Mistaken for mujahideen

Finally in Afghanistan we are starting to see a bit of cohesion: an actual plan, not imposed by NATO or the US, but brought in conjunction with Karzai's Afghan development and support. The New York Times reports that

American and Afghan officials intend to set up local militias of 100 to 200 fighters in each provincial district...militiamen will be given a brief period of training, along with weapons like assault rifles and grenade launchers...

What I've been saying about Afghanistan all this time included a call for greater tribal engagement. This doesn't mean we arm the people! Despite Petraeus being the genius of Iraq, or something similar depending what weeklies you read, a universal re-application of his Sunni Awakening media campaign tactic probably won't work in Afghanistan. Council members who we continue to pay in Iraq as local militia police forces are mostly in urban areas - Baghdad was where we needed the most help in Iraq. In Afghanistan, the border region is vast, sparsely populated, and without central organization. The tribes cannot and won't act in unison. They speak different languages and have wildly different social and religious customs, even within those who follow Islam and not animist religions. Militias will be forced to cover vast regions beyond their traditional tribal lands - not their small, local neighborhood.

For tribal engagement to work as a defense tactic against the Taliban we need to build roads, schools, and civic centers. Tribal groups obviously need to feel safe to help US forces in the fight against the Taliban, but this doesn't mean they should have to do it themselves. Embedded forces combined with greater development efforts is the way to stop the Taliban's second coming. Let's hope this is something the US and Afghans can figure out together.

(Photo by erwinlux)

Predict(able)

Obama may be on vacation, but his proposed stimulus plan has garnered alot of economic debate, which is certainly not of the post-partisan variety. In case you haven't been following it, the huge surprise is a back and forth between Mankiw and Krugman. Shockingly they're duking it out over whether tax cuts or government spending is more efficient to spur economic growth. 

These are both very, very intelligent men, but lest we find ourselves trending to whatever side our political inclinations may lead, let us keep in mind that forecasting is hard. And if it's hard to predict oil or food prices, how can we seriously hope to predict what this stimulus will produce; especially when economic historians still debate the exact causes and escape mechanisms of the Great Depression. 

What we must admit and accept is that the experimentation and bold action our current situation requires could easily be hampered if we require historical precedent. This is not to say that healthy and vigorous debate is not needed; it most certainly is. But let us not forget that debate should eventually produce some action. For now, we can only hope that today's recession fears go the way of the Y2K bug, but until history proves that view, let's have something more than words in place. 

El Gordo

The holidays are officially upon us. For most in the US that means quiet nights with family and friends, perhaps a drunk uncle or two, and hopefully some good memories. Across the pond it's a bit different, and no I'm not talking about Boxing Day. El Gordo is a Spanish lottery that's played every year right before Christmas. It's the world's largest lottery and is always advertised in the pages of Parade (I think I'm the only person besides my grandmother who actually reads this) and late night infomercials sandwiched between old men selling commemorative, limited edition coins.

The competition is huge - up to 32 million people play annually - but in a global recession will we see more people sitting out to save their dwindling cash or more than ever hoping to catch the "fat one"? No one really knows whether lotteries are a counter-cyclical industry. Sales are up in many parts of the world and it would seem that people will indeed pay to play when they're down and out. But gaming as a whole suffers during a recession (largely because it's often paired with travel), so why does lottery do well? For one thing, it's cheap. Second, it's sold in the same places as gas, cigarettes, and booze. Vices usually go together. So, in a climate of rising unemployment and 401(k) losses, here's hoping that the fat one can make somebody's Three King's Day a bit brighter. Let's just hope they don't invest it coins.

Sorry for the light posting of late: between starting a new job and finishing up the term, time was stretched far too thin...back to normal this week.

(Photo by alvy)

Facebook sparks controversy in the Balkans

In the last few weeks, two interesting stories made the press involving the social networking website Facebook and the Balkans. On December 1, the International Herald Tribune reported that police detained 22 year old Niksa Klecak – creator of the Facebook group "I bet I can find 5,000 people who dislike [Croatian Prime Minister Ivo] Sanader." Police questioned Klecak for three hours and searched his home and computer. Several defended the detention, claiming that the group included a photo montage of Sanader in a Nazi uniform - Nazi symbols are banned under Croatian law.

Others, including political analyst Jelena Lovric and Social Democrats leader Zoran Milanovic, claim it is a veiled attempt to quash growing dissent that pervades the internet. An earlier Facebook group in protest of Sanader already had 80,000 members. Klecak’s group has attracted more than 5,000, and in the wake of his detention, almost 3,000 joined a new group called "Search my flat, you Gestapo gang, Croatia is not a police state." Sanader might be disappointed to hear that "I bet I can find 7,000 people who LIKE Sanader" only brought together 19 Facebookers. Ouch.

Meanwhile in Serbia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports that a Facebook group proclaiming that the massacre at the Bosnian town of Srebrenica is a model for "fighting Islam" has popped up and drawn some 1,000 members. An estimated 7,000 Muslim men and boys were killed at Srebrenica in an act of genocide. A group in Bosnia-Herzegovina is asking Serbian officials to shut down the page and to prevent the Internet from being used as a forum to promote hate speech. No action thus far has been taken. 

These cases bring to mind the usual questions. What is freedom of speech? Should there be limitations to freedom of speech? etc., etc. However, what must not be overlooked is that while both cases are controversial in nature, they are both being openly discussed in and out of country. While it is disheartening to see a man be detained for starting an opposition Facebook group, and it’s just plain disgusting to see so many people support what most consider genocide, we should be reassured that the citizens of these countries as well as international observers are informed. In stark contrast, over the weekend 90 people were detained in Russia for participating in an opposition rally organized by Garry Kasparov. You may have read about it; the Russian press (for some reason) has overlooked this story.

(photo by ManilaRyce)

CHAAAAANNNNGGEEE!!! YOU KNOW IT!!!

Nick’s post from the other day got me thinking about what an upcoming Obama Administration will look like and how Mr. Obama will govern. Some disjointed thoughts:

Like most functioning democracies, in the United States, it's better to work for incremental, meaningful, and calculated reform than any sort of systemic change. The US Executive has considerable power, but that power is constrained by the institutional quirks of and large number of veto players in the American political system. It is also important to remember that the President represents the American people. There is a strong appetite for a larger government role in the economy and society given our current woes, but Mr. Obama would do well to remember that the US is essentially a center or center-right nation. I’m not saying that there aren’t policy areas where significant reform would be welcome (climate, energy, and education all spring to mind), but Mr. Obama risks squandering valuable political capital by proposing changes that offend popular sentiment (HilaryCare springs to mind.)

