Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Taiwan Bound?

Well, it looks like I am finally getting somewhere with this teaching English in Taiwan adventure. The past 3 weeks I have applied to many places, gone through a placement agency and used (my brothers) networks to get things rolling. But let me make some observations:

1. I am thinking that when schools ask that you come in for an interview in person (that is come to Taiwan without the knowledge if you will be hired or not) they are saying "We'll call you..."

2. When I paid the University of South Carolina $200 per semester in "technology fees" and it still takes them OVER 3 months to get me my diploma, I think there is a problem. Being I graduated on December 14 and they said that we should receive our diplomas in March, this could cause some problems with my work visa for Taiwan. If transcripts don't work, I'll be camping outside the registrars office until I get my diploma. And I'll do it too...

3. For the school that I will be working at, some kind of teaching certificate is required. Now, most of the other ones I applied to didn't require this, but it's fine. But what is interesting is that I will be a certified substitute teacher in Arizona. I haven't even been to Arizone before...

4. When a placement agency sets up an interview with you, and then they stand you up, you make sure you give them a shout out. Thank you Reach To Teach Recruiting. Luckily, it was my backup school in Korea. So no worries.

I have a feeling this will be a very interesting next couple of months. No doubt, there will be setbacks, but hopefully I can stay on top of these things and get moving.

More to come...

Monday, December 21, 2009

A little of this, a little of that

So I finally graduated. Yep, I made it. Somehow.

This past week, I have done a little bit of traveling. On Thursday, I headed to Charleston with some friends. Played a little basketball (got schooled) and did a little running (got cramped). That night, we went to downtown Charleston and went salsa dancing. By the way, I can't dance. No matter how hard I try. It's impossible. But that has never stopped me.

We went to Southend Brewery and Smokehouse for the salsa dancing. They had a $5 cover charge. Never have been a fan of a cover charge. But I guess since they had a live DJ and had to pay him, they needed to pass on those costs to the consumer. Thanks capitalism.

There were several things I liked about Southend. For one, it was a microbrewery (well, they had their own beers, but their "vats" were encased and really small, nothing like Hunter Gatherer here in Columbia, so I think that they make the beer elsewhere). I tried two of their beers and had to say that they were actually very good - and only $3.50!!

Another thing I liked was that the restruant was actually 3 stories (they have both an elevator and stairs) and they have a "gawking" area set up so you can look down on the people below you. On the 3rd floor, they have another bar, dart boards and a few pool tables. Unfortunatley, they had already closed the bar - or so the bartender told me - so we couldn't play pool. Ever hear of coin slot operated tables?! Anyhow...

The music was good, the atmosphere was overall friendly (minus the short stocky black guy who came over to where we were sitting and said "this is my table" like 8 times. Yeah, I heard you the first time.) I would defintly recommend hitting this up if you're in Charleston sometime.

Then Friday I went to Aiken, SC and Augusta, GA. Never really have been to either of them before. Didn't actually do anything in Aiken. But Augusta was a very nice place. They have a great layout for their downtown, with parking on both sides of the street and parking lots built in every other block in the middle of the road. Very nice, very convienent, and very busy.

We went to a place called Firehouse (I think) and it was pretty interesting. In Georgia, unlike South Carolina, they don't have a smoking ban in bars. Not a big fan of laws governing our actions, but have to say I do like SC's laws a little better. But they had fair prices on their drinks (domestics seemed priced about $2 each) and they had a few local microbrewery beers on tap. Besides Firehouse being where the local wildlife of Savannah hangs out, it was a good place. Had a pool table and a very tiny bathroom. Just FYI's. I was also told the womens bathroom had showcurtains for dividers. Now that's classy.

Next up for me will be - hopefully - Boston and Philly. Maybe NYC? I don't know yet, but I'm going to try to get up that way sometime after Christmas. More to come...

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Been an interesting past couple of days...

Yesterday, randomly around lunch time, my cell decided to just stop working. The screen just blanked out, no warning...just bam! But since it was still under the factory warranty, they sent me a new one (in less than 24 hours!) for free. Unfortunatly, they couldn't transfer any of the data I had...so all my contacts, pictures, videos - lost. And I had some good stuff in there. Oh well.

Tonight, I saw my first ever "professional" play - in America. I had seen Chicago and The Tempest in England years ago, but I had never seen a professionally done play before. I saw Rent, which from what I was told had a great cast. I thought it was pretty cool and think its something everyone should do.

Today was my last day at the governors office. Not much to write home about. I have to say that the internship was, for "experience" purposes, almost a complete waste. Minus the fact that I was able to sit in on a state supreme court hearing (Sanford v. Ethics Committe) and got to make a few contacts at some of the state agencies, all I can say is that the opportunity cost made me lose out in about $700 per month. So not cool. Not cool at all.

Tomorrow is my last day at Avista. I've been there for 2 and a half years, and although I really do love the people I work with, it's time to move on. I've been a "glorified" telemarketer and think I max out on what I could learn about a year ago.

Graduation is on Monday. Ironically I have my last final that day too. Way to give me a parting middle finger there, USC. But come 3:30 on December 14 (and me passing a certain final that I took on Monday) I will be done with college - and none too soon. Burned out doesn't begin to explain it. But I made it, with a double major in business (accounting and management) and a minor in political science.

Right now, I'm trying to get a job teaching english abroad. I'm concentrating my efforts in getting into Taiwan. Not really sure why - I know almost nothing about the Asian culture. But maybe that's why I want to do it - no real predisposed biases and something that I can only learn from. It would be a year long thing and I could be leaving as soon as the end of January. I am all for it, but I may have started my application process a little too late. If it's meant to be, a door will open. Or the security system will be off so I can knock open the door......

Monday, December 7, 2009

Ray LaMontagne

Ray LaMontagne is in my opinion a more chill artist than Jack Johnson, but has a much wider variety of songs, and a much better lyric writer. Here is a sample of one of his songs...listen to the words, I think they will blow you away...


Sunday, December 6, 2009

The End of Ideology and Beginning of Wandering

So for many, this may come as sort of a surprise:

I really couldn't give two shits about politics.

