There is an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal supporting the Obama plan, but arguing that it needs to go even further. If the situation really is as bad as it is presented in this Op-Ed, than we need to drastically overhaul the banking system. The author is asking the government to use really significant resources - much more than already committed - to save the banks. If they need this much help to stay alive, then they will need lots of help (i.e. significant regulation) to prevent them from getting in this situation again.
Reading this post, you might think I did not know about the crisis. While I am well aware of the situation, this particular Op-Ed made the situation really seem dire and the banks really desperate. I feel that I am not doing a good job of articulating how this article made me feel. It sounds like the author is saying that the banks need this, this, this, this and this, in order to survive. It is appalling that banks got to this point yet feel they don't need regulation.
Maybe it is because I am writing this late at night that I am having this reaction. Or maybe my anger has finally emerged over the reckless behavior and our current situation.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Dambisa Moyo on Development
Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian economist who has worked for the World Bank, has published Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa, a book on development that makes similar arguments as William Easterly's White Man's Burden. Both believe that government to government aid for developing countries is actually hindering development and creating dependency instead of empowerment and self-sustainability.
I had planned to attend a discussion featuring Moyo and Easterly. I did not end up going, but fortunately the organizers have posted videos of the discussion. Moyo's rhetoric is one of empowerment for Africa. She rightly criticizes how Bono and others have become spokespersons for Africa and she asks where the African leadership is. Bono's (and others) heart is in the right place. There is tremendous suffering and I think it attention to these issues is warranted. However, it is not his place to be their spokesperson. Furthermore, the tone of the celebrities and the focus only on the problems perpetuates the myth that Africans are inferior and need our help.
I remember my feeling after reading The Bottom Billion, where Paul Collier states that growth is the only answer. I felt that growth takes too long and the problems were too great and needed immediate solutions. What I am beginning to believe now is that there are no quick solutions. Growth that comes through empowerment and markets, though it may be slow, is the only way for developing countries to achieve self-sufficiency and lift their populations out of poverty. We are not Africa's saviors - Africa has to save themselves. Let's hope people start listening to Moyo.
I had planned to attend a discussion featuring Moyo and Easterly. I did not end up going, but fortunately the organizers have posted videos of the discussion. Moyo's rhetoric is one of empowerment for Africa. She rightly criticizes how Bono and others have become spokespersons for Africa and she asks where the African leadership is. Bono's (and others) heart is in the right place. There is tremendous suffering and I think it attention to these issues is warranted. However, it is not his place to be their spokesperson. Furthermore, the tone of the celebrities and the focus only on the problems perpetuates the myth that Africans are inferior and need our help.
I remember my feeling after reading The Bottom Billion, where Paul Collier states that growth is the only answer. I felt that growth takes too long and the problems were too great and needed immediate solutions. What I am beginning to believe now is that there are no quick solutions. Growth that comes through empowerment and markets, though it may be slow, is the only way for developing countries to achieve self-sufficiency and lift their populations out of poverty. We are not Africa's saviors - Africa has to save themselves. Let's hope people start listening to Moyo.
Choice is an Intrinsic Good
Much of the focus on charter schools is on whether they do or will increase performance. While performance is important, it is not the only reason for charter schools. Charters provide something for public school students that private school students already receive: the freedom to choose.
Part of what makes choices so great is the freedom it can provide. In the private school market, parents and students have the ability to choose between traditional or progressive schools, art schools or engineering schools, single sex or co-ed schools. I do not believe that one model of school is better than the other, but that each model can be effective for certain types of students. Some children may do better in a single-sex environment. Some students will do much better in a school that supports their artistic creativity. It is only fair that public school students have this same freedom.
Some of the early studies of charter schools have shown at most modest improvements in performance. But even when there was no detectable increase in performance, parental happiness over their charter schools has been high. To me, this signifies that parents are happy that they have this option.
By giving more people the ability to choose their model of education, we give them control over their (or their child's) future. We hope this will lead to better performance. But at least we are giving them the freedom to decide for themselves what type of school they want. If we ignore this, we ignore one of the biggest reasons for charter schools.
Part of what makes choices so great is the freedom it can provide. In the private school market, parents and students have the ability to choose between traditional or progressive schools, art schools or engineering schools, single sex or co-ed schools. I do not believe that one model of school is better than the other, but that each model can be effective for certain types of students. Some children may do better in a single-sex environment. Some students will do much better in a school that supports their artistic creativity. It is only fair that public school students have this same freedom.
Some of the early studies of charter schools have shown at most modest improvements in performance. But even when there was no detectable increase in performance, parental happiness over their charter schools has been high. To me, this signifies that parents are happy that they have this option.
By giving more people the ability to choose their model of education, we give them control over their (or their child's) future. We hope this will lead to better performance. But at least we are giving them the freedom to decide for themselves what type of school they want. If we ignore this, we ignore one of the biggest reasons for charter schools.
Freeman Dyson
I have longed for intelligent critiques of global warming but until last week's Sunday Times cover story, had not really found anything. Last week's article was about Freeman Dyson, a relatively famous scientist who started out in physics but is now more of a generalist. He is noted for his ability to gain in-depth understanding of different complicated sciences.
Hearing his critiques, as they were explained by the author of the article, did not change my mind. Some I found a bit absurd, but others did provide some interesting questions.
One of his critiques that I found to be pretty absurd was his belief that we should focus on more important issues, like poverty, famine and war, and deal with global warming when we know more about it. The problem with this argument is that the effects of global warming, if predictions are true, will be borne most by those that are most vulnerable.
We already see that the Sahara desert is growing and the Sahel region of Africa is expanding north. This has caused scarcity of resources in these areas which will only increase as warming continues - leading to famine and conflict. Further, wet areas are projected to get wetter, which will again be borne by those most vulnerable. If we make progress now on poverty issues but not global warming, we'll likely have greater poverty issues in the future.
Furthermore, that critique assumes we can only accomplish one thing at a time, which I do not agree with at all. This argument comes up in many different policy areas, and it never makes sense to me.