Fortunately, I think he understands this. His advisers are the cream of the Democratic Party establishment, but most of them have been around for years and cut their teeth during the Clinton Administration. To me, this sends a strong signal about prioritizing competence and experience over ideology or grandiose but unworkable plans. I should add that I appreciate the calculus behind the Clinton pick at State and am reasonably optimistic that it will work out fine.

Barack Obama strikes me as a highly intelligent, capable, and confident man poised to govern from the country’s political center. Like Nick,

I voted for the man based on my belief that his Presidency would represent a
return to a thoughtful administration, open to debate among passionate and
intelligent academics with equal weight given to voices, despite their
ideological leanings.

I’m still optimistic that this will largely be the case, save a few issue areas that I will refrain from discussing here.

(I'm in London for business and the LSE graduation ceremony this week, so posting from me will be light.)

Fool me once?

I must admit to being a somewhat lukewarm Obama supporter. I voted for the man based on my belief that his Presidency would represent a return to a thoughtful administration, open to debate among passionate and intelligent academics with equal weight given to voices, despite their ideological leanings.

When assembled, the formidable economic team validated my hopes for open and honest debate in a time when it's most certainly required. Hillary tempered my support just a little. And now this.

President-elect Barack Obama is expected to create what is sometimes called an “energy czar” to coordinate energy and environmental policy among the myriad federal agencies and lead a new National Energy Council...Browner, who’s heading the transition team’s environmental division, has likely landed the job.

I'm starting to fear that instead of real policy decisions, we will have a tepid and limp administration hampered by so many different new agencies, councils and czars that the executive branch will take longer to act than our current Congress. Maybe such a fear is irrational; granted, the man can't really do anything until January 20th, but if this is what he meant by job creation than America just got hoodwinked.

Rule of who?

No one seems to know what to make of the Blackwater case. Charges against the contractors, who turned themselves in, have been filed in Utah based on their role in the deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad back in September 2007. The 6 men are the first to be charged under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act; 5 of the 6 have pled not guilty.

Thankfully under this law they can be tried for their crimes here in the US, because Lord knows they will never be extradited to Iraq. But would they be able to at least get a fair trial there? The answer to that question depends on whether Iraq functions under the rule of law. If the rule of law is defined by a functioning judiciary, then the country passes, but just barely. The US has sunk a LOT of money into rebuilding the courts (as it has in Afghanistan as well), but the problem is that the staff are underpaid, and sad to say, often corrupt.

Rebuilding a judicial system from the ground up is no small feat, but it is vital to any successful nation building operation. Just as important as the police force, the legal system must be able to handle not only the large number of cases, but do so in a fair manner. It may not be a realistic way of testing the system, but it would tell us more about the capabilities of the Iraqi judicial system more than any of the High Court's reviews of oil contracts or parliamentary actions.

China: cooperation or competition?

It seems clear that combating a global recession will require a good deal of international cooperation. There are a number of policy arenas where coordinated government action makes sense, such as monetary, fiscal and trade policy. So far, world leaders have said the right things in regards to working together, and they’ve explicitly acknowledged the dangers of protectionism. So what do you do when a rising economic power decides that it will do whatever it takes to avoid recession, even if it means harming other economies?

From the Asia Times:

As for the beggar thy neighbor, it has become clear over the past week that
Chinese government officials intend to export their way out of the global
economic crisis. This is all too readily apparent in the recent downward
movements of the Chinese yuan relative to the dollar. Stripped of any rhetoric,
this movement represents a "competitive devaluation" designed to boost Chinese
exports to the US at the expense of both domestic US manufacturers and competing
countries such as South Korea and Japan.

Such a move, if deliberate and sustained, is potentially disturbing for three reasons. One, as Martin Wolf has argued, in order for the root causes of this recession to be addressed, the world’s massive surplus countries (ahem… China) must expand domestic demand to mitigate imbalances. China is neglecting its systemic responsibilities to satisfy domestic concerns, which brings me to my second point. I tend to think that when a government’s legitimacy and mandate to rule are predicated on delivering sustained rapid economic growth, such a government will be more tempted by “beggar-thy-neighbor” strategies.

Finally, in this particular economic climate, we really do need to be wary of the ghosts of Smoot-Hawley. I’m not fear-mongering, nor am I suggesting that we’re entering a new period of trade-destroying protectionism; in fact, I’ve argued the opposite. But there is a lot of damage to trade that could be done legally, without violating existing WTO commitments, mainly due to the gap between applied and bound tariff rates. This sort of posturing by China merely provides fodder for the Lou Dobbs crowd and makes international cooperation all the more difficult to sustain politically.

The Great Resource Guessing Game

Petroleum Intelligence Weekly has published its influential annual ranking of the world's top oil companies. The most notable and widely reported aspect of the report is the global power shift from the traditional private oil majors to national oil companies. 27 of the top 50 oil companies are now majority state-owned. China's CNPC leads the surge, having surpassed both BP and Shell according to the report's metrics. Exxon Mobile is the only majority privately owned company remaining in the top 5.

The impact of a global oil market dominated by state-owned firms on both international growth and security is immense. The recent Global Trends 2025 report published by the US National Intelligence Council, and Patrick's farming piece below, highlight the high probability of future inter-state conflicts over increasingly scarce resources like oil. Energy security has risen to the top of both national and international agendas, and the threat of countries using the "energy weapon" for geopolitical leverage has lead many Western states to move in the direction of resource nationalism.

Beyond military and economic conflict, market uncertainty is the biggest effect of greater state control of natural resources. Reserve and refining capacity statistics are classified as state secrets in many countries with nationalized energy sectors. As Western majors are kicked out, and given the press restrictions in countries such as Russia and Iran, it will be increasingly difficult to obtain an accurate measurement of global supply and capacity (you can find my take on Russia's energy industry here). The hysteria surrounding "peak oil" (due in part to the realization of "known unknowns") last year probably contributed to the record run up in oil prices. The inability of traders to estimate and match long term supply and demand will drive up the speculative risk premium in oil prices, particularly if over-the-counter markets remain unregulated (an issue that has dropped off the political radar since the commodity bubble burst). This will only exacerbate inflationary pressures, political instability, and resource competition similar to what we witnessed over the past few years.

