American Politics

[quote=skip kost;1489717]. dc's grievances are quite different from those ge and i have expressed, but i doubt that any of us see much humor in the problems we perceive in american politics. so help me out here. please explain the punch line to me.[/quote]sk, thanks for your pm. for the record, my grievances are against obama. if he were a ceo he would have been fired in his first term. i am not a registered republican, nor from texas (as if that could predict anything) and have frequently voted independent. yes, america has greed, the upper 1 or 2, as does most countries. i believe in a flat tax. i do not think america is better than any other country but i do think it is going irretrievably downhill with all the money we give away to lazy people, defense budget, criminal justice system and immigration policies. sorry, ge, i don't think socialism is a good idea. we'd have to ask the swedes about what they think about their 70% taxes and their drug problems. young people ages 22- 30 in america have been appropriately labeled "the dumbest generation" by mark bauerlein, if anyone wants a good peek at the future of the usa and perhaps the world, read his views. i apologize to any isg members in that age category as you are probably the exception.

to my international friends around the world: it appears the entire world is fubar (effed up beyond all repair) so the only saving grace is to enjoy the company of sweet young things with an occasional beer. cheers, mates.

[QUOTE=Cons68;1696692]Wow. Really wow.

So you compare the donor (USAID) emblazoning the aid they sent, to a local politician grabbing the aid from that donor and repackaging it.

Amazing. Your sense of morality is truly amazing. Are you an Investment Wanker or a Consultant by any chance?[/QUOTE]If you read more carefully you will see that I merely pointed out that many different groups emblazon their relief materials with their names. It was a descriptive rather than normative statement. So the attribution of moral equivalence is all your own. I believe it is welcome in this setting. Others have weighed in as well.

VP Binay's actions are conspicuously viewable for our moral appraisal. For Samaritan's Purse and USAID, however, moral appraisal has a number of subjective elements. I presume that Mr. Graham's followers see only beneficent intentions in the relief and evangelical work of Samaritan's Purse. As an Agnostic, however, I am more skeptical about his NGO's desire to separate its practice of relief work from its evangelism. And I am skeptical about trying to convert poor Filipino Catholics to conservative Baptist Protestantism. I believe that many individuals who act from their faith to help less fortunate people probably relieve suffering in many places where relief is needed. On the other hand, there is a demonstrated correlation between countries' religious conservatism and their poverty levels and economic inequality. Why? Because most world religions tamp down dissent by telling the masses that their suffering will be rewarded in an afterlife. Long before Karl Marx thought of it, Napoleon Bonaparte argued that "religion is the only thing that keeps the poor people from killing the rich people. ".

Judgments about the morality of USAID's actions are much more difficult to make. Where you stand depends on where you sit. It is difficult for us Americans to not let our nationalistic chauvinism affect our judgments. But perspectives from people in Pakistan, Palestine, or Yemen may be much different. Pakistanis find it difficult to trust anything from American foreign policy. The drone strikes don't help, nor did the attack on Osama Bin Laden, even though many people may have been relieved at his death. The problem from the Bin Laden strike is that the CIA set up a bogus NGO under the guise of Polio vaccinations. From this they got nurses inside the compound to draw DNA samples under the guise of vaccinating the kids. The results? An explosive outbreak of polio within Pakistan when Pakistanis started refusing vaccinations; unwillingness among Pakistani officials to work with American officials; a segment of Pakistani intelligence whose allegiances shifted toward extremist groups (or perhaps merely became more entrenched). Regardless what USAID's role may have been, I think there's little doubt that their moral standing suffered in the eyes of Pakistani onlookers.

As to the intentions of USAID, their website recently stated, and may still: "The principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance programs has always been the United States. Close to 80% of the USAID contracts and grants go directly to American firms. Foreign assistance programs have helped create major markets for agricultural goods, created new markets for American industrial exports and meant hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans. ".

From a more radical view, World Systems Theory, the objective of foreign aid is to contain development such that developing countries have to play by Western rules and become dependent on the superior resources and established markets in Western countries.

We all get to choose which of these we subscribe to. Personally, I just try to avoid going all knee jerk in my judgments. But there's another problem in attributing moral intentions to USAID: USAID is an organization, an abstraction, and as such is not capable of moral judgments or actions. It is easy--but naive--to assume that the output activities of an agency like USAID reflect the objectives of a unitary, rational national policy. They never do. Foreign policy has always reflected continuous ongoing adjustments as situations change and a persistent pushing and pulling among various interests, both inside and outside government. In this scenario morality probably plays a minor role as against political and economic interests. Unfortunately for USAID, their work since 9/11 has redirected priorities from some areas of greatest depravation to areas where the United States has greatest national security concerns. The shift in aid dollars is quite conspicuous. In many cases they and NGOs and private firms through which their aid is delivered have to work increasingly in parallel with the military. This makes their work more difficult, but it also affects external judgments about the morality of their work.