Where he prompts good questions is his use of biology in global warming. He is right that the prediction models focus mainly on atmospheric changes and do not seem to incorporate how biological changes could interact with the changes (they track biological changes without incorporating them). In fact, he says that higher carbon may be better for plant and animal species. At one point he says how increases in plant and animal diversity came at times of much higher carbon levels.
Before I go on, I think we need some serious clarification about historical carbon levels. Al Gore and others claim that carbon levels now are far higher than they have been in the last 20,000 years. So is Dyson claiming that is wrong, or is he saying that carbon levels were higher but looking farther back? To me, this is probably the most important question of global warming.
Dyson also has interesting and optimistic proposals for ways to use biology to help decrease carbon levels, and it will definitely be worth learning more about that (trees that can capture carbon).
Finally, the article portrays the way that dissenters are treated. In some policy areas, those who dissent are dismissed not by debating their points on the merits, but by suggesting that their intentions are bad. This happens in policy on the Middle East, and comes up here too. I agree that in cases where oil companies are paying for shoddy research, it makes sense to question the motives. But Dyson seems to have no motivation other than to be contrarian and challenge people's assumptions. The world needs more, not less, of these people - even when they are wrong.
Hearing his critiques, as they were explained by the author of the article, did not change my mind. Some I found a bit absurd, but others did provide some interesting questions.
One of his critiques that I found to be pretty absurd was his belief that we should focus on more important issues, like poverty, famine and war, and deal with global warming when we know more about it. The problem with this argument is that the effects of global warming, if predictions are true, will be borne most by those that are most vulnerable.
We already see that the Sahara desert is growing and the Sahel region of Africa is expanding north. This has caused scarcity of resources in these areas which will only increase as warming continues - leading to famine and conflict. Further, wet areas are projected to get wetter, which will again be borne by those most vulnerable. If we make progress now on poverty issues but not global warming, we'll likely have greater poverty issues in the future.
Furthermore, that critique assumes we can only accomplish one thing at a time, which I do not agree with at all. This argument comes up in many different policy areas, and it never makes sense to me.
Where he prompts good questions is his use of biology in global warming. He is right that the prediction models focus mainly on atmospheric changes and do not seem to incorporate how biological changes could interact with the changes (they track biological changes without incorporating them). In fact, he says that higher carbon may be better for plant and animal species. At one point he says how increases in plant and animal diversity came at times of much higher carbon levels.
Before I go on, I think we need some serious clarification about historical carbon levels. Al Gore and others claim that carbon levels now are far higher than they have been in the last 20,000 years. So is Dyson claiming that is wrong, or is he saying that carbon levels were higher but looking farther back? To me, this is probably the most important question of global warming.
Dyson also has interesting and optimistic proposals for ways to use biology to help decrease carbon levels, and it will definitely be worth learning more about that (trees that can capture carbon).
Finally, the article portrays the way that dissenters are treated. In some policy areas, those who dissent are dismissed not by debating their points on the merits, but by suggesting that their intentions are bad. This happens in policy on the Middle East, and comes up here too. I agree that in cases where oil companies are paying for shoddy research, it makes sense to question the motives. But Dyson seems to have no motivation other than to be contrarian and challenge people's assumptions. The world needs more, not less, of these people - even when they are wrong.
Why Only Darfur?
This book review in the Times really struck a chord with me. If I understand it, the author of the book takes exception to the public's obsession with the genocide in Darfur. He believes that it is based on a lack of real understanding of the history and dimensions in Sudan, and maybe also based on racism.
I do not disagree that the public often latches on to some issues, while ignoring other equally or more troubling situations. We rally around Darfur but pay little attention to the major tragedies in Somalia and the Congo. Actually, while the world watches Darfur, it pays little attention to the conflict in southern Sudan.
While I do think there is something particularly damaging to the fabric of humanity when one group attempts to eliminate another group, that cannot be our benchmark for when we choose to show concern. And our analysis of those situations should be done objectively, where instead we have a history of bias towards whichever side we supported.
I do not disagree that the public often latches on to some issues, while ignoring other equally or more troubling situations. We rally around Darfur but pay little attention to the major tragedies in Somalia and the Congo. Actually, while the world watches Darfur, it pays little attention to the conflict in southern Sudan.
While I do think there is something particularly damaging to the fabric of humanity when one group attempts to eliminate another group, that cannot be our benchmark for when we choose to show concern. And our analysis of those situations should be done objectively, where instead we have a history of bias towards whichever side we supported.
Book Report: The End of Poverty
I posted my review of Jeffery Sach's book The End of Poverty January of 2008 at a short-lived Human Rights blog I tried to start. Here is what I said about his book:
More recently I read The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs. Although he also recommends increasing growth, Sachs is inspiring and impatient. He thinks we can end extreme poverty in our generation as long as we actually follow through on promises we have already made - namely 0.7% of GDP for foreign assistance.If you have read my book report on Easterly's book, you'll notice that my position has changed. I am much less enamored with Sach's position, especially his lack of humility and his belief that he / we can save Africa.
His proscriptions are extremely thorough, and you only wish the world would follow through. Looking at the landscape of current development movements, it seems as though at least two of his biggest recommendations are being acted on; help fighting malaria (including work on vaccines, increasing availability of bed nets, and better access to treatment), AIDS, and tropical diseases as well as debt forgiveness (he does a great job of showing why this is so important) are big issues right now. With any luck, two of his other big recommendations - drastically improving infrastructure so that landlocked countries can have access to ports and increasing agriculture production - are hopefully not far behind (and this article on Malawi shows how one country has made strides on this last point).
Overall, his analysis is even more convincing than Collier's. The countries that still experience extreme poverty do so because of tropical diseases, food scarcity caused by low agriculture output, and lack of access to ports. Each of these things can be corrected. And he really reinforces the reality that in a world with as much wealth as there is, extreme poverty is unacceptable.
Eat Less or None at All?
Someone suggested I read this article from Audubon Magazine about the effects of meat eating on global warming. The article describes the parts of the meat-raising process that increases green-house gasses. It also compares free-range and caged meat, and finds that free-range is not better for mitigating global warming (an interesting finding, but not the reason people turn to free-range).