You see, after all the reading I've done over the past 4 years, the conversations I've had with people of all persuasions, and working for a politican for the past semester (yes, the famous Governor Sanford of South Carolina), I must admit, politics is too much banter, too little governing.

So at the ripe old age of 23, I'm looking for something new.

So what will it be? It's easy for me to get into anything. I love sports, music, friends, beer, dogs, cats, long walks on the beach, roller coasters, zoos, snow, sun, and sleeping. Food too.

With this in mind, what encompasses all of the things I love most? I thought long and hard about it. At least 6 minutes.

And I came up with an answer...

Travel

Yes, I think the next thing that I will begin to do, begin to study, begin to write about, begin to live is travel. And as a college graduate with a business empahasis, finding time right now to travel should be no problem.

So with the political ideology behind me (but don't confuse that with me saying I will never dive into the subject again. It's just I'm going to be focusing on others things for the next chapter of my life) the new passion will be travel, and all that it encompasses.

And lucky for me, it's a lot. So far, I'm already planning a few trips around a Frank Turner/Flogging Molly concert; also looking at hitting up DC, Boston, and Philadelpia. Even an outside chance of doing that teach english abroad in Taiwan for a year. Imagine that?

Well, I guess I have to graduate college first, so I better get back to studying for my finals - my final finals. Strange how real this is...

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Good Website

Be part of the grassroots movement that will soon be called "un-American activity" and send this to all of your Obama/ex-Obama friends...

http://www.iamsorryivotedforobama.com/

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

40%

With the new Nigerian-Russian oil deal, about 40% of oil and gas to western europe is now controlled by the Russians.

Personally, I am a bit concerned.

Monday, June 29, 2009

"Change"

That's right, the Obama Administration is all about change...

...from saying that the effects of the stimulus package would “begin almost immediately,” to “We always knew we were not going to get all that much fiscal impact during the first five to six months. The big impact starts to hit from about now onwards.”

What will be the spin in September?

Thursday, June 25, 2009

The Debt President

This is a quick 180 from what the German media was saying just two months ago...

One of my favorite excerpts:

"The mistakes of the Bush administration are now widely accepted. The mistakes of the Obama administration are still not recognized as such. They are seen as the truth."

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Ironic

During the Iran media blackout, new agencies have been relying on reports from Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. In particular, CNN keeps saying, "It's really frustrating that we cannot verify these reports..." That's really ironic because they never had any problems in verifying Obama's missing birth certificate and other vital things that they should have done some research on before reporting.

Just an observation from a member of the vast right wing conspiracy crew.

Props

If you need a laugh...

http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Monday, June 1, 2009

A Quick Thought Pt. 3

Just continuing the updates from previous posts...1...2...

Citi, which was just delisted today from the NYSE, is about to be owned by the government...

So our largest insurance company (AIG), auto manufacturer (GM), and one of the largest banks (Citi) will now be owned and operated by the government.

Lovely, comrades...

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Protectionism's Threat

Just wanted to post the final version of this paper.

Enjoy <--

Free Coldplay CD

If you're a fan of Coldplay, they are letting you download their newest live CD for free.

http://lrlrl.coldplay.com/leftright.html

PDF Figured Out

I think...

Enjoy <--

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Who are We Beholden To?

    Well, I tried to be all cool and converted this to a PDF and everything, but couldn't figure out how to upload a PDF from my computer to this blog. Oh well. But I have been doing some reading and I just decided to write something that I believe is a good starting point for a lot of topics. I will expand on this article shortly, but wanted to get a general concept of what my thought process is. Comments are welcome.

------------------------------

Who are we beholden to? This idea is not a new one. Philosophers such as Rousseau, Jefferson, and John Adams have all voiced in on this topic. But in today's society, who are we beholden to.

    Some might think that we are beholden to our jobs, our spouse, or our mortgage payments. Things that we are beholden to are created by our own choices and decisions. We choose to be beholden to our mortgage payments because we wanted to buy a house in a certain location, attend a 4-year prestigious university, or buy a new car. We might feel beholden to these things, but they are not bad: just a temporary lien that can and will be paid off within our lifetimes.

    With a spouse, we choose to be married to them. We share in the ups and downs, the good times and the bad, but this bond is no longer binding once one spouse dies. The other is free to re-marry again, if they so choose.

    Even our jobs, we may be miserable or forced to work at a job for one reason or another, but eventually we are no longer obliged to continue working at that job. The military expects people to become soldiers for four years, but after that time is up, the person is free to move on to either a new occupation or re-enlist.

    But what are we beholden to? As citizens of the United States, can it be said that we are becoming beholden to other people from other countries and that even once this generation passed, the lien on our children due to us will remain? Unlike being married, working a job, or having debt for a house, this bondage is something greater than just what this generation can repay: We are creating a generation that is becoming bound by its predecessors.

    Without regard to the party of the person in charge, for the past two decades – at least – the United States has been steadily been focused on the domestic needs for consumption while not realizing the costs that have been incurred. When people do speak up, they are looked upon as partisan; to be believed only by the people who already follow a set of political doctrine and to be discounted by all others.

    John Adams saw the danger to this type of thinking. Adams wrote of previous republics and how they had been brought down by this very type of partisan politics. But people, myself included, have taken stances in the past based solely on what their political religious leaders have said. The future seems to be in no danger of changing.

    Adams ideology does not permit a blinded following and supporting of leaders in order to change things either. A basic understanding of a republic or democracy shows that compromise brought by intelligent open debating is necessary. What Adams point is is that voting, following, or supporting politicians solely by partisan lines is doing the democratic system no favors; it is no less than mob rule with agenda's based on numbers, not logic and foresight.

    Recently, many people were disillusioned with the way our country was going and decided to change that direction. Many people, though, voted solely for the sake of a partisan change, not a logical change. The changes that many would like to see are as numerous as there are letters in this article; but there is only one policy that needs to be changed: The giving away of our future generation's freedoms.