None of this points to an easy assessment of morality where foreign policies and bilateral aid are concerned. Is this just a lot of verbiage over nothing? Again, it depends where you sit. In my case, the older I get the fewer definitive answers I have for things around me. I barely even know the right questions.

Am I an "investment wanker or a consultant"? Not guilty on the first count, occasionally guilty on the second. I won't assume you were passing a moral judgment about these professions, but were you? If so, what is the basis for the judgment? BTW, it might interest you to know that a number of regular contributors to the Philippines forum make their living from consulting. Are you uncomfortable with what they do for a living?

[QUOTE=SkipKost;1697430]...there is a demonstrated correlation between countries' religious conservatism and their poverty levels and economic inequality.[/QUOTE]Many of the richest countries in the world are among the most religiously conservative. Qatar, Brunei, Kuwait, the UAE and even Norway all have official state religions. You could "correlate" declining church attendance in the United States with the apparent decline of the middle class. At least in the United States, being unaffiliated with a religious group suggests that you earn less than someone identifying as Hindu, Jewish, Orthodox, Buddhist, or even with any of the Mainline Protestant churches. I'm curious where you found a demonstrated correlation? It's a difficult area in which to make sweeping generalizations. Can you name a dispassionate source?

[QUOTE=JellyDonut;1697452]Many of the richest countries in the world are among the most religiously conservative. Qatar, Brunei, Kuwait, the UAE and even Norway all have official state religions.
I'm curious where you found a demonstrated correlation? It's a difficult area in which to make sweeping generalizations. Can you name a dispassionate source?[/QUOTE]Thanks for caring enough to ask. The Gulf states you name are exceptions among Muslim countries, but if you control for wealth from oil I suspect religiosity related to GDP ceases to be positively correlated. The United States is a bit of an outlier. Despite a decline in religiosity, it still ranks quite high in religiosity compared to most industrialized countries. The likely explanation is that the country's predominant Protestantism makes Calvinist asceticism a cultural factor that encourages thrift and hard work and makes the accumulation of wealth appear to be a reflection of God's blessing. The German sociologist Max Weber had a pretty good explanation for this more than a century ago (see **The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism**).

As a source for my claim that religiosity and poverty are correlated, a Gallup Poll was a recent source. I think it qualifies as dispassionate:

[URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx[/URL]

Hopefully this will appear as a hotlink. If not, copy and paste into your browser.

Another reliable source dealing with these issues is Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart (2011). **Secular and sacred: Religion and politics worldwide**. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Also see if you can find any material from Christian Welzel, a German political scientist. He and Inglehart have done lots of work using data from the World Values Survey, maintained somewhere in Scandinavia, I think. I have a powerpoint of some of Welzel's work that I can share with you if you give me an email address in a personal message.

You could actually do your own analysis quite easily: extract World Value Survey data (they are free) on religiosity and grab GDP and income inequality data from sources like UNDP. Paste them into an Excel spreadsheet, sort the religiosity column by high to low and check out the progression of values visually for the other columns of data.

[QUOTE=SkipKost;1697485]Max Weber[/QUOTE]The bit about Calvinism is persuasive. It confirms the general idea that the more religious a nation or individual is, the more likely they are to work harder, save and invest (with emphasis on saving and investing). At least this seems to be the case with Mainline Protestants (Calvinists) and perhaps with the religions I mentioned below. The general arc of Europe and it's Calvinist descendants over the past 300 years, and certainly the past 50 years, confirms that the less religious these countries and individuals are, the lower their relative economic thrust.

[QUOTE=SkipKost;1697485]control for wealth from oil[/QUOTE]Controlling for oil wealth makes sense, since geography is a bit of a lottery. If you controlled for wealth inherited (from Calvinists and their protege), that would also shape the results.

It's a pretty fluid topic. Is North Korea religious or not? Is any state with a personality cult around it's leader (or dead leaders) religious?

[QUOTE=SkipKost;1697485]Thanks for caring enough to ask.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the response. I'm toying around with some ideas here and enjoyed your post.

A little levity to offset too much serious discussion about corruption and the things that ail and animate the Philippines:

[URL]http://www.gocomics.com/candorville/2016/04/03[/URL]

Many of the comments are fun, too. OlongapoJoe, if you're one of us, stand up and take a bow.

SCMP not pulling punches.