In light of the significant effects on global warming, the author concludes that vegetarianism is the solution. But he allows that eating less meat would help. Here are the last two paragraphs from the article:
A few friends have followed similar plans as mine to eat less meat. They have each decided to cut back to meat once a day and then to cut back to less than once a day. None of those people would have given up meat. This movement will gain a lot more momentum focusing first on eating less meat.
In light of the significant effects on global warming, the author concludes that vegetarianism is the solution. But he allows that eating less meat would help. Here are the last two paragraphs from the article:
We could also, as a nation, just eat a lot less meat as an alternative to full vegetarianism. Anthony McMichael, a leading Australia-based expert on climate change and health issues, has crunched the numbers. He estimates that per capita daily meat consumption would need to drop from about 12 ounces per day in America to 3.1 ounces (with less than half of it red meat) in order to protect the climate.While I can understand his decision, I don't think being a vegetarian is easier to explain or defend. And although he does not get to this point, it certainly is not easier to encourage people to become vegetarians then to encourage them to eat less meat.
I suppose I could measure out 3.1 ounces of meat per day, cook it, eat it, and still feel morally okay. But frankly I’d rather just go without. I’d rather be a vegetarian. It’s easier to explain. It’s easier to defend. And I just plain like it.
A few friends have followed similar plans as mine to eat less meat. They have each decided to cut back to meat once a day and then to cut back to less than once a day. None of those people would have given up meat. This movement will gain a lot more momentum focusing first on eating less meat.
Stiglitz: Not Just a Globalization Expert
I have tended to trust the Obama administration when it comes to plans to fix the financial crisis. It has been hard for me to evaluate the crisis since I do not fully understand Wall Street. I assume many of our politicians are having the same problem. Fortunately though, economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz are providing thoughtful critiques from a liberal perspective. In fact, Joseph Stiglitz's column in the NY Times may have convinced me that the Obama administration's most recent plan for the banks is a bad idea.
The plan will allow investors to buy up troubled assets with most of the money backed by the government. Here is Stiglitz's critique in his own words:
The plan will allow investors to buy up troubled assets with most of the money backed by the government. Here is Stiglitz's critique in his own words:
Paying fair market values for the assets will not work. Only by overpaying for the assets will the banks be adequately recapitalized. But overpaying for the assets simply shifts the losses to the government. In other words, the Geithner plan works only if and when the taxpayer loses big time.My first reaction to my lack of understanding was to blame myself instead of the industry. But that was wrong; it is a major problem when the public cannot fully understand how an industry works and worse, how a solution is going to work. Without public understanding, we cannot have good policies that prevent further meltdowns. We need plans that make sense, and we need to make sure that in the future we can understand what Wall Street is doing.
[Edit]
So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it’s the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves — clever, complex and nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets. It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to Congress to ask for the money needed to fix our banks, and it provided a way to avoid nationalization.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Pork as a Symbol
When I posted recently about the bonuses at AIG, I did not spend any time talking about how the outrage over that issue was over the symbolic gesture of the bonuses and that the actual cost of the bonuses were low compared to the government bailout. The point I would have made is that symbols can be important, even if they are not in proportion to the actual issue itself.
Pork barrel spending is another example of this, and can be even more salient when you consider the difficult times governments are facing. Take New York State for example. The state budget just agreed on by the only three people who matter was $131.8 billion, or $79.2 billion of state operating funds (not counting federal funds). The deficit before the new budget was announced was $17 billion. Total pork spending in the budget was $170 million. Therefore, total pork spending was one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the total budget, or two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the state funded budget, or just one percent (1%) of the previous deficit. Even though the pork spending is such a small share of overall budget numbers, it seems appalling that the state legislature would choose to allocate limited funds to special projects in their districts, and allocated there because of their power not because of need.
John McCain recognizes this at the federal level, which is why he focuses on it so much. However, one can go far, and make a symbolic issue appear to be more than a symbol. McCain seemed to present eliminating pork as a way to significantly cut government spending. As you can see in the above example, cutting the pork spending would not have helped the state get close to dealing with its budget gap, and the ratios are similar at the federal level.
The point is that symbolic issues are important in the messages they send about priorities. But exaggerating them can backfire, because people see that dealing with that issue will not solve the underlying problem. The state's pork spending is absurd, but not as big a deal as the way the budget was made (behind closed doors) and the appearance that they avoided tough choices.
Pork barrel spending is another example of this, and can be even more salient when you consider the difficult times governments are facing. Take New York State for example. The state budget just agreed on by the only three people who matter was $131.8 billion, or $79.2 billion of state operating funds (not counting federal funds). The deficit before the new budget was announced was $17 billion. Total pork spending in the budget was $170 million. Therefore, total pork spending was one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the total budget, or two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the state funded budget, or just one percent (1%) of the previous deficit. Even though the pork spending is such a small share of overall budget numbers, it seems appalling that the state legislature would choose to allocate limited funds to special projects in their districts, and allocated there because of their power not because of need.
John McCain recognizes this at the federal level, which is why he focuses on it so much. However, one can go far, and make a symbolic issue appear to be more than a symbol. McCain seemed to present eliminating pork as a way to significantly cut government spending. As you can see in the above example, cutting the pork spending would not have helped the state get close to dealing with its budget gap, and the ratios are similar at the federal level.
The point is that symbolic issues are important in the messages they send about priorities. But exaggerating them can backfire, because people see that dealing with that issue will not solve the underlying problem. The state's pork spending is absurd, but not as big a deal as the way the budget was made (behind closed doors) and the appearance that they avoided tough choices.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Book Report: The White Man's Burden
I finished another of the popular books on international development: The White Man's Burden by William Easterly. The main point of the book is how infrequently the money we spend actually delivers results. Therefore, instead of thinking that we can / need to save the developing world, we need to do what we can to help them help themselves. Before I started reading the book, I expected that I would appreciate its position but still disagree with it. Instead, I strongly agree with his call for humility in our aid efforts.