    The economic state of our country has been highlighted recently by the current recession, but the truth is, the chains have been dragged from across the ocean years ago. It was not just yesterday that the United States started living on a negative trade balance with other countries. As of May 13, the current deficit trade balance of the latest 12 months for the United States was $730.4 billion dollars. This is just for the past year, not including the nearly past 20 years of trade deficits.

    It is time now for Republican's who did not demand a change in spending to admit their massive failures. It is time for Democrat's also to become rational and drop the "they did it so I can do" motto, and demand the change that they voted for. What is needed, if even for just this issue, is not two political factions looking for a way to destroy the other by wishing failure or success; this is much too important and vital of an issue to be deciding things based solely on politics. What is needed is fierce debate; plans of action, change, and resolve. As Henry Knox wrote, we are in a pressing need for great men who when fortune frowns will not be discouraged.

    The alternative is the collapse of our economic system, our international leadership, and our way of life. With crushing entitlements that are not sustainable, how is it that people can demand of their government to take on more and demand to pay less? Is it not time for all people of all backgrounds to finally stand up and take the responsibility of their outcomes on their own shoulders and not blame their failures on others? Or is our country destined to become unaware that we have progressed from the 1800's. We have marched away from the 1960's. We have developed into what our forefathers envisioned: E pluribus unum. But are we destined to be destroyed from within due to those ghosts of the past, kept alive by the decedents of today?

    Adams was correct. Partisan politics will lead democratic politicians inevitably to deceit. But we must demand change. We must demand action by our leaders, especially in this dire economic situation. If they choose to not listen, we have the power to bring in people who will. The change that people desired for will not be found in a label: Republican or Democrat. The change people desire will be found in an active participative public that demands open debate on issues. A public that will act more like a business; if their elected official does not produce, then they must be replaced with someone who will.

    Will we see true change in the next three and a half years? When will people realize that the change must not be partisan and rhetoric, but solutions? When will we as the public decide to become more active and demanding? When the debt that we have created forces us to default? When we feel that it has become vogue to become more politically active? And when would that be? Next month? Next year?

    Or have we decided that we have the right to give up our future generations rights to freedom? That making decisions that might make us unpopular, or actions that will be difficult to achieve, or giving up time that is better used for leisure, is our right and that the problems we create will be the burden of those who will come after us. Are the inalienable rights that were devised at the beginning of our country's revolution no longer self evident for those to come? Are we the masters and our children the slaves; that they will be born into a bondage to others without a vote in this?


 

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Cool Website

has a lot of free achieved materials...from class lectures to books and software. check it out http://www.archive.org/index.php

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Whats on Deck

So in the next several weeks, I'm going to be working on a few topics. A couple to watch for are an overview on states rights, China-Russia working on a new reserve currency and implications, accounting standard changes to mark-to-market, and the politics of global warming. Of course, I'll have some commentary on other current issues and a few rants about baseball.

Thanks to everyone who has been reading this blog so far!

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Hitler as a Role Model...

Apparently, New York Times columnist David Leonhardt thinks we should do what Nazi Germany did to get our economy back running...

Has anyone ever thought of maybe just letting the economy fix itself by letting some companies fail, letting other businesses to fill the void, making the economy that would emerge stronger than it was before all of this started?

Just a thought.

Monday, March 30, 2009

What’s News 3/30

Just a few news stories from today that were not really reported on but I thought were interesting…

PETA responsible for 2124 animal deaths…CNN falls to 3rd place behind FOX News and MS-NBC…Tensions raise between the US and China from this report…U.S. can't do anything about the North Korean missile test…Pundits write that Obama's European goodwill is beginning to fade…Russia to build 6 nuclear subs with capabilities to fire cruise missiles…April 1 begins one of Russia's biggest peacetime draft in history, one that hopes to enlist 305,000 new soldiers…Russia and China are coordinating proposals on a new global currency that could replace the US dollar as a reserve currency…A fan of Obama's spending…

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Californication

This is an excerpt from an article in The Economist. February 28 - March 6 2009 issue, page 37.

The 2008 election did not just put a new president in the White House. It also completed one of the biggest shifts in the regional balance of power in America's recent history, draining influence away from the once-mighty South and redistributing it to the coasts...Equally striking is the social difference between the Californians and the southerners. Mrs. Pelosi, Mrs. Feinstein and Mrs. Harman are all married to wealthy businessmen - extremely wealthy in Mrs. Harman's case. Mrs. Pelosi's district, San Francisco, is a combination of a playground for the ultra-rich and a sewer for the underclass, with the middle classes priced out of the market. Mr. Waxman's district, West Los Angeles, is the glitziest concentration of wealth on the planet. The southerners, by contrast, were mostly men of modest means who represented middle-class suburbs, a world away from Pacific Heights, where Mrs. Pelosi lives, and Rodeo Drive, in the heart of Mr. Waxman's district.

The Californian Democrats’ agenda is the polar opposite of the southern Republicans’: pro-green and pro-union, anti-business and anti-war. Mr. Waxman and Mrs. Boxer have long outdone most of their party in supporting tougher environmental standards. As the architect of much of the anti-tobacco legislation of the 1990s, Mr. Waxman is casting around for new monsters to slay. (High on his list are energy companies.)

The Californication of the Democratic Party carries all sorts of risks. The most obvious is that California has the most dysfunctional politics in the country. The Golden State has one of the highest unemployment rates in America, at 9.3%, thanks to its high taxes, its unions, its anti-business climate and its gigantic housing bubble.

Californication

This is an excerpt from an article in The Economist. February 28 - March 6 2009 issue, page 37.

"The 2008 election did not just put a new president in the White House. It also completed one of the biggest shifts in the regional balance of power in America's recent history, draining influence away from the once-mighty South and redistributing it to the coasts...Equally striking is the social difference between the Californians and the southerners. Mrs. Pelosi, Mrs. Feinstein and Mrs. Harman are all married to wealthy businessmen - extremely wealthy in Mrs. Harman's case. Mrs. Pelosi's district, San Francisco, is a combination of a playground for the ultra-rich and a sewer for the underclass, with the middle classes priced out of the market. Mr. Waxman's district, West Los Angeles, is the glitziest concentration of wealth on the planet. The southerners, by contrast, were mostly men of modest means who represented middle-class suburbs, a world away from Pacific Heights, where Mrs. Pelosi lives, and Rodeo Drive, in the heart of Mr. Waxman's district.