Information, transparency, property rights, and security are all central elements of an efficiently functioning oil market. Greater resource nationalization compromises all of these, and increases the probability of resource-driven political and economic conflict. As long as the trends outlined by Petroleum Intelligence Weekly continue, energy security will remain one of the defining issues of the 21st century.

(Photo: ifijay)

What are the consequences of farming abroad?

*As with any writing that pertains to trade and agricultural issues, I would like to note explicitly that this post represents solely my own opinions.*

A couple weeks ago, there was a fascinating story about the South Korean corporation Daewoo leasing land in Madagascar for the purpose of farming. This is especially notable because it is the latest in a series of land deals, whereby rich countries with limited agricultural production capacity are acquiring land in the developing world for the purpose of growing food to ship back home. A number of Middle Eastern countries have made similar arrangements in Africa, particularly Sudan, and China has been actively pursuing land deals in Brazil.

The scope of this deal is particularly staggering: if it is finalized, Daewoo would acquire a 99-year lease on 1.3 million hectares (half the size of Belgium) for no money, but Madagascar would presumably benefit from increased employment and rural development. I suspect the potential gains are highly skewed toward Daewoo, though I don’t want to fault a sovereign government for negotiating a deal presumably in its best interests.

However, I’m interested in the larger implications of this ‘farming abroad’ trend. In my mind, it’s inherently a sensitive issue because it involves food, which we all consume. Necessarily, agricultural investment will be more controversial and visible than, say, a sovereign wealth fund acquiring a stake in a foreign bank. The countries that are seeking these deals need to be very careful to avoid looking like imperialists, and there certainly needs to be a careful balance between how much food is exported and how well the domestic market is served. I wouldn’t bet on these contracts being honored very long if there were food shortages in the host country. How does any government allow food to be exported if locals are starving without full-throated international condemnation and vicious domestic civil unrest? My point is, land lease contracts ought to be managed with the utmost care to balance public relations and, more importantly, ethical concerns. A contract that looks skewed toward the foreign party is in neither side’s interests, in my mind.

Second, the lesson which these countries appear to have gleaned from the food crisis earlier this year is that self-sufficiency is the best option. If we follow this thinking to its logical conclusion, we risk severe resource-driven competition and conflict, especially as the world population continues to expand. For humanity to secure its food future, we absolutely need free and non-distorted agricultural trade at the multilateral level. That countries are drawing the opposite conclusion and adopting what I would describe as “beggar-thy-neighbor” food policies is troubling, to say the least.

(Photo from Quack A Duck's photostream)

Give the Big Three a bailout!

Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler need a bailout. But they're asking the wrong guys for money. Instead of driving their hybrids to Washington DC, they ought to fly into Riyadh and Dubai.

First off, no one makes fun of you for flying on your private jet. Saudi Prince Al Waleed Bin Talal just placed a personal order for a private Airbus A380! If you don't show up on a private jet, you're nobody. Secondly, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have money to spare: at least one trillion dollars in their sovereign wealth funds. The Big Three need about $34 billion to stay afloat, (which they have promised to pay back!), and it is important that they don't shut down. There is a dangerous domino effect if just one of the Big Three falls: they use many of the same suppliers, so if one goes down it might drag the others with it and lose some 2.5 million jobs in the process. This is probably an overestimate, and with so much of their production outsourced abroad, the pain would be spread around quite a bit. Still, it wouldn't be good.

The oil exporting countries have a vested interest in keeping SUV producing companies running. All car companies are hurting these days, but the Big Three are not sitting on enough cash to get through these tough times. Part of this is due to their brand-killing habit of making lots of bad cars, but they are working hard to fix that. The UAW has made some serious concessions, the Big Three are investing tons in R&D, and many of their cars are on par with Japanese and German imports these days (Disclaimer: I drive a Honda Civic, which was made in Ohio, interestingly enough).

Hell, all of OPEC should chip in and give a bailout to the Big Three. And if OPEC fails to bailout the Big Three, maybe Beijing would be interested? If they did I would take back all the mean things I said here. For selfish reasons, I am rooting for a bailout because someday I want to buy that new Camaro.

You just got Wurzelbached

I didn't know being an unlicensed plumber qualified one to suggest heavyweight economic texts. How is this guy still making news? Granted, it is American Spectator, but still. Joe the Plumber's favorite books (sigh)...

Temples of Convenience—and Chambers of Delight (Lucinda Lambton): "It shed a great deal of light on the development of the lavatory, or as we say over home, 'the hutch.'" Most of the privies in the book are "the product of non-union labor." 

Flushed with Pride: The Story of Thomas Crapper (Wallace Reyburn): "Just when you think you know everything about plumbing, this book comes along."

Plumber's Handbook (Howard C. Massey): Particularly useful "on the topics of greasy waste systems, outside waste interceptors, and what for me has been a longtime conundrum, local gas codes." 

The Theory of Money and Credit (Ludwig von Mises): "It brought monetary theory into the mainstream of economic analysis. It is important reading for these troubled times."

Tyler Cowen thinks Ron Paul's camp fed Joe the von Mises. Not a bad guess, though I would venture that he's gearing up for a 2010 House run. His platform? The exact opposite of this.

(HT: Democracy in America)

South Asia double down

I've been slow to write about the events in India for a variety of reasons, but now that (some of) the dust has settled, it seems appropriate to offer a few thoughts. India (especially Mumbai) is a country I love and have spent a lot of time in and I am loathe to think that the US is dragging its feet in response. 

In the midst of condemnations and travel plans, people seem to be forgetting that these are two nuclear powers in a strategically critical part of the world. What the US does is vital to the future security and stability of South Asia. Though their methods may not have been perfect, our present administration has done a wonderful job of simultaneously maintaining good (well, decent) relations with Pakistan and India.  India is, and should be, one of our strongest allies, even if we have to offer some concessions (non-prolifi what?) and Pakistan continues to be vital to our efforts in Afghanistan. The danger of wrong, or even worse - no, action in this scenario may hasten the loss of two of our most important allies.

The US needs to stamp out any speculation that the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence agency) was involved: even if they were, the notion will simply weaken Pakistan's young, struggling civilian government. The simple truth is that we can't afford to lose support from either of these countries and that will require the type of diplomatic nuance the Bush administration widely lacks. Secretary Rice must send a strong message that any military movement or action will be closely watched, roundly condemned, and will result in lost concessions, whether in trade, arms, or technology. Cooperative investigation is the best, and hardest, path to restoring some semblance of normality.

Take notice W: we can't wait until January 20th for any type of resolution. US memory is short and a deft handling of this situation may alleviate much of the disdain the foreign policy community holds for you.