The more one learns about development assistance, the more obvious the extreme waste becomes. Part of that waste stems from aid that is most often delivered through corrupt governments. But aid is also wasted on programs that are not evaluated and not designed with feedback from, or deep knowledge of, the people we are helping. It is when Easterly highlights these flaws that he is most convincing.
He does not have grand solutions, but what he does propose could work. Particularly, he suggests allowing the IMF and World Bank to support private institutions, particularly in countries with terrible governments. He also recommends supporting smaller proven efforts by local actors. Finally, he proposes fewer conferences and frameworks but more serious evaluations.
Where Easterly is less convincing is when he uses the argument that because a certain policy has not worked it is clear it never will work. This logical statement does not account for the fact that those policies in the past may have been implemented poorly.
A perfect example of this is military intervention. The West has a terrible history of using military intervention. Past US military interventions include supporting authoritarian governments according our own interests (particularly during the Cold War) or ineffective interventions in the face of major crises (post-Cold War). However, I would strongly argue that if done correctly and for the right reasons, military interventions could be very successful. Instability is a major obstacle to development and often creates environments of continued instability (this was a conclusion of Collier's book and Nicholas Kristof argues this point in his review of Easterly's book in the New York Review of Books). Without successful interventions, countries in conflict may end up stuck in conflict with dire consequences for civilians caught in the middle.
Before I conclude, I need to mention that Easterly is not opposed to humanitarian aid such as medical and food aid (although he argues that these programs should also be strictly evaluated and conducted with real feedback). Instead it is the development aid he thinks needs to be reconsidered.
Overall the book is well written (although I did skim through many of his anecdotes and historical examples) and convincing. Unfortunately, I think his views do not play as well politically, since he is essentially calling for more modest goals and local control over Western money. With books like Dead Aid now coming out though, maybe his views will gain traction.
The more one learns about development assistance, the more obvious the extreme waste becomes. Part of that waste stems from aid that is most often delivered through corrupt governments. But aid is also wasted on programs that are not evaluated and not designed with feedback from, or deep knowledge of, the people we are helping. It is when Easterly highlights these flaws that he is most convincing.
He does not have grand solutions, but what he does propose could work. Particularly, he suggests allowing the IMF and World Bank to support private institutions, particularly in countries with terrible governments. He also recommends supporting smaller proven efforts by local actors. Finally, he proposes fewer conferences and frameworks but more serious evaluations.
Where Easterly is less convincing is when he uses the argument that because a certain policy has not worked it is clear it never will work. This logical statement does not account for the fact that those policies in the past may have been implemented poorly.
A perfect example of this is military intervention. The West has a terrible history of using military intervention. Past US military interventions include supporting authoritarian governments according our own interests (particularly during the Cold War) or ineffective interventions in the face of major crises (post-Cold War). However, I would strongly argue that if done correctly and for the right reasons, military interventions could be very successful. Instability is a major obstacle to development and often creates environments of continued instability (this was a conclusion of Collier's book and Nicholas Kristof argues this point in his review of Easterly's book in the New York Review of Books). Without successful interventions, countries in conflict may end up stuck in conflict with dire consequences for civilians caught in the middle.
Before I conclude, I need to mention that Easterly is not opposed to humanitarian aid such as medical and food aid (although he argues that these programs should also be strictly evaluated and conducted with real feedback). Instead it is the development aid he thinks needs to be reconsidered.
Overall the book is well written (although I did skim through many of his anecdotes and historical examples) and convincing. Unfortunately, I think his views do not play as well politically, since he is essentially calling for more modest goals and local control over Western money. With books like Dead Aid now coming out though, maybe his views will gain traction.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Is China Really the Bad Guy?
This article in the NY Times about China cutting back on deals with developing countries in Africa sparked a question. The point of the article seems to be that countries with poor human rights records found they could ignore Western demands by working with China - trading their natural resources for development assistance. With commodity prices falling and economies crashing, these countries are no longer getting aid from China.
What is interesting is how the article draws a distinction between China's decision to work with countries with poor human rights records without conditions while the US sets conditions. Before we feel good about ourselves, I ask this question: Is there any difference between aid that comes with conditions that are never enforced and therefore never met, or aid that comes without conditions?
I guess it is clear that William Easterly is influencing me. But can we really act righteous when all our loan conditions do nothing to change the countries with poor human rights records?
What is interesting is how the article draws a distinction between China's decision to work with countries with poor human rights records without conditions while the US sets conditions. Before we feel good about ourselves, I ask this question: Is there any difference between aid that comes with conditions that are never enforced and therefore never met, or aid that comes without conditions?
I guess it is clear that William Easterly is influencing me. But can we really act righteous when all our loan conditions do nothing to change the countries with poor human rights records?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Democracy - It Ain't Easy
I remember some of the arguments I had with some more liberal friends (you know who you are) back during the early parts of the Iraq War. At the time, I was supporting the continuation of the Iraq War and they were opposing it. (I am not sure whether I supported the invasion - I think at times I did and other times did not. My knowledge of world issues was very limited then.)
I believed, influenced by Thomas Friedman, that we could easily create a democracy in Iraq. If I remember my friends' arguments, they believed that Iraqis were not ready for democracy and that it would not work if it was forced on them instead of them fighting for it themselves. (If I have misrepresented your arguments, please correct me.) I completely rejected that, believing everyone can become democratic.
Looking back, not just after six years in Iraq, but looking at other democracies around the world, I realize that I still believe everyone can have a democracy. What I realize though was that my expectations were extremely naive. Democracies cannot sprout overnight. Democracies need time to grow, to learn from mistakes, and to evolve. They also need stability and a strong middle class.
When we look around the world, we see democracies that have had far more time than Iraq to settle. In these countries, we still see significant growing pains. Pakistan continues to deal with threatened autocratic rule, disrespect for the rule of law and corruption. None of their leaders are free of one or all of these charges. We saw what can happen with contested elections in a relatively stable country like Kenya. South Africa right now seems to face a choice between an ineffective leader and AIDS denier (Thabo Mbeki) and a corrupt leader who is also facing serious rape charges (Jacob Zuma).