Check, Please

Good news: Bailout, TARP, and Stimulus Package money are coming to your town. Bad news: By the time it gets there, it might be worthless.

Ok, maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration, but maybe not by much.

Doing a little research, I came across an interesting report. Apparently Moody's, the credit rating agency, in January 2008 said that the United States risked having its credit rating lowered if it did not curb back its spending – specifically its healthcare and social security spending.

And since then, our former Republican President helped fix this by allocating an additional $700 billion dollars into the TARP plan – and its great oversight abilities – and our fearless Democratic government has decided to spend an additional $800 billion dollars more for a stimulus package. All this while running a budget deficit. Seems that credit rating might need to stay at AAA.

Even worse, in January markets pegged the probability of a U.S. default at 6 percent over the next 10 years, compared with just 1 percent a year ago and there are some economic reports estimating that in the next 5 years, the United States has a 6% chance of defaulting on its sovereign debt. Even Senator Tom Coburn said, on January 11, 2009:

"I believe we are at the ultimate tipping point in this country. I believe if we don't make drastic changes over the next year and a half, that 2012 will see the default of the U.S. Government on its bills. I honestly believe that. There are a lot of economists who agree with me on that point."

Just take a second to think about that.

With all of this talk of spending billions for this and hundreds of millions for that, I dare ask this question: Who will give us the money today and who are we going to be obliged to repay in the future?

Well, apparently we owe a certain country over $1 trillion. China's president Wen Jiabao admits he's "definitely worried" that the United States will default on its debt. And if one of our biggest investors is worried now, is it important to question whether they will continue buying our debt 3 years from now?

Oh, and by the way, we've committed over $9 trillion so far into this financial fiasco, regardless of what our Savior says.

Check, please…

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Concerned Citizen or National Security Threat?

An interesting article from the Kansas City Star was brought to my attention recently. Apparently, Missouri law enforcement was given a new report entitled "The Modern Militia Movement" on February 20.

Some interesting things from that report – which helps to identify traits and signs of militia members – are as follows:

Christian Identity – more of a ultra-right wing Christian identity though

Sovereign Citizen – states rights supporters and feel the government has shifted away from the Constitution

Militant Abortion – anti-abortion believers

Anti-Immigration – as defined in this report, not anti-immigration, but anti illegal immigration

Political Paraphernalia – associate with 3rd party political groups, including Constitutional and Libertarian Parties. Usually supporters of former presidential candidates of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.

So, apparently if you grew up a Christian, and/or have a belief in states rights, and/or are pro-life, and/or against illegal immigration, and/or voted for Ron Paul (or have a bumper sticker of his on your car), DO NOT TRAVEL OR LIVE IN MISSOURI. You would be considered a possible militia member.

Read it yourself then decided: Are you a threat to national security?

Monday, March 23, 2009

Democrats Need Extra Credit for the Bonus Problem

So apparently our fearless Democratic Party leaders have such a short memory – and such high morals – that they can't remember saying it was ok to pay out taxpayer money to the executive team of a company – AIG – that helped run the company into the ground.

But that's not quite how it's being spun in the news. No, it's more of a "mob mentality" towards AIG - until Chris Dodd said that both he and the Obama administration knew about the bonus payouts and OK'ed them. Now it's moved from "hang them by the balls" to a more "let's move on and make sure it doesn't happen again."

And we all thought Bush was stupid. But apparently the media, the Obama administration, and others think WE are stupid.

Let's set the stage for what happened:

AIG says that it will pay out to executives $165 worth of bonuses. This is followed up with the Obama administration officials and Republicans nearly universal in condemning the $165 million in bonuses.

On March 16, Obama asked "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping this company afloat?" Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who had known about the bonuses, was also trotted out to express his "outrage" and declare that Treasury would somehow try to claw back the bonuses.

Later that night, Chris Dodd comes up with the brilliant – and may I add possibly unconstitutional and illegal – post-payout special tax on the bonuses. Within hours, most all Democrats and with a split Republican party, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.

Soon, it became apparent that maybe these payments were known to the Democratic party leaders. The provision, now called "the Dodd Amendment" by the Obama Administration provides an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009" - which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others were seeking to tax.

Dodd's original amendment did not include that exemption, and the Connecticut Senator denied inserting the provision, saying: "I can't point a finger at someone who was responsible for putting those dates in. I can tell you this much, when my language left the senate, it did not include it. When it came back, it did."

So he didn't know that something like that would be in the bill that he was writing? Surely, that was a pretty important fact not to be missed…then forgotten about when the word leaked out about this one specific bonus. (As a side point – how many other bonuses will be paid out under this framework? And at what cost to me and you?)

But one other thing. I'm not making any accusations, but merely noting this for the future…in case a trend appears to show up: Sen. Dodd was AIG's largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100. Also, one of AIG Financial Products' largest offices is based in Connecticut.

So apparently some people, but obviously not Dodd, knew about the OK to pay out bonuses to companies that received bailout money. Bailout money approved under the Obama administration. So forgive me for beating this subject to death, but wouldn't have someone had told someone that they put this clause into the bailout plan? It seems nobody seemed to tell Dodd or the President – and by assumption his chief advisor, the Vice President, his cabinet members, or his wife –Obama went on to express outrage at the use of federal bailout money to pay $165 million in bonuses to AIG employees and ordered the Treasury Secretary to use all legal means to prevent the payments.

Maybe I should also add a link to a previous blog post of mine, entitled "Incompetent, or Just Plain Stupid?"

But now with the apparent revelation that this was actually approved by the Democratic leadership has the Democratic leaders now saying "let's move on and make sure it doesn't happen again."