(Photo: EC)

Model an insurgency

David Kilcullen spoke at SAIS recently, giving what I suspect is his one of his favorite talks: Fight Club as a model of an insurgency. Kilcullen was the senior counterinsurgency advisor to General Petraeus, who you may have heard is a smart guy. He's had a bunch of really good ideas and his latest take on Afghanistan in The New Yorker is particularly noteworthy.

Insurgencies develop in strange ways and using Fight Club as a model is useful because, as it takes place in America, the observer isn't as distracted by cultural differences, thus allowing the universal attributes of insurgencies to become more apparent.

One general problem that's obvious without Fight Club is the problem of young men. One anthropological theory is that human society developed to deal with agitated or feisty adolescents. Primatologists politely refer to young male monkeys undergoing "dispersal," but there came a point when simply booting young males out of the troop/tribe/group wasn't feasible. Rules and sanctions from a leviathan (or religion) are needed to control people, especially the young males. When formal rules and sanctions disappear, you'd better watch out for the young men, especially when they are well armed...Disaffected youth must be reckoned; tension builds when achievements don't match expectations. The Middle East has quite a youth bulge and when educated people don't find self-actualization (read: decent jobs) they get mad. 

Fight Club brilliantly lays out the developmental stages of an insurgency:

1) Grumpy like-minded individuals find each other
2) A Leader emerges
3) Group formation, rules are established
4) Organization formalization, Tyler Durden starts giving homework assignments
5) Movement - ideological control by the founder can be lost at this point
6) Revolution - intimidate & infiltrate authorities; attempt to overthrow the government

Violence increases at each stage as members are desensitized to brutality and undergo hatred transference; moving from action against the wider out-group to a specific individual. The initial cause can diminish as members become motivated by secondary issues, such as profit or revenge ("His name is Robert Paulson...")

So what do you do about it? One of the most effective means of dealing with radicalized young men is finding them wives and giving them incentives to have children. In the late 70's an extremely successful PLO deradicalization program  involved taking out marriage ads for 5,000 radical fighters. Less than one percent later returned to fighting. An ol' ball and chain can be quite effective at keeping the peace!

There may be no silver bullet, but the first place to start is understanding the causes and group dynamics within an insurgency. And why have the rules, sanctions, and social norms failed to prevent violence? COIN isn't easy.

Is the EU finally serious about its energy future?

On November 13, the European Commission proposed the EU Energy Security and Solidarity Action Plan as part of its Second Strategic Energy Review. Three new proposals that stand out: 1) the construction of a European supergrid, connecting power from the wind farms of the North Sea all the way to the Baltics, 2) the construction of two new gas pipelines, connecting Caspian and African gas to the bloc (Nabucco included), and 3) a "Community Gas Ring", which would essentially allow for the pooling of European gas supplies in the event of supply disruptions (here's looking at you Russia). These measures would directly address import diversification (particularly in natural gas, and specifically away from Russia), security of supply issues, and fragmented national power grids.

Despite recycling a lot of old ideas, the new proposals make this a highly ambitious plan, and in my opinion, one that has absolutely no chance of being carried out in its entirety.

The first rule of European energy is that the national always trumps the regional interest. National regulatory and interest-group challenges to EU-wide liberalization in the energy sector are formidable, and to date have blocked any substantive effort towards a single European energy market. With energy prices falling, and the commercial ties between some of the EU's most powerful members (Germany, France) and Gazprom still deep, there is little chance that this strategic plan will be successful. The European Commission has valiantly fought to create a liberal, single European energy market for 30 years, but the European Council always waters down the compromise enough to preserve the status quo in certain national markets. (Germany, France) Thus, fragmentation persists.

One also has to question the commercial viability of the alternative pipelines proposed by the plan. The Nabucco project has been hopelessly mismanaged. Its commercial viability has been suspect from day one, as the Caspian suppliers it seeks to tap are strongly oriented towards the Russian market, and only Kazakhstan has seriously entertained diversification away from Russia. It is important to note that Gazprom is highly dependent on imported Caspian gas for re-export to the EU, and therefore would not go down without a fight to keep the gas flowing through Russia's borders. I find it difficult to foresee the construction of multiple southern pipelines in the near term.

Finally, the chance of a "communal gas ring" is more reasonable, but no easier politically. Under previous EU energy liberalization directives, member states were required to compel private storage facility operators to open these facilities to universal access. In practice, this occurred less than desired because there is little commercial incentive for the private operators (who by the way, are usually state-owned monopolies like GdF). The chance of one country stretching its own supplies in a time of crisis to assist another member state's shortfall seems unlikely.

Ok, time for the rosier outlook. I was extremely pleased to find a reference to the importance of fostering interdependence between the bloc and its external suppliers (again, that means you Russia). The EU desperately needs to find solutions to its rising import dependence in natural gas. Unfortunately, its own supplies are declining at a rapid pace. This means that the diversification of import sources is the key pillar of the bloc's long term energy security. But in the short to medium term, the EU needs Russia, and Russia needs the EU. A commitment by both parties to fostering a mutually beneficial and secure energy relationship would be a truly powerful development.

Press freedom in Russia

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), a France-based nonprofit organization, recently released its annual report, Freedom of the Press Worldwide in 2008. In it, RSF has developed a rather strong argument that the Russian government is actively destroying independent media and seeks to quash any signs of dissent or opposition.

Basically, the situation facing Russia's independent media can be summed up in any number of negative words: horrible, dire, God awful… In the last year, the Russian government has raided and shut down several independent newspapers, and others had to shut down because printers were too afraid to publish the newspapers. Novaya Gazeta, Novyj Times, and Kommersant are the only major independent outlets that remain.

Throughout the year, several independent journalists were arrested just for covering opposition demonstrations. Many journalists were brutally beaten. Most recently on November 13, editor Mikhail Beketov was found in a pool of his own blood after receiving numerous death threats for opposing the construction of a bridge. Also, at least two journalists were forcibly sent to psychiatric hospitals this year – an old trick straight out of the Soviet playbook where you discredit the dissenter by claiming he's insane and end up making him insane because Russian mental hospitals could break even Chuck Norris. It's pretty old school, but effective and a clear violation of human rights.

Where does this leave the Russian population? Well, the dissenting portion of the population remains under constant threat of losing their freedom or their lives. And the remainder of the population is informed of only what the government wants known. For example, if today you should happen to peruse Izvestiya – a state-owned paper – you might be interested in one of its top stories: "Is Barack Obama the Anti-Christ?" Happy reading, Russia.