If you look at American history, you see similar growing pains. It took us two tries to chose the right form of government (see Articles of Confederation). We fought a bloody civil war. And we have had our own long fight with corruption, which is a fight we will never fully win, as Rod Blagojevich proves.
So I look back at my support then of the war, and I am embarrassed about my naivete. However, I can partly excuse myself since I was just starting to learn about the international world and form my own theories. What is scary is that we had a president who knew so little about the world that he believed creating a democracy was easy. Worse, he still believes it.
While I no longer think democracy is easy, this does not mean I will give up hope. It does mean that we need to change our expectations and our policies. We need to help foster the growth of democracies without the expectation that they will form overnight. This can mean helping increase stability and growth of a middle class. We also need to avoid grand plans like Iraq in the future. And in a place like Afghanistan, we need to be prepared for the long haul.
I believed, influenced by Thomas Friedman, that we could easily create a democracy in Iraq. If I remember my friends' arguments, they believed that Iraqis were not ready for democracy and that it would not work if it was forced on them instead of them fighting for it themselves. (If I have misrepresented your arguments, please correct me.) I completely rejected that, believing everyone can become democratic.
Looking back, not just after six years in Iraq, but looking at other democracies around the world, I realize that I still believe everyone can have a democracy. What I realize though was that my expectations were extremely naive. Democracies cannot sprout overnight. Democracies need time to grow, to learn from mistakes, and to evolve. They also need stability and a strong middle class.
When we look around the world, we see democracies that have had far more time than Iraq to settle. In these countries, we still see significant growing pains. Pakistan continues to deal with threatened autocratic rule, disrespect for the rule of law and corruption. None of their leaders are free of one or all of these charges. We saw what can happen with contested elections in a relatively stable country like Kenya. South Africa right now seems to face a choice between an ineffective leader and AIDS denier (Thabo Mbeki) and a corrupt leader who is also facing serious rape charges (Jacob Zuma).
If you look at American history, you see similar growing pains. It took us two tries to chose the right form of government (see Articles of Confederation). We fought a bloody civil war. And we have had our own long fight with corruption, which is a fight we will never fully win, as Rod Blagojevich proves.
So I look back at my support then of the war, and I am embarrassed about my naivete. However, I can partly excuse myself since I was just starting to learn about the international world and form my own theories. What is scary is that we had a president who knew so little about the world that he believed creating a democracy was easy. Worse, he still believes it.
While I no longer think democracy is easy, this does not mean I will give up hope. It does mean that we need to change our expectations and our policies. We need to help foster the growth of democracies without the expectation that they will form overnight. This can mean helping increase stability and growth of a middle class. We also need to avoid grand plans like Iraq in the future. And in a place like Afghanistan, we need to be prepared for the long haul.
Bonus: Must be Nice
I appreciated the Opinion piece in today's NY Times, written by an executive at AIG. In it, the author announces his resignation and his disappointment with AIG CEO's refusal to defend those who received bonuses. The opinion piece was well written and made me think a little deeper about the issue. However, it did not change my mind. I still think the bonuses were outrageous.
Basically, the author of the Opinion piece says that his unit was not responsible for the meltdown at AIG, so therefore the public scorn should not be directed at him. This is true if the only reason people are upset about the bonuses is because they thought the bonuses were going only to people who caused the problem. But the bonuses were outrageous even knowing that they also went to people at the firm who were not involved in mortgage-backed securities.
The company was so close to bankruptcy, and close to bringing the whole economy down with it, that it required a government (taxpayer) bailout. Since the firm is in such a precarious situation, all planned expenses need to be reconsidered to determine whether they are integral to save the firm (or at least mitigate the damage it has caused). Bonuses cannot be considered a necessary expense in light of these circumstances.
Now, some people are arguing that the bonuses were necessary to retain the talent at the firm. This does not make sense; with the number of layoffs at financial firms there is a surplus of labor. This surplus gives the firms bargaining advantage and will drive wages down. So bonuses should not be necessary to keep employees, and if they choose to leave, the firm can find newly unemployed workers to fill those positions.
The government got involved because there were legitimate financial obligations that AIG was likely to have trouble meeting. Bonuses were not one of those obligations.
While I took the opinion piece at face value, there is an obvious contradiction in it. The author mentions that he accepted a $1 salary to stay at AIG in a sense of public duty. However, he still accepted, and felt he needed, a $700,000 bonus, and is now quitting over the outrage it drew. If he recognized the need to accept a $1 salary, then he should have also realized the need to refuse / renegotiate the bonus.
Basically, the author of the Opinion piece says that his unit was not responsible for the meltdown at AIG, so therefore the public scorn should not be directed at him. This is true if the only reason people are upset about the bonuses is because they thought the bonuses were going only to people who caused the problem. But the bonuses were outrageous even knowing that they also went to people at the firm who were not involved in mortgage-backed securities.
The company was so close to bankruptcy, and close to bringing the whole economy down with it, that it required a government (taxpayer) bailout. Since the firm is in such a precarious situation, all planned expenses need to be reconsidered to determine whether they are integral to save the firm (or at least mitigate the damage it has caused). Bonuses cannot be considered a necessary expense in light of these circumstances.
Now, some people are arguing that the bonuses were necessary to retain the talent at the firm. This does not make sense; with the number of layoffs at financial firms there is a surplus of labor. This surplus gives the firms bargaining advantage and will drive wages down. So bonuses should not be necessary to keep employees, and if they choose to leave, the firm can find newly unemployed workers to fill those positions.
The government got involved because there were legitimate financial obligations that AIG was likely to have trouble meeting. Bonuses were not one of those obligations.
While I took the opinion piece at face value, there is an obvious contradiction in it. The author mentions that he accepted a $1 salary to stay at AIG in a sense of public duty. However, he still accepted, and felt he needed, a $700,000 bonus, and is now quitting over the outrage it drew. If he recognized the need to accept a $1 salary, then he should have also realized the need to refuse / renegotiate the bonus.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Not Sure What to Think
I cannot decide whether to be a little optimistic about the new Israeli government, or depressed and terrified. And my feelings change depending on the article I read. The fact that this is a right wing government (with Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister) that does not believe in a two state solution depresses me - especially since I thought Obama's even hand might actually be able to guide the region forward.
