups, like the British National Party, into the parliament. While these radical right groups hardly constitute a force to be reckoned with, I feel this is a serious sign of popular sentiments in Europe.
At the same time, no one has stepped forward to make any significant moves to tackle the big problems. The green paper, published by the European Commission, admits that 88% of European fish stocks are overexploited and 30% have collapsed. No serious voices advocate for the dismantling of NATO or to protect refugees.
Do the European want a closed continent? They clearly don't mind keeping the spoils of their plunder and further victimizing those who have escaped the inner-circles of hell that some EU member states have helped create.
The EU elections have been a step back for liberty.
Best,
Yong Kwon
The results for the European elections are in and I have become more worried for this world than before the elections. Not only was the voter turnout a historic low this year (43%), but the Europeans also managed to put anti-immigration and racist groups, like the British National Party, into the parliament. While these radical right groups hardly constitute a force to be reckoned with, I feel this is a serious sign of popular sentiments in Europe.
At the same time, no one has stepped forward to make any significant moves to tackle the big problems. The green paper, published by the European Commission, admits that 88% of European fish stocks are overexploited and 30% have collapsed. No serious voices advocate for the dismantling of NATO or to protect refugees.
Do the European want a closed continent? They clearly don't mind keeping the spoils of their plunder and further victimizing those who have escaped the inner-circles of hell that some EU member states have helped create.
The EU elections have been a step back for liberty.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Sunday, June 7, 2009
My answer is a resounding NO!
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Niall Ferguson, bless his Scottish heart, is a fantastic historian and has produced incredible analyses of the 19th and 20th centuries. I've read a few of his books and they never cease to awe me. I particularly found his public dismissal of advocates for the use of the word "islamofascism" refreshing. Nonetheless, I have to disagree with his assessment that the British sacrifice of its own empire to stop the German and Japanese empires should absolve Britain of all its other sins. He furthers his claim in a debate amongst a few historians that the alternative to a world with a British hegemony was one ruled by a worse empire like Russia or Germany. After all, says Niall Ferguson, look at all the contributions from the British Empire like the financial establishments and global trade. I would like to state my resounding rejection of this apology for the British Empire.
I like England. I love it for Oxford University, the House of Commons, the cozy country cottages with a trout filled creek running beside it, etc. However, I must be cruel to English history for I believe too many English historians, including Niall Ferguson, have not been critical enough with it. When faced with criticisms regarding British rule over India, Niall Ferguson responded by arguing that the alternative, a potential Russian rule over India, would not have been more favorable to the Indians. Regarding a Russian occupation of India, there has never been a serious Russian attempt to advance south of the Hindu Kush. Ferguson played the tune of the age old myth that the Russian are driven by a search for a warm water port. The same epidemic of Russophobia in the mid 19th century caused diplomats like Stratford Cannings to exacerbate the negotiations between the Ottomans and the Russians, sparking the Crimean War. Forget geopolitics, the Crimean War was fought to defend British and French interests in the Mediterranean against an enemy who had no intentions of making a serious challenge to Egypt or the Mediterranean. Clearly, Ferguson is still struggling to defend his empire from imaginary threats.
Yes, Britain fought tooth and nail against Nazi Germans and the Japanese, but it was the expanse of the British Empire itself that provoked the militarists to pursue a policy of expanding their own lebensraum. The political and economic conditions that sparked the World Wars can be epitomized by the British Empire. What, absolve? How about taking part of the blame?
A great point was brought up by historian Eric Hobsbaum regarding Ferguson's claim on the spread of the financial institutions and capitalism. The Latin American republics had an intimate trading relationship with Britain, with much investments and loans traveling across the Atlantic, yet they were never under British colonial occupation like the Indians or the Egyptians. Therefore, the colonial institutions were not necessary for the transfer of capitalism and free trade. (I despise arguments made on the economic contributions of imperial masters to their colonial subjects)
Eric Hobsbaum made a great point, but missed the bigger picture. The economic system that the British Empire enforced was never free. Mike Davis, the author of Late Victorian Holocausts, writes that the export of 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat was maintained by the British viceroy in India during the 1870s despite the drought in the Deccan plateau. Between 12 and 29 million people died, a feat unsurpassed until the horrors of the 20th century. By creating taxes and restrictions on key essential commodities (such as salt) the British created an unfair system where the society could not function and produce efficiently. These unfair conditions destroyed indigenous entrepreneurs that had once traversed the Indian Ocean to trade. One could say that the British did more to impoverish the Indians than any other European empire that had set foot on India.
Furthermore, the British government's apathy towards the human suffering resulting from the famines they helped create is a serious indictment. The British intensified the famine by refusing to allow Indians to have a voice in the politics as Amartya Sen notes:
"Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence … they disappeared suddenly with the establishment of a multiparty democracy and a free press. … a free press and an active political opposition constitute the best early-warning system a country threaten by famines can have"
Not only did Britain stunt Indian prosperity, but it was also an accomplice in killing Indians during the droughts. Colonialism was a social, political, and economic killer of nations. Ferguson would ask "But would the Mughals have done better?". Why yes, they might well have done better without exporting millions of tons of grain while the people are starving or turning land for food production into land for cash crops.
Unless, one is prepared to establish a price for human life, I think it is fair to say that Britain's overall performance during its imperial rule over the quarter of the world was less than honorable and not so well minded.
Godspeed,
Yong Kwon
Niall Ferguson, bless his Scottish heart, is a fantastic historian and has produced incredible analyses of the 19th and 20th centuries. I've read a few of his books and they never cease to awe me. I particularly found his public dismissal of advocates for the use of the word "islamofascism" refreshing. Nonetheless, I have to disagree with his assessment that the British sacrifice of its own empire to stop the German and Japanese empires should absolve Britain of all its other sins. He furthers his claim in a debate amongst a few historians that the alternative to a world with a British hegemony was one ruled by a worse empire like Russia or Germany. After all, says Niall Ferguson, look at all the contributions from the British Empire like the financial establishments and global trade. I would like to state my resounding rejection of this apology for the British Empire.
I like England. I love it for Oxford University, the House of Commons, the cozy country cottages with a trout filled creek running beside it, etc. However, I must be cruel to English history for I believe too many English historians, including Niall Ferguson, have not been critical enough with it. When faced with criticisms regarding British rule over India, Niall Ferguson responded by arguing that the alternative, a potential Russian rule over India, would not have been more favorable to the Indians. Regarding a Russian occupation of India, there has never been a serious Russian attempt to advance south of the Hindu Kush. Ferguson played the tune of the age old myth that the Russian are driven by a search for a warm water port. The same epidemic of Russophobia in the mid 19th century caused diplomats like Stratford Cannings to exacerbate the negotiations between the Ottomans and the Russians, sparking the Crimean War. Forget geopolitics, the Crimean War was fought to defend British and French interests in the Mediterranean against an enemy who had no intentions of making a serious challenge to Egypt or the Mediterranean. Clearly, Ferguson is still struggling to defend his empire from imaginary threats.
Yes, Britain fought tooth and nail against Nazi Germans and the Japanese, but it was the expanse of the British Empire itself that provoked the militarists to pursue a policy of expanding their own lebensraum. The political and economic conditions that sparked the World Wars can be epitomized by the British Empire. What, absolve? How about taking part of the blame?