Joe Biden's economic adviser warned that a congressional plan to tax AIG executives' bonuses may go too far in using the tax code as a tool for retribution. Currently, President Obama has not said whether he would veto some version of a House-backed plan to heavily tax the $165 million in bonuses. And now many Democratic and some Republican leaders are saying things along the lines as no one disputes that paying out those bonuses given the country's current predicament was inappropriate and distasteful, contract or no. But the legislative proposals on the table to rectify the situation may end up doing more harm than good in the broader scheme of things.

Last week's angry-mob-with-pitchforks approach to bonuses
paid by AIG may give way to a more pragmatic approach this week as lawmakers and investors weigh the potential risks of the proposals before them.

At least Democrats haven't told us to eat cake yet.

Yet.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Protectionisms Threat – Pt. 6

What is needed right now is stability in free-trade. Without, this crisis will force America to take on a lesser role in the world. The fact is, to maintain a worldwide presence militarily, America needs a strong economy in order to pay for this influence. With countries such as Japan and China buying a large portion of our government backed debt, and our country running decades long deficits – with a few notable exceptions – if other countries take on a protectionist view and say that they need to encourage spending at home at the expense of foreign direct investment our deficit spending will be immediately halted by those countries not buying our bonds and the United States will be forced back into an equilibrium.

Capitalism has currently run into a problem, but as earlier stated, this isn't the first – nor will it be the last time that an economic crisis will raise its head. The problem isn't that the system is imperfect. The problem is that governments, pop culture, and citizens are blindly calling for a return to economic nationalism to try to fix the maladjustments to the economy while not taking the time to consider the implications to not only their wallets, but to the peace and security of their homes and countries if protectionism wins out. Boris Fyodorov, the late Russian economist, has the understanding of what needs to be done to correct the problem. He said, "Without a moral basis, capitalism would just become the means by which the powerful would concentrate their wealth." The solution isn't to destroy capitalism and free-trade, but to make sure that the mistakes that were made prior to World War I and II are not repeated:

The answer is found at the domestic level: the economic and political Open Doors – in other words, America's liberal (Wilsonian) ideology – caused the United States to seek hegemony. The Open Door is a complex set of linkages among economic and political (ideological) openness abroad, America's prosperity, and the security of its core values domestically…international economic openness and the spread of American ideology abroad create peace and security for the United States, and the U.S. military presence in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East creates the conditions that allow for international economic openness and the spread of American ideology. By the same token, the Open Door posits that closure abroad – either economic or ideological – would endanger the safety of America's core values at home by forcing the United States to adopt regimented economic policies and to become a garrison state. (Layne, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present, 2006)

And:

Drawing on the experience of two world wars, postwar U.S. officials believed there could be no stability on the Continent – the sine qua non for the United States to realize its economic Open Door goals – if the Europeans reverted to their bad old ways of nationalism and power politics. Washington therefore promoted integration and supranational institutions in Western Europe precisely to de-nationalize interstate relations among the Western Europeans. (Layne, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present, 2006)

The fear is that with the United States entering a period a definite economic decline and policies being enacted by both European and American governments supporting protectionist measures, the next several years for the United States and its national security need to be reevaluated and reappraised with the possible contingency of closure of overseas markets, re-armament and nationalism in Europe and Asia, and the implications that our role in the free-trade Liberalism that has been the standard for the past 6 decades could be coming to an end.

Protectionisms Threat – Pt. 5

At the current time, American and European leaders are considering legislation, loans, and measures that would support and encourage this type of thinking. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy, has hinted that billions of euros in aid for the French car industry should be made conditional on keeping production in France. George Provopoulos, the governor of Greece's central bank publicly "advised" banks to be "more prudent" about transferring bail-out funds to Balkan subsidiaries. A nasty industrial dispute sparked when Italian and Portuguese workers were posted to an English oil refinery. This led one British minister to urge changes to EU law to stop foreigners from undercutting British. (The Economist, 2009) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or the "stimulus package", passed in February includes a "Buy American" clause that allows for only the use of U.S. iron, steel and manufactured goods in public works projects funded by the bill.

Subsidies may indeed become the new protectionist battleground. Nicolas Sarkozy said in early February that "We want to stop moving factories abroad, and perhaps we will bring them back. If we are to give financial assistance to the auto industry, we don't want to see another factory being moved to the Czech Republic." Sarkozy has also said "It is justifiable if a Renault factory is built in India so that Renault cars may be sold to the Indians. But it is not justifiable if a factory of a certain producer is built in the Czech Republic and its cars are sold in France." The fundamental problem of massive French subsidies for the automobile sector remains in place. This will adversely affect other European carmakers. By sharply discounting their prices, Renault, Peugeot and Citroën will be able to gain market share -- and not just in France. This comes at the direct expense of other companies. Sarkozy is seeking to keep car manufacturing at home in France and he has said that companies receiving state aid should think about moving their plants back home. What is being undone with these types of measure is the European Single Market system.

Open protectionism quickly leads to escalation and this would not be a favorable development. American Paul Krugman, the freshly minted winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, announced, to his colleagues' dismay, that protectionism is justified to some extent. His argument is as follows: If stimulus packages are not coordinated, we have a problem, namely that national measures, such as tax cuts, primarily benefit foreign producers. (Münchau, Opinion: Europe and the Protectionist Trap, 2009)

This year's Berlin Film Festival provided a veritable showcase for films that criticize globalization and free market ideology with films such as Michael Winterbottom's "The Shock Doctrine". Many films portrayed big business and the ideology of so-called neo-liberalism as the world's new baddies, suggesting that the free market ideology pushed by Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman and his disciples was based on taking advantage of crises to impose the shock treatment of deregulation and privatization. And according to Michael Winterbottom, "This is how we see the world now. Free markets are good. Governments are bad. It's always more efficient to have private corporations providing services than it is government. And free markets go hand in hand with free societies." The intention his film is to present an alternative history of the past three decades that argues that the opposite is true. (Dowling, 2009)

This year at the World Social Forum the culprit of the current economic crisis was the whole present design of the world economy, promoting competition. Free trade and free movement of capital needed to be re-thought, participants insisted. At the far edge was the idea that money and finance are public goods and should be shared out accordingly, through democracy. (The Economist, 2009)

Data from the Bank of England show that in the fourth quarter of 2008 local banks sharply cut lending to foreign customers. British borrowers are themselves suffering from the withdrawal of Icelandic, Irish and other foreign lenders. Projections from the Institute of International Finance (IIF), an industry group, show that net inflows of private capital will slow to $165 billion this year, down from a peak of $929 billion in 2007. Banks are shrinking their balance sheets everywhere as they concentrate on their home markets. State support is increasingly accompanied by explicit obligations to lend at home.