But then it seems that the right wing government wants to govern from the middle and does not want to anger the Obama administration (and thereby recognizing that Obama will be more willing to actually criticize). And although they do not believe in a two state solution, they want to see economic growth in the Palestinian territories before talk of a two-state solution.
So I guess I am in the middle - neither optimistic nor depressed. I am glad there is talk of fostering economic growth in the territories. However, I am skeptical since I do not know what kind of growth can be expected given the large scale destruction in Gaza (maybe they only mean the West Bank). We'll just have to wait and see.
But then it seems that the right wing government wants to govern from the middle and does not want to anger the Obama administration (and thereby recognizing that Obama will be more willing to actually criticize). And although they do not believe in a two state solution, they want to see economic growth in the Palestinian territories before talk of a two-state solution.
So I guess I am in the middle - neither optimistic nor depressed. I am glad there is talk of fostering economic growth in the territories. However, I am skeptical since I do not know what kind of growth can be expected given the large scale destruction in Gaza (maybe they only mean the West Bank). We'll just have to wait and see.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
A Raisin in the Sun
I was raised in the Methodist Church - in a Northeast Methodist Church to be exact. My family went every Sunday and I was required to go to Sunday school even after my Confirmation. I did manage to learn a lot about Christianity - mostly through osmosis probably - and I respect the faith and the teachings (mostly). So you might ask why I do not practice.
In all honesty, I don't have a problem with the more mystical elements like the Virgin Birth, Christ's Resurrection, or the Old Testament teachings (well, there are some stories that I just don't get). My problem is with God. There, I said it. The fact is, that even if He does exist, I can't bring myself to worship Him.
There is a quote from Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun that I loved as soon as I read it and haven't been able to forget about since.
The crux of Christianity seems to be that we created sin, so therefore we are to blame for all of the world's evils. Yet the credit for all miracles go to Him. It has to be one way or the other. Either the human race is responsible for wars and miracles, or God is. I tend towards the former, but if it is the later, then I don't see why God is worth worshiping.
In all honesty, I don't have a problem with the more mystical elements like the Virgin Birth, Christ's Resurrection, or the Old Testament teachings (well, there are some stories that I just don't get). My problem is with God. There, I said it. The fact is, that even if He does exist, I can't bring myself to worship Him.
There is a quote from Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun that I loved as soon as I read it and haven't been able to forget about since.
Beneatha: Mama, you don't understand. It's all a matter of ideas, and God is just one idea I don't accept. It's not important. I am not going out and be immoral or commit crimes because I don't believe in God. I don't even think about it. It's just that I get tired of Him getting credit for all the things the human race achieves through its own stubborn effort. There simply is no blasted God - there is only man and it is he who achieves miracles!Beneatha gets slapped by Mama right after this, but that is beside the point. What bothers me is that God asks us to be humble but requires that we spend some significant portion of our lives worshiping Him. And on top of that, I don't even know what we are worshiping. Am I worshiping a God that allows 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus to be killed in 100 days; a God that allows millions of Jews to die under Hitler; a God that watches as famine, disease, and war (with child soldiers no less) wipe out the most vulnerable among us?
The crux of Christianity seems to be that we created sin, so therefore we are to blame for all of the world's evils. Yet the credit for all miracles go to Him. It has to be one way or the other. Either the human race is responsible for wars and miracles, or God is. I tend towards the former, but if it is the later, then I don't see why God is worth worshiping.
I Still Hate Him
Former VP Dick Cheney has been making press lately by saying that Obama's attempts to roll back some of his administration's worst abuses will make us less safe. This enrages me for a couple reasons.
First, he exaggerates the benefits of using torture and unlimited detentions while ignoring the costs. As we know, torture only creates the incentive for the victim to say what his interrogators want to hear. Sometimes this produces good intelligence, but sometimes not. In fact, it can lead the prisoner to overstate or lie about existing threats (which then further creates the false impression that the torture is working).
More importantly, it completely ignores the effect that our policies of torture have on recruitment of new terrorists. In fact, any security gains policies of torture can achieve are only short-term, while the costs are long term. This works for politicians like Bush and Cheney, who can claim short-term victory, and deny the long term affects that surface after they have left office.
But second, Cheney's statements and the Bush administration policies suggest that security is both attainable and our primary concern; holding to our values and protecting liberties is secondary. The idea that security, that protection from all terrorist attacks, is attainable is false. Once we admit that, that we can never achieve total security, than we must also decide not to sacrifice our values, for there is no payoff.
People like Dick Cheney will always be there, describing our deepest fears and fooling us into thinking that we can be safe. His solution will be through short term policies and sacrificing of our values and freedoms. We can defeat people like that by deciding that our values are more important, and accepting that by living free, we live with risk.
First, he exaggerates the benefits of using torture and unlimited detentions while ignoring the costs. As we know, torture only creates the incentive for the victim to say what his interrogators want to hear. Sometimes this produces good intelligence, but sometimes not. In fact, it can lead the prisoner to overstate or lie about existing threats (which then further creates the false impression that the torture is working).
More importantly, it completely ignores the effect that our policies of torture have on recruitment of new terrorists. In fact, any security gains policies of torture can achieve are only short-term, while the costs are long term. This works for politicians like Bush and Cheney, who can claim short-term victory, and deny the long term affects that surface after they have left office.
But second, Cheney's statements and the Bush administration policies suggest that security is both attainable and our primary concern; holding to our values and protecting liberties is secondary. The idea that security, that protection from all terrorist attacks, is attainable is false. Once we admit that, that we can never achieve total security, than we must also decide not to sacrifice our values, for there is no payoff.
People like Dick Cheney will always be there, describing our deepest fears and fooling us into thinking that we can be safe. His solution will be through short term policies and sacrificing of our values and freedoms. We can defeat people like that by deciding that our values are more important, and accepting that by living free, we live with risk.