A great point was brought up by historian Eric Hobsbaum regarding Ferguson's claim on the spread of the financial institutions and capitalism. The Latin American republics had an intimate trading relationship with Britain, with much investments and loans traveling across the Atlantic, yet they were never under British colonial occupation like the Indians or the Egyptians. Therefore, the colonial institutions were not necessary for the transfer of capitalism and free trade. (I despise arguments made on the economic contributions of imperial masters to their colonial subjects)
Eric Hobsbaum made a great point, but missed the bigger picture. The economic system that the British Empire enforced was never free. Mike Davis, the author of Late Victorian Holocausts, writes that the export of 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat was maintained by the British viceroy in India during the 1870s despite the drought in the Deccan plateau. Between 12 and 29 million people died, a feat unsurpassed until the horrors of the 20th century. By creating taxes and restrictions on key essential commodities (such as salt) the British created an unfair system where the society could not function and produce efficiently. These unfair conditions destroyed indigenous entrepreneurs that had once traversed the Indian Ocean to trade. One could say that the British did more to impoverish the Indians than any other European empire that had set foot on India.
Furthermore, the British government's apathy towards the human suffering resulting from the famines they helped create is a serious indictment. The British intensified the famine by refusing to allow Indians to have a voice in the politics as Amartya Sen notes:
"Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence … they disappeared suddenly with the establishment of a multiparty democracy and a free press. … a free press and an active political opposition constitute the best early-warning system a country threaten by famines can have"
Not only did Britain stunt Indian prosperity, but it was also an accomplice in killing Indians during the droughts. Colonialism was a social, political, and economic killer of nations. Ferguson would ask "But would the Mughals have done better?". Why yes, they might well have done better without exporting millions of tons of grain while the people are starving or turning land for food production into land for cash crops.
Unless, one is prepared to establish a price for human life, I think it is fair to say that Britain's overall performance during its imperial rule over the quarter of the world was less than honorable and not so well minded.
Godspeed,
Yong Kwon
Friday, June 5, 2009
On the future of the European Union
.gif)
Dear Sirs and Madams,
As results come in from all over Europe for the European Union Parliament elections, I have a quick shout out to those that live in EU member states.
Denizens of the EU have a crucial role in this time of increasing volatility. The $50 billion of agricultural subsidies from the European Union are keeping other farmers in much worse of regions of the world from being able to access the food market. Their despair will transform into violence as it did for the fisherman in Somalia.
European Union and its member governments’ refusal to confront the fishing lobbies and decommission the excess boats encourages mass poaching in areas like Senegal and Somalia. One must recognize that this is a self destructive act that will only decrease the available fish in waters around Europe. As the Senegalese starve and the Somalis take up arms against international shipping, the European fishing boats are digging their own graves.
However, it is not just those beyond the borders of the European Union that face injustices waged upon them, sanctioned by the EU. There has to be a system of accountability which ensures the practice of adopted legislations regarding human rights and equal treatment. I do not wish the European Union to take on more federal power, so I beseech individuals in the EU to take it upon themelves to demand from their governments to ensure the liberty, equality, and justice for all.
All, including immigrants and refugees, many of whom have escaped hell-on-earth only to find themselves in shanty towns made of card board boxes, hunted down by the host government and ostracized by the local communities. Redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor will inevitably occur under a free market and it is the most efficient, moral, and peaceful way to make the whole world a lot more prosperous. Your alternative is to await the violence unleashed by honest, hard working people whose only fault is that they were on the receiving end of the unfair and illiberal market conditions. I assure you that the losses in the former scenario to be insignificant, especially compared to the latter. Besides for the European nations whose population is decreasing who will pay for today’s young when they become pensioners?
Lastly, take the first step to disestablish NATO. There is no reason for its existence nor a European Union army, it will only provoke further tensions with Russia. Russia could probably use some help from the European Union. If people are so concerned with immigrants maybe Europe should look into diagnosing the issues after complaining about the symptoms for so long.
That goes for everything else as well.
Ah, I rant.
I hope you will not find offense in the above criticisms. I have tremendous respect for the European Union’s stance on all sort of things from humane treatment of animals to its position on ensuring the safety of food products. However, certain actions undertaken by the EU really damages the world and I believe it is important for the constituents of the EU to recognize those serious problems. The Common Agricultural Policy is under review regarding its subsidies and it has been promised to the world that it will be diminished. The Economist picked up the problem with fishing and it should be now on the minds of the politicians who have the means to change the situation. Everything necessary for Europe to finally lurch forward on the liberal path to global prosperity is present. Now the European Union constituents must send the right people into power.
They better, the livelihoods of many people depend on it.
I wish the old continent good luck.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Saturday, May 30, 2009
This aggression will not stand, man
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Historicism dictates that the specific rhetoric utilized in deliberating our moral dilemmas indicates our society’s attitude, culture, and values. Observing the political language since and before the Bush administration betrays something highly disturbing. Enshrouded within the popular rhetoric exist the oppressive institutionalized suppositions that falsely pose as mediums for debate while marginalizing independent assessment.
Observe the value of justice. The debate in the popular media following the invasion of Iraq was whether or not the war in Iraq was just. However, to even contemplate the matter seems redundant. It is absolutely unjust for any state actor to contemplate the exchange value of individuals' lives and demean the basis of life, liberty, and justice by sacrificing innocent civilians without their consent. To debate whether or not a specific war is unjust would be to imply the plausibility of certain wars to be just.
The very fact that we have a rhetorical medium in place that could possibly justify war is unsightly. Presupposing that wars ‘should be just’ alters the inherent nature of war and undermines the premise of any argument against war. This makes any engagement in a debate a concession.
With this semantic shift, war itself enters into a definitive crisis. It goes from a form of excessive brutality to a legitimate solution, bolstered by human rationale. Robert McNamara said that the problem with war is that the human race have not yet grappled with the rules of war. However, how do we produce civility out of something that is inherently uncivil. Today, official terminologies such as “smart bombs” and “minimized collateral damage” work to exacerbate the basic fallacy in society’s perception of war.
Rationalization of war is not a modern construct, but there is a clear difference in rhetoric used in the past and today. When Britain engaged France during the Napoleonic War, Pitt never proclaimed that British victory would in any way better the French people. To the extent of my knowledge, even during the Second World War, the Allied forces never used the liberation of the German people from Nazism as a cause for war. In fact, the only precedence upon which the western civilization took it upon themselves to impose the benefits of war upon the opposing peoples was during the brutal imperial aggression against the peoples of colonial possessions.
The misuse the utilitarian value to justify war is a modern construct and is rooted in the perverse language used by the imperial powers with racist presuppositions. Journalist and author Chris Hedges writes that war "corrupts language... preoccupied with the grim perversities of smut and death". War rhetoric and war stories are addictive. Moral philosophers like Adam Smith recognized this danger in the Wealth of Nations. This corruption of reasoning through attractive rhetoric may be best depicted in the Coen brothers' movie The Big Lebowski in which the protagonist repeats President Bush's (senior) quip "this aggression will not stand".
We are deeply engaged in the semantic game established for the specific purpose of controlling independent public interpretations and institutionalizing the acceptable debates. Our entire society, regardless of whether or not we are for or against state intervention, has been duped into a trap. An illusion of a plausible ‘just war’ is created by establishing parameters on the rhetoric utilized in debates. The public conscience is effectively limited to a foregone conclusion established by the ideological apparatuses of control. The current mass media perpetuates and consolidates these parameters. For the sake of providing legitimacy to an illegitimate debate, the public rationale was sacrificed, processed, and institutionalized.