[URL]http://m.scmp.com/business/article/2023308/trumps-chinese-aspersions-are-nonsense?utm_content=buffered6d4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer[/URL]

[QUOTE=Amavida;1942639]SCMP not pulling punches.

[URL]http://m.scmp.com/business/article/2023308/trumps-chinese-aspersions-are-nonsense?utm_content=buffered6d4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer[/URL][/QUOTE]The writer creates a nice strawman to beat. Until the 80s the west still had garment and shoe manufacturers. Often these were unionised jobs with OK pay and decent benefits. Yes, repetitive work, but so too is mounting a door on a car for an 8-hour shift.

The main problem with the trade deals of GATT and later the WTO are they ignore David Ricardo's wisdom of comparative advantage. As they began industrialising, Asian countries had advantage in menial work such as garment making, and the west had advantages elsewhere. Under GATT and the WTO protected classes based on economic development were created - kind of like positive discrimination / affirmative action. A country would be labeled emerging or newly industrialised, and it was allowed to maintain tariff and non-tariff barriers under the misguided idea of fairness.

It was "unfair" that Korea had to liberalise its auto market, for example. Korea would be allowed to retain its competitive advantages in other business sectors whilst at the same time denying its trading partners theirs. As Korea developed its auto manufacturers and began exporting to the west it still maintained these barriers; Korea could (and would) lose money exporting because Korean consumers were compelled to buy Hyundais, KIAs, and Daewoos. The few who decided to pay the outrageous import taxes for a Merc faced tax audits. Japanese cars were banned outright - the first Japanese cars to enter Korea's market were made in the USA. Think about the logic of this. By exporting its cars to developed markets like the US, Hyundai was claiming they were good enough to compete. Yet at the same it demanded and received protection in the home market because it was too weak to compete. Does this make any sense? Sure, in the world of double standards.

That's the monster GATT / WTO created. China is following the export-oriented economic develop model because it works. Look at Japan and Korea.

Trade with immediate reciprocity is fair. Each side makes some sacrifices whilst achieving some gains. The trade regime created by GATT / WTO didn't establish this. "You open now, I'll open later. " A developing county could delay opening the market to develop new industries whilst its powerhouse industries were allowed unfettered access to shatter the foreign competitors.

If people are going to embrace "free trade" then make sure the word "free" is legitimate and accurate.

[QUOTE=Amavida;1942639]SCMP not pulling punches.

[URL]http://m.scmp.com/business/article/2023308/trumps-chinese-aspersions-are-nonsense?utm_content=buffered6d4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer[/URL][/QUOTE]Well, everything that comes out of his mouth, to the extent anyone can re-interpret it into standard English is pretty much nonsense. On the other hand, I just read the article which is pretty much of an ideological polemic without much substance either.

Competing Economic theories not withstanding, the simple truth for me is that blue collar manufacturing jobs are never going to return to the US or to the West in general, and it's a reality that politicians dare not mention. The days when those armed with a high school diploma could find decently paid work are simply gone for the most part. Global trade, and the free flow of capital are realities that aren't going to change much regardless of protectionist rhetoric, and the only country that appears to get this (or at least the only one I've been able to identify) is Singapore. The US spends less as a percentage of GDP than other OECD countries on the retraining of workers displaced by automation or foreign competition, and I guess it's easier for politicians to make empty promises than to actually spend money to do something about helping workers to acquire relevant skills.

Yes, at Hutsori points out, the GATT and WTO probably provide an unfair competitive advantage to "developing" economies, but the former are also realities that aren't going anywhere soon. Conversely, this week's "Economist" ran a series of articles on globalisation and provided some real data on the benefits to the United States of its 20+ bilateral trade deals. By and large these benefits do not accrue to those without at least college degrees. But for me this argues for a better trained, more technically sophisticated workforce.

As others have pointed out, the Philippines plays such a small role in global trade that it remains largely unaffected by movement of capital and FDI. It's problems are mostly rooted in the fact that its protectionist trade and business laws are designed to restrict the inflow of foreign investment and they've certainly achieved that goal. I've heard nothing public from the new President about this subject.

GE.

[QUOTE=Hutsori;1943752] By exporting its cars to developed markets like the US, Hyundai was claiming they were good enough to compete. Yet at the same it demanded and received protection in the home market because it was too weak to compete. Does this make any sense? Sure, in the world of double standards.

That's the monster GATT / WTO created. China is following the export-oriented economic develop model because it works. Look at Japan and Korea.

Trade with immediate reciprocity is fair. Each side makes some sacrifices whilst achieving some gains. The trade regime created by GATT / WTO didn't establish this. "You open now, I'll open later. " A developing county could delay opening the market to develop new industries whilst its powerhouse industries were allowed unfettered access to shatter the foreign competitors.