Holy Shit
Holy Shit. This article in the New York Review of Books is infuriating. The article describes a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross regarding the treatment of the 14 "high value detainees" that were until recently kept in secret detention sites outside the US. The description of their interrogations is appalling and very clearly torture. Through all of this, it seems that senior officials were aware of and sometimes directing the torture.
Bush has said that his administration did not torture. But the only way that statement is true is through the cruel and ugly logic of his torture memo, where torture is defined only as causing death, organ failure, or the loss of functioning of a body part. Rejecting that narrow definition of torture, we can accept that Bush did in fact torture prisoners.
Read the article for yourself. And get angry.
Bush has said that his administration did not torture. But the only way that statement is true is through the cruel and ugly logic of his torture memo, where torture is defined only as causing death, organ failure, or the loss of functioning of a body part. Rejecting that narrow definition of torture, we can accept that Bush did in fact torture prisoners.
Read the article for yourself. And get angry.
Book Report: Chasing the Flame (1)
I am not ready yet to give my thoughts on Samantha Powers' book Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World. I finished reading it a while ago, but I have not been able to organize all my thoughts on it yet. So while I do that, here is a post with some golden quotes from the book (the Kindle is amazing!).
Here is the quote of the book:
Here is the quote of the book:
To nonexperts, humanitarian action and human rights sounded like synonyms or, at the very least, complements. But he knew that, in the real world, feeding people was often incompatible with speaking out. "How do we reconcile the need for humanitarian access and thus discretion, with the need, sometimes the obligation, for human rights?" he asked a gathering of diplomats from donor countries in Geneva, undoubtedly with the events of Zaire and Tanzania on his mind. "In the face of overwhelming human rights abuses, when do humanitarian agencies withdraw?"And now some others to get you thinking:
Released from the cold war stalemate, the Security Council of the 1990s had been liberated to enforce international peace and security. But the back-to-back calamities had made it clear that, if civilians were not pawns in a larger ideological struggle, as they had been in the cold war, their welfare would command hardly any attention at all. Instead of using the Security Council to establish and enforce a new global order, the major powers sent lightly armed peacekeepers into harm’s way simply to monitor the carnage. The results were devastating in two regards. First, civilians were murdered en masse. And second, the UN peacekeepers took far more of the blame than the politicians who had handed them an assignment that was, Vieira de Mello liked to say, "mission impossible."This last quote is amazing.
in the 1980s Western governments had spent millions aiding the Cambodian refugees as a way of destabilizing the Vietnam-installed regime in Phnom Penh. But in the Great Lakes area, a region of marginal strategic value, Western governments were not using aid as a tool for promoting their national interests. Rather, they were using aid as a substitute for meaningful foreign policy engagement of any kind. [Something Western governments do way too often.]
He urged UN officials to accept "that humanitarian crises are almost always political crises, that humanitarian action always has political consequences, both perceived and real." Since everybody else was playing politics with humanitarian aid, he wrote, "we can hardly afford to be apolitical."
In 1999 scholar Edward Luttwak published an influential article in Foreign Affairs entitled "Give War a Chance," in which he suggested that aid workers and peace-brokers were prolonging wars that would only end permanently if they were "allowed to run their natural course." "Policy elites," Luttwak wrote, "should actively resist the emotional impulse to intervene in other peoples’ wars—not because they are indifferent to human suffering but precisely because they care about it."
Vieira de Mello wrote a steaming letter to the editor slamming Luttwak’s "simplistic compilation of old arguments and wrong conclusions." He faulted Luttwak for his "uniform picture of war." Since few conflicts tidily confined themselves within national borders, Vieira de Mello argued, turning one’s back on violence would often result in wider, messier regional conflicts. In addition, since so many governments and rebel movements benefited from war, they had an incentive to prolong war on their own. They didn’t need any help from aid workers.
While he acknowledged that humanitarian action could sometimes have perverse consequences, he wrote that "to deny aid altogether is not only unhelpful, it is unthinkable." He noted that he generally valued critical commentary, but he found unhelpful such "oversimplified accounts far removed from the complexities of actual war and blanket statements that lead to quietism." [I have heard this same argument before, and de Mello's response is perfect.]
But he thought the flawed tendency of aid workers to give aid uncritically and indefinitely was a lesser danger than the tendency of rich countries to turn their backs on humanitarian crises altogether.
Only when Western powers stood together unequivocally, flexing their collective diplomatic and financial muscles, did Russia and China come around, as in the Persian Gulf War or in the belated decision to act militarily in Bosnia. But Vieira de Mello knew that occasions would arise when all the Western unity and diplomacy in the world would not change their views. In those circumstances, he was prepared to admit, exceptional emergencies might require a "coalition of the willing" to bypass the paralyzed Council. Ever so rarely, the urgency and legitimacy of the cause could excuse the illegality of the procedures. [Notice how this echoes the US justification for Iraq - without the legitimacy of the cause.]
He adopted a formulation common among those who supported NATO’s action but were nervous about its implications: The war was illegal (under the procedural rules of the UN Charter) but legitimate (according to the substantive ideals the UN was trying to advance).
he also did not understand why disarmament was a key item on the Security Council checklist while human rights were not. "A regime that can grossly violate the rights of its own people is ipso facto a threat to its neighbors and to regional and international peace and security," he insisted.
He knew that the organization he cherished was at once an actor in its own right and simply a building, no better or worse than the collective will of the countries that constituted it.
but he never imagined that U.S. planners would think so little about the peace [in Iraq]. Surely, he thought, they had watched as UN peacekeepers foundered in their "morning after" efforts to maintain order in the 1990s. Surely the Coalition would take precautions to stave off the kind of chaos that could be far deadlier than anything a regular army could unleash. Surely they would understand that establishing human security was a prerequisite to achieving other aims.
In 2000 he had embraced a new norm first put forth by an independent commission: the "responsibility to protect." The first responsibility to protect individuals from violence fell to those individuals’ government, but when that government proved unable (in a failing state) or unwilling (in a repressive state) to offer such protection, then the responsibility vested upward to the international community, which had a duty to mobilize the means to stop mass murder.