As we again charge into Afghanistan and Pakistan with renewed resolve under the new administration, let us not forget that no war is just. There will be many more innocent deaths and lives ruined despite the best intentions of the United States. This is the reality of war and I guarantee there will be unintended consequences.
Let us be always skeptical of our governments' best intentions.
Afterall, intellectual laziness leads to state abuse.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Historicism dictates that the specific rhetoric utilized in deliberating our moral dilemmas indicates our society’s attitude, culture, and values. Observing the political language since and before the Bush administration betrays something highly disturbing. Enshrouded within the popular rhetoric exist the oppressive institutionalized suppositions that falsely pose as mediums for debate while marginalizing independent assessment.
Observe the value of justice. The debate in the popular media following the invasion of Iraq was whether or not the war in Iraq was just. However, to even contemplate the matter seems redundant. It is absolutely unjust for any state actor to contemplate the exchange value of individuals' lives and demean the basis of life, liberty, and justice by sacrificing innocent civilians without their consent. To debate whether or not a specific war is unjust would be to imply the plausibility of certain wars to be just.
The very fact that we have a rhetorical medium in place that could possibly justify war is unsightly. Presupposing that wars ‘should be just’ alters the inherent nature of war and undermines the premise of any argument against war. This makes any engagement in a debate a concession.
With this semantic shift, war itself enters into a definitive crisis. It goes from a form of excessive brutality to a legitimate solution, bolstered by human rationale. Robert McNamara said that the problem with war is that the human race have not yet grappled with the rules of war. However, how do we produce civility out of something that is inherently uncivil. Today, official terminologies such as “smart bombs” and “minimized collateral damage” work to exacerbate the basic fallacy in society’s perception of war.
Rationalization of war is not a modern construct, but there is a clear difference in rhetoric used in the past and today. When Britain engaged France during the Napoleonic War, Pitt never proclaimed that British victory would in any way better the French people. To the extent of my knowledge, even during the Second World War, the Allied forces never used the liberation of the German people from Nazism as a cause for war. In fact, the only precedence upon which the western civilization took it upon themselves to impose the benefits of war upon the opposing peoples was during the brutal imperial aggression against the peoples of colonial possessions.
The misuse the utilitarian value to justify war is a modern construct and is rooted in the perverse language used by the imperial powers with racist presuppositions. Journalist and author Chris Hedges writes that war "corrupts language... preoccupied with the grim perversities of smut and death". War rhetoric and war stories are addictive. Moral philosophers like Adam Smith recognized this danger in the Wealth of Nations. This corruption of reasoning through attractive rhetoric may be best depicted in the Coen brothers' movie The Big Lebowski in which the protagonist repeats President Bush's (senior) quip "this aggression will not stand".
We are deeply engaged in the semantic game established for the specific purpose of controlling independent public interpretations and institutionalizing the acceptable debates. Our entire society, regardless of whether or not we are for or against state intervention, has been duped into a trap. An illusion of a plausible ‘just war’ is created by establishing parameters on the rhetoric utilized in debates. The public conscience is effectively limited to a foregone conclusion established by the ideological apparatuses of control. The current mass media perpetuates and consolidates these parameters. For the sake of providing legitimacy to an illegitimate debate, the public rationale was sacrificed, processed, and institutionalized.
As we again charge into Afghanistan and Pakistan with renewed resolve under the new administration, let us not forget that no war is just. There will be many more innocent deaths and lives ruined despite the best intentions of the United States. This is the reality of war and I guarantee there will be unintended consequences.
Let us be always skeptical of our governments' best intentions.
Afterall, intellectual laziness leads to state abuse.
Best,
Yong Kwon
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules?" - Walter Sobchak from The Big LebowskiSunday, May 24, 2009
Injustice in the eyes of children
Dear Sirs and Madams,
I just reread Roald Dahl's intensely touching short story "The Boy Who Spoke with Animals". To give a brief summary, the story is narrated by an unnamed tourist in the West Indies who witnesses an extraordinary event. A child intervenes upon a group of tourists savaging a giant turtle on the beach. While the pompous tourists are merely concerned with flaunting their masculinity and turtle soup, the child empathizes and communicates with the sea turtle and at the end of the story escapes from the cruel adult world on the back of the giant sea turtle.
I do not know whether or not this was the acclaimed author's intent, but it seemed to me that this short piece was a critical assessment on colonialism. If it was not, its prevailing message on dignity and the straightforwardness of decency pushes a reader of colonial history to evoke the savage injustices of imperialism in all its splendid façade of marble halls, uniforms, steamships, and trains.
The key elements of the story like the setting on a pristine Caribbean island, its beauty sullied by the boorish conducts of English tourists, and its resident-victim, the sea turtle who "was senior to any of [the tourists] in age," all betray a deep sense of injustice that is undetected to the characters save to the narrator and the boy. The savagery of these self-proclaimed civilized gentlemen are made more evident by their gross appearance such as having "exceptionally hairy chest" while the absence of their shirts "was obviously a calculated touch". This unnecessary overcompensation by the self proclaimed heroes and their absurd actions range from attempting to drag the giant turtle by a rope (as they did in the story) to slaughtering thousands over the control of a desert wasteland (as the Europeans actually did). In imperial propaganda literature masculinity was inseparable from heroism and any decent subject of the crown was clearly required to reflect the prowess of the empire through his arrogance. It is an image which Roald Dahl completely lays to waste with his depiction of the tourists' ludicrousness and barbarity. Dahl further highlights the sinful nature of the patronizing tourists by admiring the turtle who while "[the tourists] were discussing [its] destruction, [its] consumption and [its] flavor... seemed, even when upside down, to be extraordinarily dignified." This was imperialism in its truest form.
The hero of this tale is a boy whose unashamed sentiments for another living being made even the most condescending adults to feel as though they were "caught doing something that was not entirely honorable". The simplicity of the boy's virtues rightly brought "a feeling of uneasiness, a touch even of shame" to the so-awesomely-masculine men. The rejection of this cruel adult world by the boy is celebrated by the narrator who rests assured that the boy is "quite happy where he is".
This short story reminds us that at the end of the day what remains unassailable is not quantifiable rationality like gains and losses in capital, but the unadorned and unpretentious nature of mutual respect and learning to enjoy each other's companionship.
Hat off to you Mr. Dahl.
The children had it right all along.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Saturday, May 23, 2009
How a Few remain at the expense of the Many
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Last year, I met the wife of the former Argentine minister of transport. Her husband was once imprisoned under Peron’s regime for refusing to consent to the nationalization of the railways. At the time of my meeting with her (of all the places, at the Bahraini embassy), the hotly debated issue was the plan by President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to nationalize $24 billion of private pension funds. Since then the Argentine senate has passed the project into effect, but it raised serious questions about the role of governments and the intimate relationship between nationalization, populism, and individual liberty.
Populism in Latin America go hand in hand with the policies of industrialization by import substitution (ISI). Many blame this economic model for Latin America’s troubles, yet it is wrong to assume that ISI bears full responsibility. After all, European nations, South Korea, etc. have utilized some form or shape of ISI to establish a robust economy. The problem with ISI in Latin America was the shape it took under politics.