If people are going to embrace "free trade" then make sure the word "free" is legitimate and accurate.[/QUOTE]We are in agreement Huts. The backlash has begun as voters accept they have been duped by neoliberal ideology. Unfortunately their choice is the established elite or right wing nutters.

[QUOTE=Amavida;1943786]We are in agreement Huts. The backlash has begun as voters accept they have been duped by neoliberal ideology. Unfortunately their choice is the established elite or right wing nutters.[/QUOTE]I forgot to mention the complication of accurately calculating "value added. " Many products "imported" by the US and Europe in fact contain components exported from the US and Europe for assembly in a second or third country. So how do we treat the exports and subsequent re-imports of assembled goods? I have no idea. The Philippines for example assembles, but does not manufacture small electrical goods. Since such goods are assembled from components manufactured and designed elsewhere should they count fully as exports from the Philippines? Supply chains have become multinational and perhaps the notion of country of origin is no longer relevant.

GE.

[QUOTE=GoodEnough;1943784]Competing Economic theories not withstanding, the simple truth for me is that blue collar manufacturing jobs are never going to return to the US or to the West in general, and it's a reality that politicians dare not mention.
[/QUOTE]Yet, Germany. We may think of Porsches and petrochemicals, yet it's also a pen and pencil superpower. I'll also mention that Korea today is a high-wage nation with plenty of manufacturing jobs. I recall reading a few years ago Korea's autoworkers earn more per hour than American UAW union members. How? Because it's not simply wages that determine success or failure. Germany has done very well for itself with innovative engineering. (A problem for its trade and competiveness is when a nation demands technology transfer.) The other important factor is productivity measured by the cost per unit.

To say manufacturing jobs are never going to return is defeatist. And evidence shows that this is not entirely true. Recovery becomes more difficult when the loss of know-how lasts for decades. Seasoned mentors in factories count for a lot.

I'll add it also takes a bit of nationalism. Citroen, Renault, and Peugeot survive because French consumers choose to buy French.

These are the top 10 selling car models on Q1 2016.

1 Renault Clio IV.

2 Peugeot 208.

3 Peugeot 308 II.

4 Renault Captur.

5 Peugeot 2008.

6 Citroen C3 II.

7 Dacia Sandero.

8 Volkswagen Polo.

9 Citroen C4 II Picasso.

10 Renault Twingo III.

Who here is thinking "Dacia?" Eight French models, one German, and one Romanian (owned by Renault). I used France as the example because its marques are not renown for engineering excellence like Germany and Japan's. In Italy, six of the top 10 are Italian marques. If you look throughout Europe the top selling models are dominated by the European marques, and the US / Japanese models are often made in the UK.

Here are the top 10 selling models in the US for Q2 2016.

1 Toyota Camry.

2 Honda Civic.

3 Toyota Corolla.

4 Nissan Altima.

5 Honda Accord.

6 Ford Fusion.

7 Hyundai Elantra.

8 Nissan Sentra.

9 Ford Focus.

10 Chevrolet Cruze.

Presumably some of the foreign models were assembled in the US, and the Cruze may be made outside the states since it started life as a Holden and later made by Daewoo (owned by GM).

Does Japanese engineering suddenly fall apart in Europe?

[QUOTE=GoodEnough;1943784]
The days when those armed with a high school diploma could find decently paid work are simply gone for the most part. Global trade, and the free flow of capital are realities that aren't going to change much regardless of protectionist rhetoric, and the only country that appears to get this (or at least the only one I've been able to identify) is Singapore.[/QUOTE]Other than chicken and rice, what does Singapore make? It's a regional hub for services. When one doesn't manufacture there's not much demand for protection. It's only recently that the state is self-sufficient in potable water, and that's due to reclaimed water. I'm not criticising the effort, merely pointing out that the people's we-have-to-import-to-eat-and-drink concern has a great influence on how they perceive things and adjust to the world. Their survival literally depends on it.

[QUOTE=GoodEnough;1943784]
The US spends less as a percentage of GDP than other OECD countries on the retraining of workers displaced by automation or foreign competition, and I guess it's easier for politicians to make empty promises than to actually spend money to do something about helping workers to acquire relevant skills.[/QUOTE]It's a criticism, but to what end? The US retrains footwear makers to what jobs? Steel making? Auto assembly? Coding another wastebook? (To digress for a moment, I read a fascinating account of how instagram, with a few dozen employees, helped put tens of thousands of people out of work.) If the foreign markets are closed to those items, and the US keeps increasing its imports of steel and cars, is the retraining ineffective? Twenty years ago people were told to re-educate themselves in IT and the service sector. Yet, I shift my accounting, software development, and many kinds of other back-office functions to India and the Philippines. Countries like France, Italy, and Germany are better protected because their languages are not global. How many Indian paralegals speak Italian? One of my girls is a lawyer. All she does is research US legal cases for US law firms. After years of doing this she knows New York laws, and those of a few other states too, better than Filipino ones. Another girl is an accountant. In her 4 years on the job she has looked at US accounts exclusively.