Introducing... John Thorne

In line with our new collaborative model, it's my pleasure to introduce our first official contributor, John Thorne. John will be covering a wide range of international security issues, including the politics of security and technology/hardware. Here's John, in his own words:

I am a graduate student at Johns Hopkins SAIS, where I am going for a MA in
International Relations. My concentrations are International Economics and
Strategic Studies, in which I am interested in the political economy of
international trade and counterinsurgency, respectively (although there is
quite a bit of unexpected cross pollination in my course work).

Welcome aboard, John! We'll also have some other people to introduce in the near future...

Prosthetics and Foreign Policy

Ok, so this is a few months old but still amazing:

That's right, the monkey controlled a robotic arm with its mind! Then, if you combine it with a jet pack...

...you could put together quite the little techno-monkey mercenary army! (Monkey mercenaries are actually not new; Morocco sent the United States 2,000 monkeys to act as mine sweepers in Iraq back in 2003.) But aside from an army of flying monkeys, to be dispatched by the Wicked Witch of the West, prosthetics technology is making important advances these days. The monkey controlled the robotic arm through about one hundred electrodes placed directly into his motor cortex, which is responsible for physical motions. Amazingly, primate brains have enough plasticity to learn how to control a whole new arm.

Looking back through history, the First World War was an impetus and a catalyst for major advances in neuroscience. A large number of young soldiers returned home from the horrors of trench warfare with very localized brain injuries from shrapnel wounds. (What does what in the brain is often deduced from what happens when something is missing or wounded.) In our own time, over 30,000 American soldiers have been wounded in Iraq by official tallies. One of the least discussed costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are limb amputations, but this will also be a catalyst for many new medical advances, such as the first successful hand transplant.

War is a terrible, terrible thing, but then again necessity is the mother of invention. No matter what your thoughts on the man, let's hope that part of Bush's foreign policy legacy is a number of important medical advances to care for wounded coalition members and Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Machine-brain interface prosthetics and transplants seem like as good a place to start as any.

Our new domain: blog.zzzeitgei.st

Dear zzzeitgeist readers,

You've probably noticed by now, but we'd like to take this opportunity to officially announce our new domain.

We've moved from http://zzzeitgeist.blogspot.com to our new home: http://blog.zzzeitgei.st/. In case you were wondering, .st is the top level domain for the country of Sao Tome and Principe, a tiny nation located off the coast of Africa. (It's just the name: the blog is still hosted on servers in the United States, so it will load at the same speed as always!)

Why switch domains? It's a signaling mechanism: we're taking the new collaborative model very seriously, and we're working very hard to make it successful. We hope that establishing our own domain both reflects this commitment and adds a new element of professionalism to the operation. Plus it's, like, a totally sweet domain.

One important note: thanks to Blogger software, you must type in http://blog.zzzeitgei.st/ to visit us. (Neither http://www.zzzeitgei.st/ or http://zzzeitgei.st/ will take you where you need to go. Sorry about that, but the problem is on Google's end, not ours.) Otherwise, this is largely a cosmetic change. For the foreseeable future, we will continue hosting the blog on Blogger, and it will have the same look and feel. We set up our old address to redirect automatically to the new one, so you don't even have to update your bookmarks. If you receive zzzeitgeist by email, you also shouldn't have to change anything.

However, if you subscribe to the zzzeitgeist RSS feed, you may need to update it. Look at the URL of the feed to which you are subscribed.

This one will no longer work: http://zzzeitgeist.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

The correct feed is: http://feeds.feedburner.com/zzzeitgeist.

Many thanks for your continued support of zzzeitgeist. We look forward to making things even better.

Nick and Patrick

zzzeitgeist: a brief visual history

We've come a long way from our humble beginnings last summer.... aesthetically, at least. Here's a look back at the evolution of style at zzzeitgeist. (What can I say? I was inspired by model years after writing that post on car makers. Plus, it's Saturday.)

The design that started it all. Zeitgeist 1.0:




We first tried to create a coherent color scheme with Zeitgeist 2.0:

This next one is a misguided version that did not last very long. The scattered words ended up being a bit too flashy and distracting. The one displayed here is actually a 4-color, never-before-seen version of the one we posted on the website. I give you Zeitgeist 3.0 (unreleased multicolored edition):

We did much better in the next evolution. This marked the first instance of the ever-popular "Global Zeitgeist." Zeitgeist 4.0:

When we decided to pursue our new collaborative model, we also decided to start actively using zzzeitgeist in lieu of Zeitgeist. While we re-cut the banner to reflect this, we had a no-frills temporary placeholder, zzzeitgeist 1.0:

... Which paved the way for the rebirth of global zzzeitgeist, modeled after Zeitgeist 4.0, our most popular banner. zzzeitgeist 2.0 (current):

What will the future hold? And which one is your favorite?

Bailout blues: Big Three edition

As someone who argued strongly in favor of a bailout for the financial sector earlier this fall, I am absolutely flabbergasted that a bailout for America’s car makers is under serious consideration. In short, this is a terrible idea, and there are no legitimate parallels to bailing out (recapitalizing?) the financial sector. The financial sector is essentially like the economy’s plumbing: if the pipes aren’t working, nothing works. By contrast, the auto industry is a bit like an old, poorly-functioning toilet: if it doesn’t work, it’s best to just get rid of it rather than paying exorbitant sums to refurbish it.

Spurious analogy? Perhaps. But this is truly bad policy. You can go to any number of sources for an explanation why: I particularly liked Megan McArdle’s posts and Dave’s at IPE-J. In short, Congress is proposing to devote a good chunk of finite resources* to struggling, out-dated firms with high fixed costs, no track record of innovation, no proven capability of making a product people actually want to buy, and no systemic connection to the greater economy. The halcyon days of “As GM goes, so goes America” are long gone, if they ever even existed. In fact, the only halfway decent argument that I can find to justify such a handout is to avoid a possible crisis of confidence: if the auto industry were to fail, would it cause consumer confidence (and spending) to collapse? It’s a novel interpretation, but one that I don’t find entirely convincing.

Nonetheless, it is looking increasingly likely that a bailout for the auto industry will happen possibly as early as this coming week during the lame duck session of Congress. I am particularly interested in what this says about our President-elect, who has come out forcefully on the side of intervention. Frankly, I can’t help but feel slightly nervous about the implications. This isn’t change. This is old-school, interventionist Democratic policy, which didn’t work very well on the first go-round. In my view, this bailout is in no small part about the demands of the United Auto Workers, who campaigned strongly for Mr. Obama’s election. I sympathize with their desire to preserve a high standard of living for union members, but unfortunately that way of life no longer seems sustainable. (Please read this post in its entirety before you feed me to the lions over that last statement.)