Book Report: Shia Revival
I finished reading The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr. The book mostly focuses on the conflict between Shia and Sunni faiths, with an emphasis on Shiaism, and includes a brief history of Islam (again, with a focus on Shiaism). The book is well written and so it was a quick read.
I learned two main things from this book. First, our understanding of the Middle East and their politics, as covered in the press, is highly skewed. Who we see as the villains and heroes depends on who likes us and who does not. In the past we have seen Iran as a villain and Saudi Arabia as a hero. In fact, as 9/11 taught us, it should be the other way around. We even judge Iran's democracy more harshly because of our relationship with them and yet don't judge Saudi Arabia's repressive government.
The author sees all developments in the Middle East through the lens of Shia and Sunni interactions (conflicts) and that other issues are often pawns in that interaction. An Iraq with closer ties to Iran can counter strength of Sunni governments, whose oppression and intolerance have a negative impact on the region (which is not at all how the US press sees it). Also, the Israel / Palestine issue is manipulated to garner popular support and strength in the region.
The book manages to provide a much more nuanced, and less negative, view of Shias and Iran specifically. Unfortunately, I do not think Americans are ready to accept that view.
The second thing I learned was of course how similar Islam and Christianity are when you contrast their histories. Both religions have had to respond to oppression against their faithful. Early Christians choose martyrdom (a really good analysis of the Gnostic Book of Judas suggests the author believed that martyrdom was against God's will - leading sheep to the slaughter) as a way to promote the faith. In the face of oppression, Shias have at times chosen martyrdom (as the celebration of Ashora remembers) at times modified their faith, and at times simply withstood the oppression.
Both faiths have had to deal with modernization as well, although it seems Islam has had the greater challenge since the modern world has seemed to leave Muslims behind. This debate largely revolves around traditionalism versus change. The faiths also face(d) conflicts over who should lead the faith and who should lead the government - and whether those two should be the same.
The issue that really struck me though was how the religions debate internally whether individual piety or social justice is more important - essentially whether the faith should be inward looking or outward looking. Around the 1950s, Shia clerics argued that the faith was too focused on piety and did not do enough to fight for changes to make people's lives better. Through these teachings, these Shias were arguing for revolution and social change - some argued in support of communism.
This book is a must read because it can both humanize Shias and help people to think about our role in the Middle East differently. We should be supporting states based not on their rhetoric towards us, but how their actions affect us and their own people. Also, by better understanding the power plays between Sunnis and Shias, we can better manage issues and conflicts in the region.
I learned two main things from this book. First, our understanding of the Middle East and their politics, as covered in the press, is highly skewed. Who we see as the villains and heroes depends on who likes us and who does not. In the past we have seen Iran as a villain and Saudi Arabia as a hero. In fact, as 9/11 taught us, it should be the other way around. We even judge Iran's democracy more harshly because of our relationship with them and yet don't judge Saudi Arabia's repressive government.
The author sees all developments in the Middle East through the lens of Shia and Sunni interactions (conflicts) and that other issues are often pawns in that interaction. An Iraq with closer ties to Iran can counter strength of Sunni governments, whose oppression and intolerance have a negative impact on the region (which is not at all how the US press sees it). Also, the Israel / Palestine issue is manipulated to garner popular support and strength in the region.
The book manages to provide a much more nuanced, and less negative, view of Shias and Iran specifically. Unfortunately, I do not think Americans are ready to accept that view.
The second thing I learned was of course how similar Islam and Christianity are when you contrast their histories. Both religions have had to respond to oppression against their faithful. Early Christians choose martyrdom (a really good analysis of the Gnostic Book of Judas suggests the author believed that martyrdom was against God's will - leading sheep to the slaughter) as a way to promote the faith. In the face of oppression, Shias have at times chosen martyrdom (as the celebration of Ashora remembers) at times modified their faith, and at times simply withstood the oppression.
Both faiths have had to deal with modernization as well, although it seems Islam has had the greater challenge since the modern world has seemed to leave Muslims behind. This debate largely revolves around traditionalism versus change. The faiths also face(d) conflicts over who should lead the faith and who should lead the government - and whether those two should be the same.
The issue that really struck me though was how the religions debate internally whether individual piety or social justice is more important - essentially whether the faith should be inward looking or outward looking. Around the 1950s, Shia clerics argued that the faith was too focused on piety and did not do enough to fight for changes to make people's lives better. Through these teachings, these Shias were arguing for revolution and social change - some argued in support of communism.
This book is a must read because it can both humanize Shias and help people to think about our role in the Middle East differently. We should be supporting states based not on their rhetoric towards us, but how their actions affect us and their own people. Also, by better understanding the power plays between Sunnis and Shias, we can better manage issues and conflicts in the region.
Economy, Interest Rates, and Cycles
As I have been thinking about the economic crisis, one thing keeps nagging at me. I have thought for a long time that interest rates were too low, and yet they kept getting lower. The constant lowering of interest rates during high growth seemed to have been an attempt to maintain growth and prevent a recession. And that decision was made on the assumption that we could actually prevent recessions.
This article in the Atlantic however suggests that the normal business cycle (boom and bust) still exists and maybe always will - that we have not conquered it. So maybe we should have raised interest rates during high growth instead of lowering them to maintain the high growth. By lowering them further while we were growing, we not only created a bubble, but removed one major mechanism we have for getting ourselves out of the recession. Interest rates cannot be lowered further, so the Fed is left with creative but risky mechanisms to get the economy going again.
There has been a lot of talk about lax regulation under Greenspan, and rightly so. But I think the Fed's policy on interest rates needs to be considered as well.
This article in the Atlantic however suggests that the normal business cycle (boom and bust) still exists and maybe always will - that we have not conquered it. So maybe we should have raised interest rates during high growth instead of lowering them to maintain the high growth. By lowering them further while we were growing, we not only created a bubble, but removed one major mechanism we have for getting ourselves out of the recession. Interest rates cannot be lowered further, so the Fed is left with creative but risky mechanisms to get the economy going again.
There has been a lot of talk about lax regulation under Greenspan, and rightly so. But I think the Fed's policy on interest rates needs to be considered as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)