I have no opposition to retraining, but it needs to have a payoff, and ideally one that's viable for several years. But when Beijing demands US and European companies open their research and development centres in China the know-how is being transferred. Having lost the expertise the UK can no longer build nuclear power plants on its own; France and China have been hired to do so.

[QUOTE=GoodEnough;1943784]Conversely, this week's "Economist" ran a series of articles on globalisation and provided some real data on the benefits to the United States of its 20+ bilateral trade deals. By and large these benefits do not accrue to those without at least college degrees. But for me this argues for a better trained, more technically sophisticated workforce.[/QUOTE]We have to keep in mind in the US about 40 per cent of the population have uni degrees and Germany is about 28 per cent. Is Germany mistaken not training more? BTW, German tertiary education is free. Sadly for many of these US degree holders, they chose the wrong subjects. I suppose they learn how to manage debt. And this is happening in the UK, too. "Give everyone an advanced education," is too broad. It needs to be focussed in subjects that create production, wealth, tax revenue, and build communities. Social activist with a blog who works for clicks and plays ukelele at open mic night in Williamsburg, NYC isn't that career. And day after day the US and UK must keep importing medical workers. Something is amiss. The plot has been lost.

[QUOTE=GoodEnough;1943784]
As others have pointed out, the Philippines plays such a small role in global trade that it remains largely unaffected by movement of capital and FDI. It's problems are mostly rooted in the fact that its protectionist trade and business laws are designed to restrict the inflow of foreign investment and they've certainly achieved that goal. I've heard nothing public from the new President about this subject.[/QUOTE]Yet Korea and Taiwan were very closed to FDI and inbound trade for decades. They erected protectionist barriers everywhere. And it wasn't just the government. Buy a foreign car and someone would scrape a key on it. Children were taught in school to admonish their mums who bought foreign food. The press would continually run campaigns against "overconsumption", and all the items "causing social problems" were foreign made. Korea used to jail people for smoking foreign cigarettes. This wasn't an anti-smoking campaign because domestic cigarettes were lawful; in fact, they were made by a government-owned company. The governments directed investments into the means of production ("We're going to build wealth") and the companies were forced to look overseas for business. Korea's billionaires are the families of Samsung, LG, Hyundai, etc. The Philippines' billionaires are in retail, food & beverage, and real estate. And gambling.

[QUOTE=GoodEnough;1943788]I forgot to mention the complication of accurately calculating "value added. " Many products "imported" by the US and Europe in fact contain components exported from the US and Europe for assembly in a second or third country. So how do we treat the exports and subsequent re-imports of assembled goods? I have no idea. The Philippines for example assembles, but does not manufacture small electrical goods. Since such goods are assembled from components manufactured and designed elsewhere should they count fully as exports from the Philippines? Supply chains have become multinational and perhaps the notion of country of origin is no longer relevant.

GE.[/QUOTE]I agree with you here. My point is that trade deals that don't demand immediate reciprocity by all concerned are bad deals. I have no objection to a Thai-built transmission in a Spanish-assembled SEAT car provided Thailand has opened its market to the products of Spain (which would be under a Thai-EU trade deal). I have no sympathy for "Please wait a decade or two for us to catch up. " You want access now? So do we.

[QUOTE=Hutsori;1943832]I agree with you here. My point is that trade deals that don't demand immediate reciprocity by all concerned are bad deals. I have no objection to a Thai-built transmission in a Spanish-assembled SEAT car provided Thailand has opened its market to the products of Spain (which would be under a Thai-EU trade deal). I have no sympathy for "Please wait a decade or two for us to catch up. " You want access now? So do we.[/QUOTE]I don't either, and I agree with your assessment. However, given that this country makes very little that the rest of the world actually wants--aside from OFWs--it's not really germane to this place which attracts so little in the way of DFI. The fact is that existing regulatory frameworks that discourage investment would have to be dismantled before lopsided trade agreements become a real problem here.

GE.

[QUOTE=GoodEnough;1943835]However, given that this country makes very little that the rest of the world actually wants..

GE.[/QUOTE]Hey not so fast, what about Cebu dried mangoes? Famous all over the world!