ISI required strict fiscal and monetary policies, applied over an extended period of time while carefully managing foreign loans. What had happened under the helm of populist governments in Latin America was the perversion of ISI for the objective of sustaining political control. Populist governments took advantage of catch phrases like “autonomy” from the economic model and used it to justify expensive projects (like nationalizing the rail which Peron’s minister of transport refused to sanction) in order to rally votes. Evita and Peron presented the most gross example of development derailed by unsustainable and irresponsible public spending. Their policies eventually led to deranged methods of raising revenue such as bullying their own voting base of urban laborers into paying mandatory donations. While the public was squeezed for their every last penny, the ruling elites squandered much of the revenues and loans on private spending. Eva Peron again best represented that abuse of public finances. (which makes me wonder why so many of my female peers admire Evita. Wouldn’t you rather support Mrs. Thatcher, ladies?)
The increasing need for revenue created an over dependency on the ever-less-valuable export of raw materials and development was simply pushed aside. The consequences of the economic disorder permeated into the rest of society making the political atmosphere increasingly unstable. The rest is history.
Returning to the concurrent point on the nationalization of pensions, private pension funds were unpopular, but mainly because the government bullied people into investing 55% of their assets in public debt. The Argentine government still puts on a populist standard by declaring that nationalization will defend future pensioners. Yet, the nationalization was clearly an attempt by the Kirchner administration to grab as much capital as possible for public debt. This is evident in the fact that under voluntary terms only 12% of pensioners opted to return to the state system. This is because Argentines understand the danger of entitling the vital provisions of the many into few hands that are not accountable for their losses.
If it is dignified to make decisions and take responsibilities for one’s own means of survival, then Kirchner’s government has sapped a major element of self worth from the Argentines. Without self worth, is every individual still equally entitled to life, liberty, and justice?
It is a point not just for Argentine pensioners.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Last year, I met the wife of the former Argentine minister of transport. Her husband was once imprisoned under Peron’s regime for refusing to consent to the nationalization of the railways. At the time of my meeting with her (of all the places, at the Bahraini embassy), the hotly debated issue was the plan by President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to nationalize $24 billion of private pension funds. Since then the Argentine senate has passed the project into effect, but it raised serious questions about the role of governments and the intimate relationship between nationalization, populism, and individual liberty.
Populism in Latin America go hand in hand with the policies of industrialization by import substitution (ISI). Many blame this economic model for Latin America’s troubles, yet it is wrong to assume that ISI bears full responsibility. After all, European nations, South Korea, etc. have utilized some form or shape of ISI to establish a robust economy. The problem with ISI in Latin America was the shape it took under politics.
ISI required strict fiscal and monetary policies, applied over an extended period of time while carefully managing foreign loans. What had happened under the helm of populist governments in Latin America was the perversion of ISI for the objective of sustaining political control. Populist governments took advantage of catch phrases like “autonomy” from the economic model and used it to justify expensive projects (like nationalizing the rail which Peron’s minister of transport refused to sanction) in order to rally votes. Evita and Peron presented the most gross example of development derailed by unsustainable and irresponsible public spending. Their policies eventually led to deranged methods of raising revenue such as bullying their own voting base of urban laborers into paying mandatory donations. While the public was squeezed for their every last penny, the ruling elites squandered much of the revenues and loans on private spending. Eva Peron again best represented that abuse of public finances. (which makes me wonder why so many of my female peers admire Evita. Wouldn’t you rather support Mrs. Thatcher, ladies?)
The increasing need for revenue created an over dependency on the ever-less-valuable export of raw materials and development was simply pushed aside. The consequences of the economic disorder permeated into the rest of society making the political atmosphere increasingly unstable. The rest is history.
Returning to the concurrent point on the nationalization of pensions, private pension funds were unpopular, but mainly because the government bullied people into investing 55% of their assets in public debt. The Argentine government still puts on a populist standard by declaring that nationalization will defend future pensioners. Yet, the nationalization was clearly an attempt by the Kirchner administration to grab as much capital as possible for public debt. This is evident in the fact that under voluntary terms only 12% of pensioners opted to return to the state system. This is because Argentines understand the danger of entitling the vital provisions of the many into few hands that are not accountable for their losses.
If it is dignified to make decisions and take responsibilities for one’s own means of survival, then Kirchner’s government has sapped a major element of self worth from the Argentines. Without self worth, is every individual still equally entitled to life, liberty, and justice?
It is a point not just for Argentine pensioners.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Quote of the day
"Indeed, the test of orderliness in a country is not the number of millionaires it owns, but the absence of starvation among its masses."
- Mahatma Gandhi, Economic and Moral Progress, December 22, 1921.
More on Europe, Africa, fishing, and survival
Dear Sirs and Madams,
I would like to supplement my previous article on piracy and fishing with an article from the Guardian.
Nobel laureate economist Amrtya Sen had argued that famine is not always the result of not there being enough to eat, but rather the basic condition of individuals not having enough to eat. In another words, there may be store houses filled with food or a body of water capable of supporting the population, yet the individuals may not have the entitlement to access the necessities. The resulting starvation is a famine. Sen noted that the famines of the 20th centuries have all been man-made disasters, a product of inept and misguided politics.
The Guardian journalist George Monbiot makes a similar argument in his criticism of the European Union's fishing policies. His article highlights the legal depletion of Senegalese food source by European fishing boats. While Senegal refuses to renew its fishing agreements, European fishermen found loopholes to continue fishing on an industrial scale.
According to ActionAid "fishing families that once ate three times a day are now eating only once or twice."
European trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, is trying to negotiate an economic partnership agreement which would legalize the dodges used by European fishermen.
Monbiot scathingly declares that "the rich world's governments will protect themselves from the political cost of shortages, even if it means that other people must starve."
The Guardian article recognizes two problems: Europe's failure to manage the fishing industry properly when it can no longer meet European demands and Europe's refusal to confront fishing lobbies and decommission all the surplus boats.
These problems were also noted in an Economist article few weeks ago.
Fishing is a larger issue than an average individual may presume. From piracy to an existential threat, as consumers, to what extent are we responsible? It's very unsettling to me that one part of the world is taking, albeit legally, the very basic items necessary for the survival of individuals in another part of the world.
Forget the millions of tons of emergency cereal poured into the African continent, what we need is a solution which establishes a long term means of sustenance.
God forgive us.
With much fear of what to come,
Yong Kwon
Friday, May 15, 2009
Stalin, Khrushchev, and Althusser
Dear Sirs and Madams,
With school out for the summer, I now have time to recognize how rewarding it was to write my term paper for Russian History. My interests have always been in Czarist Russia, but this essay forced me to examine the very individual that lies at the heart of our conception of the Soviet Union, the Big Brother himself, Stalin.
Essential in my paper were the observations on power and the state by the French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser. The depiction of Stalin as simply deranged and insane is a popular one, but also an intellectually lazy one. I much prefer the assessment by Hiroaki Kuromiya, a very recent biogrpaher of Stalin, that Stalin’s flaw was not his irrationality, but rather his “subsumption of everything human under politics”. This in conjunction with Althusser's theory on the repressive state apparatus creates an interesting insight upon Soviet politics. The conclusion I have made goes against the popular musing of many apologists who assume that communism would have succeeded in the USSR had it not been for Stalin.