My point is this: in order to deliver on the massive change that Mr. Obama has promised in policy areas such as education and health care, he will need to do battle with powerful entrenched interest groups. It will be a long fight, but this is a poor showing in the first round.

* I don’t care if we've been spending like money grows on trees: it all has to come from somewhere, and if we borrow it, then sooner or later we have to pay the bill. I for one don’t want tax rates in the 40 – 50% range when I’m in my 40s because of terrible fiscal policy now.

The G20 and SWFs

The G20 is scheduled to meet this Saturday to outline a set of guidelines for the world's 20 largest economies to coordinate action in light of the worsening global economic milieu. An illustrious crew of economists at VoxEU have written the book (literally) on what government officials need to say and do to deliver the world from catastrophe. The prescriptions are as banally predictable as all the doomsday yarns and the fact that government officials will inevitably do the wrong thing. Beyond the obvious calls for increased cooperation and coordination, one piece of advice struck me as quite odd. Guillermo Calvo, via Dani Rodrik:

The new Bretton Woods institutions should be more tolerant of controls on capital mobility, especially as those controls centre on limiting the actions of the banking sector.

True, these new capital controls may certainly help developing countries stall capital flight; but there are a number of complications. The dollar is still seen as the safest asset in the world. For that reason, SWFs (from China to Dubai) have been sinking ever more money into dollar denominated assets - at least one piece of anecdotal evidence to explain the recent rise of the dollar. This has, at least in part, kept the US out of the worst of the crisis. There is no way the US will allow new restrictions on capital outflows to be the bulwark of any new "Bretton Woods". Not only are such controls notoriously hard to enforce, they would probably bring the dollar back down, and I have a feeling that's something we would be loathe to support.

To be sure, global capital flows were somehow involved in the current financial troubles. But to reiterate, our current situation is far too complicated and opaque to be blamed on any single silver bullet: whether they are swaps, the housing bubble, or capital outflows. The underlying root was a mispricing and misunderstanding of risk throughout the financial model.

Capital outflows allow investors to put their money where they see fit. SWFs represent, by far, the largest outflows of capital. They are intended to mitigate risk and exist to safely invest currency reserves in the way that will most diversify national wealth. For their sake, and ours, let's keep letting them.

(Image: New Yorker)

COIN in the news

The New York Times revealed today a 2004 blanket order was signed by President Bush allowing secret covert action pretty much wherever the Pentagon wants, and in some cases, without his express permission. This shines a little light on the recent operations in Syria, but military attacks on sovereign countries, without specific Presidential permission to do so, are not what God, Clausewitz, or the Constitution intended!

Accountability is fundamental in a democracy, including ours! It is not acceptable for the Commander in Chief of the world’s most expensive military to delegate the most important statecraft decision! What is Bush thinking? Where is the outrage? Oh wait, right here…

It seems especially odd that such measures are allowed as US forces are already "innovating" on their own. Case in point? Task Force ODIN is heading to Afghanistan. 

ODIN, also the Norse god of war and death, stands for “Observe, Detect, Identify, Neutralize.” This entity, a Bob Gates creation developed for Iraqi COIN, is a unit of approximately 400 people. Equipped with monitoring aircraft, analysts, and quick attack forces, ODIN specializes in detecting IEDs along the road, and has been responsible for neutralizing over 3,000 insurgents. The measure of their success in Iraq seems to be much more effective than secretive air strikes that rely on dubious intelligence and kill more than a few civilians.

The intention is for Task Force ODIN in Afghanistan is to protect the nearly complete “Ring Road," which connects the major cities and is crucial for commerce, development, and general security. This represents an interesting evolution of the usual strictly hierarchically structured American military, which was designed to take on the Soviet Union in the Fulda Gap. ODIN is flexible and fast, much like the enemy coalition forces face.  

When the Taliban can jack a NATO convoy in Pakistan and move scot-free into Afghanistan, it's obvious the tribal belt is pretty lawless.  Scary stuff for sure, but it seems that it will be ODIN, not the propensity of the US military to ignore borders, that will get these guys and their new toy.

The new green economy: what role for government?

The Economist has an interesting leader this week on the perils of government-led investment in solutions to climate change. If I understand the arguments correctly, the thinking goes that there is an upside to climate change; namely, the naissance of a new and profitable green-tech industry to combat it. Millions of new “green collar” jobs will be created as money is funneled into alternative fuel and energy research and implementation. If the government subsidizes this industry, it will lock in those jobs domestically, boost the economy, and achieve policy goals like energy independence and fighting global warming.

Of course, the problem with any government-led subsidy program is the issue of picking winners. Resources are scarce, especially if you’ve seen the federal debt numbers lately. You can’t subsidize everything, and by subsidizing any particular form of alternative energy, the government is expressing its confidence in that fuel’s viability. But the government, a semi-closed organization with limited human capital and a bureaucratic (read: slow) outlook, is almost certain to be less efficient at distributing resources and picking winners than a market. That’s why we live in a market society, and that’s why communism doesn’t work (sorry, Ms Klein.)

None of this is new, but it bears repeating for two reasons. First, Mr. Obama has named energy independence as his top domestic priority behind stabilizing the financial system and the economy. Second, the financial crisis has so badly tarnished the reputation of markets that resistance against government leadership on green investment is unlikely. Thus, we may be on the cusp of a massive government-funded research program for green technology, and so we need to carefully consider the downsides of such a policy prescription. After all, the United States is still happily subsidizing corn-based ethanol, which is a terrible idea.

There is a central role for governments to play in a market society. Moving forward, there will be a leading and constructive role for government to play in the fight against climate change (please can we have a carbon tax?) However, in an ideal situation markets and government complement one another. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. But above all else, we should strive to avoid a situation where one of these institutions usurps the role best played by the other.

(photo from montanaraven's photostream)

We still love you, Australia!

The zzzeitgeist global header is back. This one is a bit slimmer (and a smaller file) than the old one, which means we've been forced to cut out such places as Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and parts of Canada. Don't get us wrong: we've got nothing against the Commonwealth, we just want the page to load faster.

Google Reader shares

New feature update: in the right-hand column, you can now see both Nick and Patrick's five most recent shared items on Google Reader. Google Reader is an RSS aggregator that fetches and displays content from the blogs we read. When you 'share' something on Google Reader, you flag it for your friends to read. Your shares are essentially what you think is the best and most interesting content out of everything you read.