The Obama administration has signaled that it will require American banks that benefit from its forthcoming rescue package to lend more. This is economic nationalism, but of an insidious type. Western governments are not trying to keep foreign banks out of their markets: indeed, foreign credit would be welcome. Now the purpose is to steer banks towards supporting businesses and jobs at home, not abroad. That has the whiff of protectionism about it. (The Economist, 2009)

Concisely, if a few major nations favor their own industries at the expense of foreigners, invariably so will others, producing rounds of retaliation. That could choke off trade further – the International Monetary Fund already predicts a 2.8% decline in trade in 2009 – and clog a global engine for growth. (Neil King, 2009)

Protectionisms Threat – Pt. 4

But what makes this the largest threat to the United States foreign policy? What makes the prevention of protectionism and the survival and progression of international trade more important than that of terrorist threats, rising regional and world powers, global warming, the need for alternative fuels and other pressing problems?

First, let's take a look at terrorism. The fact is, whether the year is 1783 or 2083, "terrorism" – by whatever definition it will take on – will be a possibility and a fear for everyone in every country. Whether terrorism takes on the form or definition of Native American raids on settlements, Irish ultra-nationalists, Islamic fundamentalists, or mercenaries paid to detonate WMD's, they will always be a threat to United States national security. But being that they are a constant in our world – although the form and definition of "terrorist" may change over time – it is hard to say that "terrorism" is the most important issue that our foreign policy makers should put into consideration for the next half-decade for the reason that its definition – and hence its security risk - could evolve and change overnight. But can the idea of radicalized, religious zealots who act according to what they have been taught be offset by a more free-trade world? According to Thomas Friedman, a plausible way to combat our current understanding of terrorism could be to encourage their entrance into a free-trade world:

Religions are the smelters and founders of imagination. The more any religion's imagination – Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist – is shaped in an isolated bubble, or in a dark cave, the more its imagination is likely to sail off in dangerous directions. People who are connected to the world and exposed to different cultures and perspectives are far more likely to develop the imagination of 11/9 [post Berlin-wall world]. People who are feeling disconnected, for whom personal freedom and fulfillment are a utopian fantasy, are more likely to develop the imagination of 9/11 (Freidman, 2006).

    Terrorism can be fought not only on the battlefield, but in the economic connectivity of people from all over the world. The idea is that the wealthier the country – and the higher the standard of living of the people of that country – the less likely they are to go to war with another country because of the high economical cost of a conflict.

    Another possible threat the United States could face in the next five years is a new regional or even world superpower. Why would the survival of Liberalism be more important than the risk, as stated earlier, that multipolarity "is inherently destabilizing – and hence inimical to economic openness"? It is precisely the fact that if the United States maintains a strong free-trade Open Door policy then the likeliness of a regional or world superpower is greatly decreased:

Washington's ability to provide other major states with collective goods – in both the security and economic spheres – is a wasting asset…other major states experience growing doubts about whether they can count on the United States to protect them, they…acquire military capabilities so that, if necessary, they can defend themselves without U.S. assistance…Precisely because multipolarity is antithetical to the Open Door world that the United States seeks, the aim of American grand strategy is to prevent the other major powers – even U.S. allies – from gaining autonomy in the realm of security… As America's relative economic power wanes, others will have decreasing incentives to bandwagon with the United States. The ongoing redistribution of global power is bringing forward the day when eligible states will be strong enough economically to challenge U.S. preponderance militarily… It is a truism that economic strength is the foundation of hegemonic power. A strong economy provides the resources that can be converted into military power and generates the wealth to pay for the extensive military apparatus necessary to maintain the hegemon's dominant position… At some point, the relative decline of U.S. economic power that is in the offing will bring American hegemony to an end. (Layne, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present, 2006)

    If the United States loses its hold on international, free-market trade, other nation's belief that the United States will be able to back up its commitments to them – in terms both defense and economic – will be reduced which then will encourage them to begin building their own defenses, reducing U.S. power and influence. The cause-effect relationship is not that a new regional or global superpower will adversely affect United States Liberalism, but the inability of the United States to promote and backup its free trade policies will result in an international uncertainty and rearmament.

    An outside problem facing the United States' national security could be the role it takes – or doesn't take – on the issue of global warming. Certain parties believe that the risks that the United States could face if it keeps on its track of "dirty energy" – such as coal and oil – could become loss of prestige internationally, falling behind the curve in manufacturing, and a heavy burden on its citizens in both the inefficiencies of outdated energy grids and the derivative effect of poorer health care due to "dirty energy".

    But according to Fareed Zakaria:

Between 2006 and 2012, China and India will build eight hundred new coal-fired power plants – with combined CO2 emissions five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords. (Zakaria, 2008)

    The rising regional and world powers of China and India are propelling their growth by the use of this same "dirty energy" that some Green movement proponents are claiming will bring American industry down. But American still is pushing ahead in this area of renewable energy, even if it is slower than some people would like. Last year, wind-powered energy gave out the same amount of power as five nuclear power plants. Solar energy and hybrid technology is on the rise and getting special attention for tax breaks and subsidies for their research and development by the United States government. This year, the Obama administration has helped pass $150 billion dollars over 10 years into the development of clean energy.

    This now brings us to the present. The case that there is a current re-birth of nationalism will rest chiefly on deduction from current events. The basis for economic nationalism rests on the view that in order to stabilize current economic conditions, countries should urge companies to keep jobs and capital at home. That goes contrary to free-trade economics which states that trade encourages specialization, which brings prosperity. That the global capital markets allocate money more efficiently than local ones, and economic co-operation encourages confidence and enhances security. (The Economist, 2009).