Khrushchev's Secret Speech against Stalin is most telling. Stalin's successor makes the conventional argument that Stalin was an insane individual who did not follow his own ideological convictions. Yet by continuing to condemn the opponents of Stalin (Kamenev, Bukharin, Trotsky, Zinoviev), Khrushchev makes a clear distinction between Stalin the person and Stalin the ideology. The deification of Lenin under a false narrative of Soviet economic history, praise for collectivization, and complete disregard for the famines betray Khrushchev's political motive in his portrayal of Stalin.
According to Althusser, in order for a state (or a class... perhaps the proletariat dictatorship) to constitute individuals as social subjects and maintain control, it has to maintain ideological legitimacy. The recreation and re-imposition of the unquestionable authority of the communist party in the post-Stalinist period required the repressive state apparatus (military, secret police, criminal justice, etc.) to be legitimate in the eyes of the people who had suffered tremendously. Stalin's initiatives and ideology could not be disestablished from the party line because Khrushchev, by being Stalin’s successor, was subject to the same framework of ideology and power. Khrushchev must have realized that to survive politically he could not undermine Stalin in his entirety.
Khrushchev bolstered the state apparatus by invoking Lenin’s rule which he depicted as a heroic one, consistent with ideological objectives (when in fact Lenin initiated the New Economic Policy, bringing capitalism back). He does not criticize the repressive state institutions of the Cheka or the NKVD because he required the repressive state apparatus to maintain the power centered around dogmatic centralism and unanimity of the party.
In short, Stalin’s temperament of eliminating political opposition was facilitated by the party doctrine and when unexpected resistance did rise, coercive and violent means were utilized at Stalin’s will. What made Stalin become portrayed as a monster is his calculation of everything in terms of power and body politics, but it was the Soviet system that allowed the gross human catastrophe to get so out of hand. I believe it is safe to say that the faceless system of power and the amoral state apparatus is as culpable as any one individual.
Voters, accountability is not just for the Russians.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Thursday, May 14, 2009
So long and thanks for all the fish
Dear Sirs and Madams,
My friend recently told me about the near patriotic frenzy that his NROTC classmates fell into after the US Navy Seal snipers killed the 3 Somali pirates who was holding Captain Richard Phillips hostage. Thank goodness that the courageous captain was rescued without harm. Yet the whole “we are going to kick their ass” attitude does nothing to resolve the situation and does not prevent future ship captains from facing similar perils.
I am at a loss when I hear people talking about how cool it is that pirates still exist, as though imagining Jack Sparrow facing off the US Navy off of the Horn of Africa. The fact of the matter is that piracy in Somalia is the direct result of abuse. A lot of people have argued about how decreased naval movement after the fall of the Soviet Union allowed pirates to return. In reality, most of the pirates are former fishermen who have lost their means to continue their trade due to poaching and pollution. Few years ago, Somali fishermen learned that an armed response to foreign vessels illegally dumping pollutants was the only means of collecting proper compensation. Now, they’ve taken the lesson to heart as international fishing ships illegally poach off of Somali waters on an industrial scale, depleting the fish and threatening the very survival of the Somalis. Ordinary people turn to brutality and violence when pushed to the extremities of survival, the Somalis are no different.
Looking long term, the Horn of Africa will not become any safer under an international military presence. Only a comprehensive plan protecting the livelihoods of the Somalis can achieve that goal. The governments and organizations of the world should seek to create a condition in which the use of arms would be unnecessary to the Somalis.
Poaching fish and dumping pollution needs to be vigilantly watched for and violators must be punished.
The serious political and ecological consequences are not limited to the Somali coast. Fishermen in the Philippines have turned to dynamite fishing, for many of the same reasons as the Somalis, damaging the reefs and endangering the fish population and the entire ecology of the region. Fishing rights is a far reaching issue.
I find it ironic (? perhaps ironic is not the correct term here but bear with me) that during the height of the financial bubble Icelandic university students abandoned studying the economics of fishing for finance and marketing. Now, they and we must recognize the utmost importance of conservation and sustainable fishing.
We are what we eat, provided we have something to eat.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Imperial Origins of Industrial Korea?
Dear Sirs and Madams,
There is a prevailing argument amongst western scholars of Korean history that the basis for rapid industrial growth in Korea lies in the foundations established by Imperial Japan. To a Korean this is a disturbing conclusion which attaches some implicit value to the experience of brutal colonialization. I will immediately dispense brief counterarguments against this ghastly supposition.
Comparison of the industrial output of Korea between 1910 and 1945 reveals an incredible growth rate of the industry under the colonial administration. Agricultural production doubled while profits from mining and manufacturing rose from 29 million yen in 1910 to 498 million yen in 1940. Despite the veneer of increased production, by 1940 Koreans held only 11% of the total capital in finance. The colonial administration designed this extreme economic inequality by heavily subsidizing Japanese corporations competing against local Korean businesses. For example, the Japanese government guaranteed Mitsubishi an annual 5000 yen subsidy while blocking competitive Korean businesses from entering the Japanese market by placing strict tariffs. The Japanese colonial apparatus never intended to create a free market society where colonial subjects would have been allowed a fair chance to gain wealth, but instead used the economy as an instrument of state policy, restraining Koreans from financial participation.
Historian Dennis McNamara argues that Japanese contribution to Korean capitalism remains substantial compared to other colonial cases because the heavy industry developed to satisfy war time demands of chemicals and munitions for the Pacific War “modified the traditional pattern of primary goods exports and manufactured imports” (McNamara). However, the demand for munitions and chemicals depended entirely on the continuation of war which resulted in the extraction of able bodied young men and women from the labor pool and diminished ties with potential export markets such as the United States that faced increasing domestic pressure to curtail ties with Japan after the Mukden Incident. Empires of the early 20th century required expansion and war for its political and financial security. The central directive of the Japanese colonial administration had been to establish Korea as a forward base for expansion into Manchuria and China, not to develop the industry for a sustainable and healthy economy.
Carter Eckert, another historian, noted that the rise of former peasants into social positions and was unimaginable before Japanese colonialization. While rags to riches stories did exist, class mobility remained mostly restricted. The Japanese left in place the local hierarchy and land owners who facilitated their control and impeded the peasantry from taking a greater role in commerce. Prominent pioneers of Korean finance and industry such as Min Tae-sik, Pak Hung-sik, and Kim Yon-su all originated from aristocratic or land owning families. The restrictions on class mobility became clearer with the onset of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Military rationing of industrial raw materials forced small businesses run by former peasants to close, widening the gap between the haves and the have nots.
Korea before Japanese colonization desperately needed reforms in its economic, social, and political systems. However, to argue that the Japanese colonial apparatus established a sustainable system of production seems as redundant as forwarding any claim on a colonial power’s contribution to the “modernizing” of its occupied peoples. A little more than a century before the annexation of Korea, pre-revolutionary Haiti stood as the wealthiest territory in the Americas; however, a society where the vast majority of the population toil as slaves for the enormous profits of a minority hardly constitutes a truly prosperous society. The fact of the matter remains that the impetus for colonial development relied on eternal vigilance, inequality, and violence within and abroad.
If the above arguments were not strong enough, here is a final point. Whatever physical infrastructure the Japanese left behind in Korea was obliterated in the Korea War. Therefore, it is truly difficult to say if any of the pre-war industries actually survived in form to contribute to the Miracle on the Han.
Case in point.