It's a small upgrade, but if you've ever wondered what we're reading day-to-day, now you'll know. In the past, we've posted some of our Google Reader shares in Zeitlinks: now we're sharing this content directly and in real time. And don't worry: our oldest recurring feature isn't getting the axe, but we're hoping that it evolves into something grander (and it will of course be rechristened zzzeitlinks!) Stay tuned.

COIN is hard

There were several items in the news recently that drive it home for the umpteenth time: Counterinsurgency really isn’t easy. Let me count the ways.

First, we should remember that the United States actually has a history of successful counterinsurgency efforts. The US fought and won several counterinsurgencies here, here, and maybe it's slightly politically incorrect, but here as well. We even have a brand new COIN manual, authored in part by General Petraeus, though this isn’t the first time a manual has been written.

Lately, the Pentagon has been purchasing lots of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. This is quite an evolution from the first jeep that the US used at the dawn of mechanized warfare. MRAPs can resist what the insurgents used to throw at the unarmored, then up-armored hummves. But if you build a bigger truck, then of course insurgents build a bigger bomb. And there's an upward limit to the size of a truck, but not for bombs. The top-heavy MRAPs are prone to flipping when off-roading. And the Pentagon is in the market for more…

Counterinsurgency 101 tells us to live among the population and off the FOBs. And Machiavelli warns against living in fortresses for the same reason: you are forced to interact more with the people, and you will urgently find political solutions when your own security is tied to that of the population’s security. However, if you're advocating driving around in a stripped-down Wrangler, rather than an MRAP, that’s a tough thing to do right now in Afghanistan.

A couple of years ago the Pentagon started a program to send trained social scientists into Iraq and Afghanistan to assist in understanding the local populations better. Some of the very first results were striking successes. But even this effort isn’t too easy either. Bottom line: COIN is hard. Let’s hope the new administration is ready for the challenges ahead.

zzzeitgeist header

Small detail: going forward, we're making a conscious effort to use the name zzzeitgeist (instead of Zeitgeist), and we've recut the banner to reflect this. Fear not! This is just a provisional banner: we'll have the global background in place again soon.

Brave New World

This is an important announcement about the future of zzzeitgeist.

We have just witnessed what will likely be one of the most important political moments of our lifetime. The people have spoken, the old order has been blown away, and change is coming. President-elect Obama faces enormous challenges both at home and abroad, and the policy decisions he makes will have repercussions around the world. In short, things are about to get even more interesting.

And as we stand on the cusp of a new era, we have news of our own to share. Both of us have come to realize two things in writing this blog. First,while we both understood that international issues are nuanced and complex, we have increasingly realized that there are many sub-issues within international political economy and development that warrant close attention. Some of these are beyond our expertise. Second, we have been consistently amazed at how intelligent our readers around the world have been, and your thought-provoking feedback has helped drive the blog. Given these facts, we've concluded that we have a unique opportunity to deliver even more insightful commentary on the issues our readers care about.

So we're happy to announce that as of today, zzzeitgeist will begin moving toward a collaborative model. Both of us (Nick and Patrick) will still post regularly, but we will assume a more editorial role and focus more on steering the ship and plotting the overall direction of the blog. At the same time, we are recruiting specialists who will provide analysis on issues as diverse as military security, finance, and global health. We are building a broad network of contributors, each of whom we hope will bring a special expertise to zzzeitgeist. As editors, we will work hard to connect the dots between our specialists.

Our goal is no less than to give readers a robust picture of everything relating to international political economy and development, from a source they can trust. We want to be one of your top sources of news and analysis. And consistent with a founding principle of this blog, we are committed to providing a platform for young and up-and-coming voices in these disciplines. We want our contributors to provide an edgy and fresh look at the issues.

As our new model is implemented, you can expect more posts on new and old issue areas, with the same quality analysis that we've worked to provide up until now. We will post updates about the administrative changes we make as we make them (we're working on several new features right now). Things will grow slowly, but if they go to plan, changes should be noticeable soon: we hope to have 3 - 5 contributors by the end of November.

It's a new world, and we are really excited about our new "blog by committee." We look forward to adding to the debate in critical times.

- Nick and Patrick

Raid Syria? Actually, that's a terrible idea.

The implications of the US military strike into Syria are manifold. Counterinsurgency 101 tells you to eliminate all insurgent safe havens, but there will be serious negative consequences that might outweigh playing Al-Qaeda whac-a-mole in Syria.

But first, it is confusing as to who actually ordered the strike into Syria. It would appear that the White House has delegated the responsibility for ordering strikes into insurgent sanctuaries to the military commander of Central Command, David Petraeus.

Wow.

We take from Clausewitz that war is merely the continuation of politics by other means, but is it acceptable to give the Pentagon the ultimately political choice of when to potentially start a war? Clausewitz, and I say a definite no- even though Petraeus is a pretty good guy. And there could also be confusion as to who even ordered this particular attack. This is also a tad worrisome.

Syria is granting insurgents and terrorists safe haven in their countryside, as I discussed in the previous post, and this was getting on Iraq and the US’s nerves. But perhaps who ever thought it would be a good idea to conduct a US raid in Syria was banking on Syria’s response to be similar to Israel’s bombing of their suspected nuclear reactor last fall? (Which was rather muted at the time.) But Israel bombed a remote region that was closed off to the Syrian public, and the US sent ‘copters in the middle of the day near a pretty large town. It is hard to just write that off… It might be a little more expensive in the short run than a quick helicopter trip into Syria, but I would advocate that Iraqi and US forces man the border and we work towards getting the Syrian police to roll up the undesirables that might run amok along the Euphrates. Violations of sovereignty tend to upset people.

Most Syrians desperately would like to be free from Iran’s sphere of influence and rejoin the international community sans sanctions. Anyone who has taken an Iranian-made taxi in Damascus will sympathize. The Syrian government had recently been making overtures towards the west, but this raid is likely to set that back a quite a ways.

Finally, one must wonder what this will do to the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) negotiations back in Baghdad. Iraqis want the US military out of Iraq, and since it is a now a democracy (that’s a good thing, right?), the government needs to respond. The raid into Syria has thrown yet another wrench in the equation. And I’ll bet that it’s a pretty big wrench.

Raid Syria? Sure, why not?

This past summer I backpacked through much of Syria, and the guys at Zeitgeist have asked me to share a few thoughts on the recent raid by US forces into Syria.