    Charles Wheelan writes a good analogy that proponents of economic nationalism need to consider:

To understand the costs of trade barriers, let's ponder a strange question: Would the United States be better off if we were to forbid trade across the Mississippi River? The logic of protectionism suggests that we would. For those of us on the east side of the Mississippi, new jobs would be created, since we would no longer have access to things like Boeing airplanes or Northern California wines. But nearly every skilled worker east of the Mississippi is already working, and we are doing things that we are better at than making airplanes or wine. Meanwhile, workers in the West, who are now very good at making airplanes or wine, would have to quit their jobs in order to make the goods normally produced in the East. They would not be as good at those jobs as the people who are doing them now. Preventing trade across the Mississippi would turn the specialization clock backward. We would be denied superior products and forced to do jobs that we're not particular good at. In short, we would be poorer because we would be collectively less productive. This is why economists favor trade not just across the Mississippi, but also across the Atlantic and the Pacific. Global trade turns the specialization clock forwards; protectionism stops that from happening. (Wheelan, 2002)

Protectionisms Threat – Pt. 3

With financial fallout and embargoes, which resulted in economic nationalism, to blame for the radicalization and birth of W.W. II in Europe and Asia, and the European and Asian economies and markets completely nonfunctional by the end of the war, the United States economy began emerging as the dominant player. The table was set for the United States to begin rebuilding Europe and Asia in its interest:

The reparations deal we make with Russia and the money and materials we invest in Germany will set new trade patterns for Europe. The old pattern was fear, hate, nationalism. Said Danton, "One destroys only what one replaces." Europe's old pattern must be replaced, and it is within the power of American leadership to do it (Life, 1947).

The United States would need to replace nationalism - and the protectionism that comes with it - with something new, or the risk was what wasn't replaced would come back. America answered the challenge:

The onlookers now fear that the No. 1 nation may relapse into her old place in the old pattern, thus dooming them to do the same. For example, they fear (especially many Britons) that callow, ungovernable America is heading for another depression. But the State Department has for years been committing itself to a policy which would remove the known international causes of the great prewar depression and which if successful would so change the prewar pattern of nationalism and poverty as to make these apprehensions irrelevant. This policy is freer world trade…For the whole hope of new U.S. prosperity depends on a much broader trading area (Life, 1947).

The United States had declared that the way to peace was freer world trade. What needed to be replaced was protectionism and its many dangers and it would be replaced by free-trade. But weren't capitalist systems in place in Europe prior to WW II?

One big mistake of international capitalism was its failure to share – not its products, which went everywhere – but its systems. The ownership of capital plant was too confined to a few countries, while the so-called backward countries supplied only raw materials, like so many captive farms (Life, 1947).

This was the evolution of modern capitalism. It was undergoing a transformation in Europe from partial openness to the system the United States would model after its own ideologies and interests: A free-trade, democratic economy. This new system would need several things.

First:

An open international economic system requires an absence of geopolitical turbulence in vital core regions; the existence of stable governments that will keep domestic economies open to foreign trade and investment; secure trade routes; and access to – and stability in – the peripheries. (Layne, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present, 2006)

Second, as Walt Rostow and Max Milliken put it:

"We have, in short, a major and persistent stake in a world environment predominantly made up of open societies; for with modern communications it is difficult to envisage the survival of a democratic American society as an island in a totalitarian sea." (Layne, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present, 2006)

Third:

U.S. policy makers are concerned especially about preventing the consequences of re-nationalizations…U.S. forces are in Europe and East Asia to prevent the kind of "security vacuums" that could lead to re-nationalization…In plain English, U.S. policymakers fear that key regions will lapse back into multipolar instability that could affect U.S. Open Door economic interests…Re-nationalization is the code word U.S. strategists use to denote a reversion to multipolarity. Because they believe multipolarity is inherently destabilizing – and hence inimical to economic openness"… And a "re-nationalized" Western Europe – one beset with political rivalries and security competitions – would have been an inhospitable environment for the economic Open Door…As Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott declared, "The well-being of the United States depends in large measure on what happens in Europe – the U.S. will not prosper without an economically vibrant Europe; the U.S. will not be safe without a secure and peaceful Europe." (Layne, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present, 2006)

And finally:

America's liberal ideology holds that political and economic Open Doors cause peace and stability. (Layne, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present, 2006)

So to sum up, the economic system the United States would attempt to form and try to maintain was to keep geopolitical turbulence out of core regions, maintain governments friendly to free-trade, an absolute necessity that Liberalism friendly states succeed, prevention of re-nationalization and multipolarity in Europe and Asia. The belief was if this ideology is followed, it will cause peace and stability.

So how does this tie into national security?

Liberal ideology postulates that to be secure the United States must continue to expand until it has established an Open Door world by replicating its liberal institutions and values abroad. Thanks to liberalism, there is "a potentially limitless dimension" to the American conception of "national" security. (Layne, 2006)

In short, any threat to the stability of free-trade, any government that is closed to trade or interdependency, states that begin taking on more nationalistic and protectionist tones, any rising military powers that would create re-armament in European and Asian countries will cause instability and could lead to war – and that is not in the interest of the United States or its national security.

Protectionisms Threat – Part 2

There are some historians who state that trade has no effect on whether two nations go to war with one another. An example that is often cited is the fact that the United States, prior to World War II, was Japan's biggest trading partner. (Gaddis) From 1920 – 1938, the United States and Japan were one of the worlds leading trading partners (see table 1). For those years, American imports from Japan ranged from 2nd – 9th highest and Japanese imports from America ranged from 3rd – 10th highest in the world between two countries (see figure 1) (Barbieri, 2008).