Best,
Yong Kwon
There is a prevailing argument amongst western scholars of Korean history that the basis for rapid industrial growth in Korea lies in the foundations established by Imperial Japan. To a Korean this is a disturbing conclusion which attaches some implicit value to the experience of brutal colonialization. I will immediately dispense brief counterarguments against this ghastly supposition.
Comparison of the industrial output of Korea between 1910 and 1945 reveals an incredible growth rate of the industry under the colonial administration. Agricultural production doubled while profits from mining and manufacturing rose from 29 million yen in 1910 to 498 million yen in 1940. Despite the veneer of increased production, by 1940 Koreans held only 11% of the total capital in finance. The colonial administration designed this extreme economic inequality by heavily subsidizing Japanese corporations competing against local Korean businesses. For example, the Japanese government guaranteed Mitsubishi an annual 5000 yen subsidy while blocking competitive Korean businesses from entering the Japanese market by placing strict tariffs. The Japanese colonial apparatus never intended to create a free market society where colonial subjects would have been allowed a fair chance to gain wealth, but instead used the economy as an instrument of state policy, restraining Koreans from financial participation.
Historian Dennis McNamara argues that Japanese contribution to Korean capitalism remains substantial compared to other colonial cases because the heavy industry developed to satisfy war time demands of chemicals and munitions for the Pacific War “modified the traditional pattern of primary goods exports and manufactured imports” (McNamara). However, the demand for munitions and chemicals depended entirely on the continuation of war which resulted in the extraction of able bodied young men and women from the labor pool and diminished ties with potential export markets such as the United States that faced increasing domestic pressure to curtail ties with Japan after the Mukden Incident. Empires of the early 20th century required expansion and war for its political and financial security. The central directive of the Japanese colonial administration had been to establish Korea as a forward base for expansion into Manchuria and China, not to develop the industry for a sustainable and healthy economy.
Carter Eckert, another historian, noted that the rise of former peasants into social positions and was unimaginable before Japanese colonialization. While rags to riches stories did exist, class mobility remained mostly restricted. The Japanese left in place the local hierarchy and land owners who facilitated their control and impeded the peasantry from taking a greater role in commerce. Prominent pioneers of Korean finance and industry such as Min Tae-sik, Pak Hung-sik, and Kim Yon-su all originated from aristocratic or land owning families. The restrictions on class mobility became clearer with the onset of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Military rationing of industrial raw materials forced small businesses run by former peasants to close, widening the gap between the haves and the have nots.
Korea before Japanese colonization desperately needed reforms in its economic, social, and political systems. However, to argue that the Japanese colonial apparatus established a sustainable system of production seems as redundant as forwarding any claim on a colonial power’s contribution to the “modernizing” of its occupied peoples. A little more than a century before the annexation of Korea, pre-revolutionary Haiti stood as the wealthiest territory in the Americas; however, a society where the vast majority of the population toil as slaves for the enormous profits of a minority hardly constitutes a truly prosperous society. The fact of the matter remains that the impetus for colonial development relied on eternal vigilance, inequality, and violence within and abroad.
If the above arguments were not strong enough, here is a final point. Whatever physical infrastructure the Japanese left behind in Korea was obliterated in the Korea War. Therefore, it is truly difficult to say if any of the pre-war industries actually survived in form to contribute to the Miracle on the Han.
Case in point.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Power, Democracy and Survival: The post-Soviet experience
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Adam Smith noted that greater damage is incurred when governments go out of their way to remedy the dearth of goods. But what should be done when the people’s representatives choose to continue government intervention in the market? Should those that “know better” overturn the democratic principles and pursue what they know to be in the best interest of the people? This question has sparked many passionate debates amongst my friends and colleagues. I wish to present to you why I believe that no matter what the situation the democratic system must be upheld and sustained
The great liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin noted that those promoting liberty must never come to believe it to be an absolute idea, for such dogmatism makes the actors vulnerable to violence and coercion. I am in concert with Sir Berlin. The end should never justify the means. Even if the state does not go as far as outright killing people, the devaluation of individuals and their thoughts will have ghastly consequences. Russia provides a perfect example of this case.
While forwarding major reforms to liberalize the market, Boris Yeltsin faced opposition from the parliament. After a tussle over authority, Yeltsin opted to use the military to silence the popularly elected parliament in 1993. The repression allowed the liberal market policies to be further implemented in Russia. Vladimir Putin inherited this blatant disregard for the democratic system of governance and further concentrated power around the executive while diminishing the voice of the people.
One of the many consequences from the Yeltsin/Putin years (Yeltsin and Putin’s joint legacy… I argued in my last article that they are really two peas in a pod) is the intensification of the demographic crisis. The people, suffering from disease and pollution, cannot elect into office someone who would bring them the necessary services to battle diseases like AIDS. State regulated television, with limits to the amount of “negative news” it can air, further impedes vital news and information regarding disease prevention. The money that should be going to enhancing the public’s health has been drained into the military to wage another unnecessary cold war with the west. The policy of “government-knows-best” has turned into a direct roadblock to the survivability of the Russian people.
Both Yeltsin and Putin may have achieved short term successes in pushing forth reforms and establishing some façade of law and order. Nonetheless, whatever good they achieved cannot outweigh the crisis that these two leaders have allowed to amplify.
By ignoring the democratic system, the Russian government has created an unintended consequence. A consequence that Adam Smith had long talked about.
I hope I made my case clear.
Best,
Yong Kwon
p.s. The New Yorker had an article that intensively discussed the demographic crisis.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
When Spring comes, how does the grass look under the snow?
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Vladimir Putin derives his popularity from the widespread perception among the Russian people that he single handedly reversed the lawlessness that prevailed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moscow is now the city with the highest concentration of billionaires. Furthermore, Russia seems to be a world power again, seemingly confirmed by the strong antagonism between it and NATO. Yet in all honesty, is Russia truly better off than it had been? Let us look at Russia from a political, economic, and social standpoints and evaluate its true state.
Boris Yeltsin eventually decided to rule by decree, consolidating his authority after shelling the Russian parliament in the 1993 Constitution Crisis. Not much has changed since then. It’s very likely that Putin and the FSB (Federal Security Service) masterminded the apartment bombings in 1999 to spread fear of terrorism and bolster Putin’s authority. The vertical rule of Vladimir Putin is just as, if not more, authoritative than that of Yeltsin. Election fraud have become more extensive than they had been in the 1990s, permeating into even the municipal elections.
There exists a perception that Putin has utilized his authority to establish law and order. However, what had once been at least internationally recognized as racketeering and other criminal activities continue on today on a grander scale, sanctioned by the government with former thugs holding government positions. A great example is Sergei Veremeyenko, a billionaire and former contender for the president of Bashkortostan (A candidate supported by Vladimir Putin won). He now develops land, utilizing the state anti-terrorist paramilitaries to rid himself of citizens who’s properties are in the way of his business. The state has clearly lined up behind the rich, the powerful, and the obedient. The few wealthy oligarchs that dare attempt to compete politically are ruthlessly discarded by Putin, Mikhail Khodorkovsky being the key example.
What we have seen under Putin is the increasing radicalization of racism, xenophobia, and coercive means of problem solving. The deteriorating situation is no where more evident than in the decreasing population of Russia. By 2050, Russia is expected to lose 50% of its population.