First, a little back ground info:

On October 26th, the United States raided a village on the outskirts of the Syrian town of Abu Kamal, which is right on the Iraq border. Four American helicopters entered Syrian airspace in the middle of the afternoon (rather bold, I’d say) and the raid resulted in the death of Abu Ghadiyain, Al-Qaeda's senior coordinator who was operating in Syria. This is the first attack of this nature by US forces into Syria, and Syria’s government was none too pleased, labeling the raid “criminal” and “terrorist aggression.”

Russia, Venezuela, France, China, Iran, North Korea, and a host of other nations condemned the attack with varying degrees of strong language. Iraqi government officials also voiced extreme displeasure with the raid- the said they didn’t sign up to have Americans invading other countries’ sovereign territory while using Iraq as their base.

I took a whirlwind road trip of eastern Syria this summer, which included a visit to the town of Abu Kamal. After sugaring up my mukhabarat (secret police) escort that had been following me as I visited archeological sites on the Euphrates, I was able to visit the border crossing, pictured below, on the condition that I didn’t take any pictures.

The Syrian border guards were pleasant, and they said at most only five or six cars cross from Syria into Iraq each day. This, however, is not the impression you get from Abu Kamal, which was bustling with the types of commerce that you would expect in a remote town that Iraqi insurgents use as a safe haven. From the plethora of desert-going American SUVs, many with Iraqi license plates (and some with Texas DMV stickers still on their windows), it was clear that more than a half dozen vehicles were crossing from Syria into Iraq near Abu Kamal.

So indeed, there are Iraqi insurgents in Syria. And some even have Osama Bin Laden bumper stickers. Abu Kamal, and the whole of eastern Syria, is a pretty wild place. In counter-insurgency lingo it could be classified as a “sanctuary.”

But what to do about it? And what are the implications from this raid? More to follow in a few minutes...

Democrazy

On similar lines to Nick's post below. During an election year, this is about the time when the blogosphere starts beating the old drum of democratic policy inefficiency. The argument, as made famous recently by Bryan Caplan, is that voters are biased against rational or efficient policies. Even Tom Friedman has been getting in on the act lately, lamenting the fact that the US cannot be China for “just one day” (i.e., an authoritarian government) to fix its ailing climate/energy policy. The implication, of course, is that democratic governments take too long to settle on the “right” policy when it’s controversial.

I must admit that when I first read Dr. Caplan’s book, I was seduced by the argument, if not his punitive policy prescriptions. But upon consideration, it seems like a moot point to me. No one is arguing that democracy is more efficient than authoritarianism, but that’s sort of the point. It’s inefficient by design. It’s an exercise in consensus building, in which you essentially let everyone air their opinions before you govern. Undoubtedly, this will sometimes produce bad policies, although there is convincing evidence that democracies actually produce better policy outcomes than would be expected. But crucially, democracy confers legitimacy upon government, which in turn confers long-term stability. We would do well to remember that for every enlightened despot, there are 100 brutal dictators. Both types can be enormously efficient.

Policy inefficiency is the hefty price we pay for living in a free society. So please, for democracy’s sake, go vote next Tuesday. Get your uneducated friends to vote, too. Take pleasure in the fact that the whole exercise is deliciously inefficient. Try to cut out of work early if you can.

(Sorry for the sporadic posting of late, folks. Explanations forthcoming.)

(Ir)rationality

Lifted completely out of context, but interesting nonetheless. Via the Undercover Economist:

Game theory is the economist's tool of choice to analyse what happens when two or more people have to negotiate, co-operate, compete or otherwise engage with each other. The essence of game theory is that each side would expect the other side to anticipate and respond to his likely actions.

Game theory shows that there are times when irrationality (real or feigned) is a highly effective strategy. Someone who seems impervious to logic is someone who also gets his own way a lot. Consider, for example, toddlers, terrorists, bosses, dogs and the late Charles de Gaulle...by demonstrating a willingness to punish [a person or group] for no immediate personal gain, [the instigator] will gain in the long term anyway. Irrational perhaps, but rationally irrational. 

I would love to see a modern Ken Arrow test this against our last eight years of foreign policy; or better yet predict the next administration's. Rationality may be the basis for most of our decisions, but when it increases a country's utility (whether it is real or its leaders think it will) to use something else to justify action (such as nationalist fervor or resource control), that course is sold to the public. If politicians don't embody rational irrationality, I don't know who does. Ah wait, yes I do.

  

Zeitlinks

This link collection cost your authors $150,000. Seriously though, is anyone else ready for this election to be over? I just want W. to rock the lame-duck harder than anyone...I'm talking boy-band lame duck.

Nick

1. Little l or big L: McArdle nails it. Any explanation of the crisis, and associated doctrinaire, that blames one aspect (whether regulation, markets, or something else) misunderstands that this is a systemic problem.

2. Dream Team(s): The Cabinet is just as important as the ring leader. FP lets the pundits pick 'em. Some interesting choices throughout.

3. The increasingly larger fall of the rest: So "decoupling" was a myth? Wolf lays out the case.

4. Bailout Video: If you want to find something in the financial crisis to laugh about, look no further. All I have to say is Bernanke + helicopter = great success. (HT: Mankiw)

Patrick

1. Can India claim any uranium deposits it finds on the moon? In a word, no.

2. World trade growth slows: Trade data tends to lag a few months behind other indicators, so this is actually very bad news.

3. Stuffing our faces: It's worth reading this critique, but also the original article. It's bold thinking, whether you agree with it or not.

4. China, skewered by Neptune's Trident: The Baltic Dry Index is dropping, which is a discouraging sign.

Associative decline?

Via the TED blog today.

Economic troubles will trigger the decline of the free economy, collaboration, and open-source - including communities such as Wikipedia - and even, perhaps the blogosphere itself. People will be less likely to give away 'their intellectual labor on the Internet in the speculative hope that they might get some 'back end' revenue.

C'mon. Seriously? The idea that a burst bubble causes people to abandon collaborative efforts is pretty baseless. It is always in the best interest of efficient and curious people to work together and the internet has certainly revolutionized the amount of ways this is possible. Unless this crisis spells the death of homo rationalis, this will continue to be the case. The main point of 'intellectual labor' on the internet is not to get 'back end' revenue, it's to prove the viability of those who write psuedo-intellectual blogs (your authors included) and increase future utility.

Collaboration comes out best when times require sharing of information. At a time when everything else is falling apart, nothing should stop the openness of information on the internets.