Then beginning in 1937, Japan and China officially began a full scale war – with the battle of Marco Polo Bridge near Beijing. With this, United States sentiment began to shift away from Japan and towards China and by 1940 the United States government slowly began to tighten restrictions on Japan. At that time, the United States was the main supplier of the oil, steel, iron, and other commodities needed by the Japanese military. When Japan made it clear that they were intending to become involved militarily in Southeast Asia, where the United States had more strategic interests, the United States responded to this growing threat by instituting a full embargo on exports to Japan, freezing Japanese assets in U.S. banks, and sending supplies into China. Faced with serious shortages as a result of the embargo, unable to retreat, and convinced that the U.S. officials opposed further negotiations, Japan's leaders came to the conclusion that they had to act swiftly. Japanese planes bombed the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 (US Department of State).

The fact was that during the 1920's and 30's, the United States was Japan's main - and strategic - trading partner. But when Japan started an offensive war in China, the United States sanctioned, and eventually embargoed, trade with Japan. By the time Pearl Harbor was bombed, trade was nearly non-existent between the two countries.

The next example is of French and German trade relations from 1920 – 1938 (see figure 2). These dates will be separated from 1920 – 1932 and 1933 – 1938. The first sample is French-German trade before Hitler's rise to power. During this time period, Germany and France were both trading with each other at a positive, growing rate. After Hitler's rise to power – in which he preached a strongly nationalistic agenda which became very populist on account of the financial fallout of 1929, in July 1932, trade dropped off between the two nations into amounts seen only in 1923 (see table 2), and maintained very low levels through 1938. By the fall of 1939, Germany and France were at war with one another.

The results of a financial fallout can be, and has been historically, blamed for the primary reason behind the radicalization of politics in Europe. As William Manchester wrote:

No one who has gazed on such a scene could doubt that this financial disaster, huge as it is, cruel as it is to thousands, is only a passing episode in the march of a valiant and serviceable people who by fierce experiment are hewing new paths for man, and showing to all nations much that they should attempt and much that they should avoid"…"Economical Blizzard," as he [Winston Churchill] came to call it, was responsible for turning all England into "one vast soup kitchen," driving the country back off the gold standard, doubling the number of British unemployed, and radicalizing politics throughout Europe, especially Germany (Manchester).

Some will argue that it is in the best national security interest to keep as much industry – whether manufacturing or high tech – in the United States. Their argument is that if we export out all of our industry, we are boring a hole in our economy by having fewer middle class jobs, thus raising the standard of living abroad while lowering our standard of living. Not only that, but if we export out all of our manufacturing capabilities overseas, if we are faced with an international threat – such as we faced in W.W. II – we might not be able to respond in the scale and decisiveness as we did during past crises'.

The record of the past six decades says different though. With the standard of living increasing dramatically in countries that have embraced Liberalism, the motivations and costs to go to war seem to have increased to a level where major power conflict may be a thing of the past.

The risk to this stability though is when protectionism is enacted, production is brought back home and trade is lowered. When jobs are lost, stability is compromised (ex. Germany 1929, Russia 1913, Venezuela, Spain)

As will be discussed later, globalization needs stability in international markets in order to thrive. If this stability is lowered, economies will be affected by protectionist measures and the risk of political radicalization is increased. Additionally, if tariffs or embargos are enacted in response to protectionist measures, markets are lost which means the demand for items shrinks. Less demand causes the industry to shrink. Industry shrinkage leads to job cuts. Job cuts can lead to instability. Far from being a national security risk is globalization.

Conversely, if international trade is promoted, other countries standards rise. As their wages increase and the competitive advantage to use them as cheap labor decreases, their economy will stabilize and mature. With this evolution and raised wages, disposable income increases. As disposable income increases, demand for products will increase which creates new markets. With new markets, there is an opportunity for growth which leads to jobs being created.

As an example, if I saw that the demand for golf balls in China was more than the supply, I could create a small factory and hire 4 people to make golf balls. I could sell the golf balls just to the Chinese market and in so doing this, 5 jobs would be created. If it were not for international trade, this market would not be open and 5 people would not have jobs.

America is not just an outsourcing country either. Manufacturing from other countries has increased in recent years as the dollar devalues relative to the Euro and Pound. Airbus has built factories in Wichita, Kansas and Mobile, Alabama, for parts for their airplanes. BMW has built a car manufacturing plant in South Carolina. Toyota has a manufacturing plant in Hebron, Kentucky and Honda has also sent manufacturing factories to Indiana, Ohio and Alabama in recent years.

Figure 1

Table 1

Year

Importer 1

Importer 2

US Imports from Japan (in millions)

Japanese Imports from US (in millions)

1920

USA

Japan

414.57

439.89

1921

USA

Japan

251.26

277.08

1922

USA

Japan

354.29

284.97

1923

USA

Japan

346.94

248.77

1924

USA

Japan

340.06

253

1925

USA

Japan

386.86

255.72

1926

USA

Japan

405.64

320.5

1927

USA

Japan

402.1

328.83

1928

USA

Japan

384.34

293.36

1929

USA

Japan

432

301.54

1931

USA

Japan

206

168.94

1932

USA

Japan

134

143.37

1933

USA

Japan

128

159.27

1934

USA

Japan

119

228.52

1935

USA

Japan

153

240

1936

USA

Japan

172

245.79

1937

USA

Japan

204

365.67

1938

USA

Japan

127

267


Figure 2

Table 2

Year

Importer 1

Importer 2

French Imports from Germany (in millions)

German Imports from France (in millions)

1920

France

Germany

158.1

50.99

1921

France

Germany

155.05

111.3

1922

France

Germany

112.21

152.85

1923

France

Germany

84.46

1.66

1924

France

Germany

105.38

51.82

1925

France

Germany

111.38

86.08

1926

France

Germany

158.88

143.46

1927

France

Germany

165.14

145.88

1928

France

Germany

194.98

137.41

1929

France

Germany

258.57

152.79

1931

France

Germany

240.76

107.76

1932

France

Germany

141.99

44.83

1933

France

Germany

118.71

43.79

1934

France

Germany

136.23

66.05

1935

France

Germany

116

72

1936

France

Germany

117.08

39.81

1937

France

Germany

151.63

62.75

1938

France

Germany

90

58