The oil wealth has proved effective in buffering the deteriorating condition by putting up a façade of wealth. Moscow may be filled with wealth, but the plight of the common people continues. In fact the lack of funding that has gone into health education, environmental protection, disease prevention has allowed the demographic crisis of Russia to snowball. AIDS, hepatitis, liver failure, etc. are now extremely prevalent and with the oil revenues decreasing, there is not much Putin can do to launch an effective health campaign to reverse the situation. A dying nation will be Putin’s greatest legacy. A great power is naught without the wealth and its human resources. With both drying up quickly where does Putin seek to take Russia?
It is important to remember that it is in the world’s best interest that Russia becomes a healthy and wealthy trading partner. It has much to offer economically, politically, socially, and culturally. Furthermore, its collapse will result in the greater proliferation of arms and loss of invaluable human resources.
The solution is in two folds. Russians need to be more open to foreign help in battling the demographic crisis. Russia simply does not have the resources. At the same time, the United States and the rest of the world needs to disband NATO and discontinue policies that create unnecessary antagonisms with Russia.
If world peace is an objective that we strive for, we must not only remember the size and firepower contained within Russia, but also Russia’s long history and traditions. It, like any other nation of the world, would probably appreciate a little bit of respect.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Vladimir Putin derives his popularity from the widespread perception among the Russian people that he single handedly reversed the lawlessness that prevailed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moscow is now the city with the highest concentration of billionaires. Furthermore, Russia seems to be a world power again, seemingly confirmed by the strong antagonism between it and NATO. Yet in all honesty, is Russia truly better off than it had been? Let us look at Russia from a political, economic, and social standpoints and evaluate its true state.
Boris Yeltsin eventually decided to rule by decree, consolidating his authority after shelling the Russian parliament in the 1993 Constitution Crisis. Not much has changed since then. It’s very likely that Putin and the FSB (Federal Security Service) masterminded the apartment bombings in 1999 to spread fear of terrorism and bolster Putin’s authority. The vertical rule of Vladimir Putin is just as, if not more, authoritative than that of Yeltsin. Election fraud have become more extensive than they had been in the 1990s, permeating into even the municipal elections.
There exists a perception that Putin has utilized his authority to establish law and order. However, what had once been at least internationally recognized as racketeering and other criminal activities continue on today on a grander scale, sanctioned by the government with former thugs holding government positions. A great example is Sergei Veremeyenko, a billionaire and former contender for the president of Bashkortostan (A candidate supported by Vladimir Putin won). He now develops land, utilizing the state anti-terrorist paramilitaries to rid himself of citizens who’s properties are in the way of his business. The state has clearly lined up behind the rich, the powerful, and the obedient. The few wealthy oligarchs that dare attempt to compete politically are ruthlessly discarded by Putin, Mikhail Khodorkovsky being the key example.
What we have seen under Putin is the increasing radicalization of racism, xenophobia, and coercive means of problem solving. The deteriorating situation is no where more evident than in the decreasing population of Russia. By 2050, Russia is expected to lose 50% of its population.
The oil wealth has proved effective in buffering the deteriorating condition by putting up a façade of wealth. Moscow may be filled with wealth, but the plight of the common people continues. In fact the lack of funding that has gone into health education, environmental protection, disease prevention has allowed the demographic crisis of Russia to snowball. AIDS, hepatitis, liver failure, etc. are now extremely prevalent and with the oil revenues decreasing, there is not much Putin can do to launch an effective health campaign to reverse the situation. A dying nation will be Putin’s greatest legacy. A great power is naught without the wealth and its human resources. With both drying up quickly where does Putin seek to take Russia?
It is important to remember that it is in the world’s best interest that Russia becomes a healthy and wealthy trading partner. It has much to offer economically, politically, socially, and culturally. Furthermore, its collapse will result in the greater proliferation of arms and loss of invaluable human resources.
The solution is in two folds. Russians need to be more open to foreign help in battling the demographic crisis. Russia simply does not have the resources. At the same time, the United States and the rest of the world needs to disband NATO and discontinue policies that create unnecessary antagonisms with Russia.
If world peace is an objective that we strive for, we must not only remember the size and firepower contained within Russia, but also Russia’s long history and traditions. It, like any other nation of the world, would probably appreciate a little bit of respect.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Wealth and Property: The failure of a revolution
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Driving through Summers County, West Virginia, you will notice the oddest collection of buildings along the precariously thin two lane highways that crisscross one of the poorest states in the United States. As though some child had mindlessly thrown together a place with whatever toy houses were available, large mansion like buildings stand next to small shacks, trailer homes, and collapsing wooden structures. A neglected part of the country, cut off from the wealth of the eastern seaboard by one of the oldest geological formations on the planet, West Virginia stands as a rejection of the Reagan-Thatcher model of a free and prosperous society based on a property-owning citizenry.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher scathingly responded to critics who questioned the increasing rich-poor divide in Britain during her administration by accusing them of being “socialists” who wanted the “poor poorer provided the rich were less rich”. I certainly do not wish the poor poorer nor the rich less rich; however, I wish to provide an assessment of the socio-economic philosophy at the heart of the Thatcher and Reagan’s policies based on the conditions of the Appalachian communities.
Margaret Thatcher and her trans-Atlantic counterpart, President Ronald Reagan, aspired to create a property-owning democracy where people were more free and wealthy. Reagan, Thatcher, and all the cadres of this no minor revolution believed that cheaper mortgages and eliminating regulations on loans would induce higher homeownership, spending and investment. Some economists like Hernando de Soto Polar took another step further by hypothesizing that property could act as collateral for aspiring entrepreneurs and allow the impoverished to access loans. The neo-liberal revolution of the 1980s was built on the precondition of property ownership. Access to property was to liberate people from class and poverty. Freedom from rent was interpreted as the ultimate sign of self-ownership.
The problem with this simplistic notion of property yielding wealth and freedom is its one-dimensionality and naivety. Regardless of whatever brain crunching and refined equations are built upon this crude and basic philosophy, the fact remains that reality rejected this neo-liberal drive to make society more prosperous. The neo-liberal revolutionaries would have known this had they observed the socio-economic state of West Virginia.
Around 75% of the denizens of Summers Country, West Virginia, are home owners, but the area is nonetheless one of the poorest places in the United States and it is visibly impoverished. The fact of the matter is that owning property does not induce banks to provide loans. Most home owners in West Virginia do not qualify for loans because they do not have the security of a stable income. This is the same trend seen throughout the world, including Hernando de Soto’s home ground of Latin America. The brief and irresponsible lending throughout the country had led to a short term development in West Virginian service industry. However, with the economy taking a nosedive and tourism dwindling, these service sector jobs will be the first to disappear. In short, West Virginian homeowners do not live in the Reagan-Thatcher world of wealth and prosperity. In fact, West Virginians are far from being free despite many being free from rent.
One example arises from the field of psychiatry. Another relic of past projects to liberalize the society was the movement to free the populous from the psychiatric establishment. The flawed and seemingly arbitrary system of psychiatric diagnosis was replaced by a quantitative standard of normal behavior. The result was the rise of psychiatric drugs that would chemically induce normalcy in individuals. However, as Dr. Robert Spitzer, the modern architect of categorizing and diagnosing mental disorders, and many others suggest, this led to confusions between the symptoms of psychological disorders and normal human behavior. The resulting over medication of the populous yielded a negative social response. The Appalachians who received government subsidized medical care had ample access to psychiatric drugs and their subscriptions were encouraged by pharmaceutical companies which made a large profit by selling drugs to the government. The Appalachians in turn sold these drugs to complement their low income leading to violence and crime that so often accompanies illicit trades such as this.
The above explanation on psychiatrics seems out of place in a critique on a “property-owning democracy”. Yet, you must recognize by now that home-ownership alone does not create prosperity unless other conditions are met. Crime caused by mass social addiction to psychiatric drugs is but one example. The artificially crafted environment for greater homeownership is completely misguided. The problems in West Virginia does not stem from people who do not own their own homes, but those who do not have stable incomes. Likewise, problems elsewhere will not resolved magically overnight by homeownership.
Nobel laureate writer Wole Soyinka declared that there are “no such being as a dignified slaves”. In another word, those who do not have an independent means to sustain themselves cannot truly have dignity. Dignity being the conception of individual self worth stands as the basis of equal treatment, respect, and among other core virtues, liberty. There has never been any doubt to the fact that self-sustainability acts as a prerequisite to any sort of liberty. This Reagan, Thatcher, and the neo-liberals were quite dead on. However, they ignored the principle tenets of liberty that many intellectuals had reiterated and emphasized in the past. The famous philosopher of liberty, Isaiah Berlin, warned that those who promote liberty must never come to believe it to be an absolute idea, for the result of such dogmatism always results in direct or indirect coercion. The father of capitalism and classical liberalism, Adam Smith, believed that the “violent… [and] improper means [by the government] to remedy the inconveniencies of dearth” always resulted in greater problems for the rest of society. The Reagan-Thatcher revolution’s attempt to artificially induce home ownership created an imbalance that greatly damaged the socio-economic state of both Britain and the United States and arguable the rest of the world. At the end of the day basic truths on economics win out. Stable income and savings save the day.
As we seek a way out of the current economic crisis and a way forward into a new, more prosperous and freer society, the implications of the socio-economic conditions of Appalachia are far reaching. Perhaps this article was redundant and wastes time pointing out the obvious. Nonetheless, I thought I would share with you what I’ve come to reaffirm on the hills of West Virginia. We cannot expect one answer to solve our problems and we should be aware of the political venus flytraps that lure in unsuspecting citizens with its sweet promises of prosperity and wealth. It is the citizenry’s duty to work towards their own prosperity. All that the government should do is maintain roads, schools, and other services that facilitate citizens who seek wealth but never go out of its way to tilt the market in anyone’s favor. This, I believe, is the way to both wealth and liberty of nations.
Best,
Yong Kwon
p.s. For another article on stunted prosperity, read my past article on agricultural subsidies.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Adam Smith on popular conformity to war
Dear Sirs and Madams,
I would like to briefly exalt the genius of Adam Smith. His commentary on the relationship between society and government still has great relevance to our society today despite being written more than two centuries ago. I found this quote in the Wealth of Nations and I thought I would share it here.
In great empires the people who live in the capital, and in the provinces remote from the scene of action, feel, many of them, scarce any inconveniency from the war; but enjoy, at their ease, the amusement of reading in the newspapers the exploits of their own fleets and armies. To them this amusement compensates the small difference between the taxes which they pay on account of the war, and those which they had been accustomed to pay in time of peace. They are commonly dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory from a longer continuance of the war.
- Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 3
Just as in Vietnam, where the death of middle class adolescents sparked the anti-war movement, the reversal of popular sentiments on the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan may require a more close-to-home impact for the middle class, suburban Americans. It's a sad reality, yet one that needs to be engrved in our memories as our new president prepares to jump further into the mountains of Hindu Kush.
Best,
Yong Kwon
We Are What We Eat – The Burden of Agricultural Subsidies on the World Market
Dear Sirs and Madams,
One often forgets that repression of economic liberties constitutes a form of state violence. Whatever temporary good it seeks to accomplish, government intervention often tends to disturb the global market, exacerbating inequality and threatening the very survival of countless individuals around the world. Nowhere is this more clearer than in the agricultural policies of the United States and the European Union. The far-reaching ramifications of the west’s agricultural subsidies include not only the possibility of intensifying the current global economic crisis, but also undermining the security of the entire world.
It is important to grasp two very important facts from the Great Depression of the 1930s. First, the Depression did not develop from a vacuum, but as a consequence of the American government’s policy after WWI to increase tariffs, mostly in the agricultural sector. Second, once the depression began, the American government ignited a tariff war with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which by increasing tariffs further destabilized the deteriorating world market and order.
In the current global market, while agricultural tariffs no longer have as great an influence, the same detrimental effects are exerted by agricultural subsidies. The European Union alone spends $50 billion every year supporting domestic production of agricultural goods. As a result, not only are agricultural products from the third world not competitive within the EU but also the third world is forced to purchase subsidized agricultural products from Europe. By unfairly eliminating competing producers of agricultural goods in the third world, the United States and the European Union have effectively reduced the agricultural output of the world. Furthermore, the introduction of bio fuel subsidies exacerbated the diminishing supply of food. As a result, according to UNESCO, wheat prices have gone up 130% since March of 2007. Unable to compete in the food market despite the increase in prices, the purchasing power of many agriculture based nations will plummet as the crisis deepens. In this scenario, the world trade can only diminish with terrible consequences.
Although the crises in the housing and the financial markets overshadow the enormous burden placed on the global market by agricultural subsidies, the rest of the world is not so oblivious to the ongoing crisis. In retaliation to the west’s agricultural subsidies, increasing food prices, and the global economic crisis, 29 countries have curbed their export of food products. This feeble attempt to hoard domestic products has been a consistent response by nations facing economic hardship. During the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, the response from many afflicted nations was to raise their tariffs, especially against highly competitive American produce such as beef. In response, the United States passed anti-dumping laws, causing havoc in Pacific commerce. This time the crisis is global and the global trends that we had seen in the 1930s, following the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, are already evident around the world. India, Russia, Vietnam, and other countries have already raised tariffs, spearheading the cataclysmic economic combustion which may decrease global trade for the first time since 1982.
If one remembers what lay at the end of the Great Depression in the mid and late 1930s, the direness of the current situation does not need to be reiterated. In 2008, Foreign Policy magazine ranked Pakistan the nation most heavily afflicted by the food crisis. With 200 million people losing the ability to purchase basic means for survival, the conditions are ripe for the radicalization of the population. Considering Pakistan’s nuclear capacity, this is no small matter. As the world heads deeper into an economic crisis, tariffs increasing, and the global commerce shrinking, the socio-political conditions can only worsen. Frederic Bastiat said that "If goods do not cross borders, armies will." In other words, tariff wars or subsidy wars can lead to shooting wars.
Recognizing the negative impacts of agricultural subsidies, the European Union seeks to phase out its Common Agricultural Policy which outlines Europe’s policies on food production. However, no global economic reform will be complete without the cooperation of the United States. For the United States, agricultural subsidies account for only a small part of the bigger problem surrounding government intervention. In 2007, government spending accounted for 37% of the entire GDP. The United States must liberalize its market and allow all peoples of the world to have a fair chance to subsist. For this may be the only means to save the world from irrational self destruction.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Friday, May 1, 2009
Dear Sirs and Madams
Dear Sirs and Madams,
I will be brief and to the point.
This blog is dedicated to the advancement of liberty, dignity and welbeing of all mankind.
Best,
Yong
I will be brief and to the point.
This blog is dedicated to the advancement of liberty, dignity and welbeing of all mankind.
Best,
Yong
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)