For shame! No real war over water in CA

BRIEFING: "California's water wars: Of farms, folks and fish; A truce in California's long and bitter fight over water at last appears possible," The Economist, 24 October 2009.

I hate the casual use of the term "war" here.

But here's a cool para:

Water has divided Californians since Mark Twain remarked that "whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting over." But this latest conflict comes as America's largest state is politically gridlocked and holding back a national economic recovery. From Australia to Israel, parched places all over the world are now looking to California to see whether, and how, it solves one of the most intractable problems of thirsty civilizations in dry regions.

Details aren't important, so I won't relay them. Bigger point: CA's legislature is innovating, with a focus on sustainability. Sounds closer to co-evolution than zero-sum conflicts.

North America: the North America of global remittances

ON ECONOMIST.COM: "Videographics: Movement of the people; Our latest videographic tells and shows the story of global migrations," The Economist, 24 October 2009.

This is just on the map displayed with the story: remittance flows from North America:

• $36.3B to LatAm


• $2.2B to Africa


• $17.3B to Europe (mostly Eastern, I assume)


• $30.1B to Asia.

If the global remittance flow is somewhere north of $300B, then NorthAm supplies about one-quarter of the global flow--roughly equivalent to U.S.+Canada's global GDP share.

Then again, I'm not sure what the UN Development Report lists for its global total. The various estimates I've seen varying from $200-300-plus billion, so our roughly $85B percentage share could be somewhat lot higher, but I think not.

Why? What the videographic makes clear is that the vast majority of migration for work occurs within regions, much less so inter-regionally--save South-to-North America.

Cool feature at site, and who doesn't love that Brit accent, making everything all sound so much smarter? I have our cars' Garmins set to male British voices, just because I find it oddly soothing.

Is Obama's Afghanistan Strategy Ripping Off America?

He can't really fix a country with 30,000 troops because he can't really afford any more. So why is the rest of the world gaining from our taxpayer dollars and spilled blood?

Continue reading this week's World War Room column at Esquire.com.

Gates ID'd firmly with new Afghan surge

U.S. NEWS: "Gates Emerges as Architect of New Afghan Strategy," by Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, 2 December 2009.

A bit surprising, when you consider Gates-the-man and Gates-the-career. The guy has never been known for risk-taking.

What I also find interesting: clearly Gates in the bureaucratic lead and Obama in the political lead, but Petraeus is an oddly muted figure in these proceedings--compared with Iraq, at least. Part of it has to be the guy's recent unfortunate brush with cancer, but you also get the feeling that the Obama team would not allow it for downstream political considerations.

Gates may seem expendable, but I would counter that he's far more valuable to this administration than Petraeus could be damaging in the 2012 timeframe.

Biological urge overcomes Korean homogeneity

ARTICLE: Baby Boom of Mixed Children Tests South Korea, By MARTIN FACKLER, Washington Post, November 28, 2009

Japan would do well to take note and learn from South Korea on this one in the short run, and China should do the same over the longer run:

The surge in births of mixed children is the product of the similarly explosive growth here in marriages to foreigners, as a surplus of bachelors and the movement of eligible women to big cities like Seoul have increasingly driven Korean men in rural areas to seek brides in poorer parts of Asia. In addition, a preference for male babies has helped skew the population so there are fewer native-born women to marry. The Ministry of Public Security says the total number of children from what are called multicultural families in South Korea rose to 107,689 in May of this year from 58,007 last December, though the ministry said it might have slightly undercounted last year.

That is only about 1 percent of the approximately 12 million children in South Korea under the age of 19. But if marriages to foreigners continue to increase at their current rate -- they accounted for 11 percent of all marriages here last year -- more than one in nine children could be of mixed background by 2020, demographic researchers say.

The trend is even more pronounced in rural areas, where most of these marriages take place.

Unbelievable stuff, I know. Up to now I figured the only thing you could do with unmarried males was pack them into the military and start WWIV!

But it turns out they just want to get married and have babies, and they go outside their culture if they have to do it. And when they do, another interesting form of globalization results . . ..

Ah, but I'm such a naive romantic. Maybe the kids will grow up and start WWIV.

Alas, some South Koreans perceive a simple logic at work here:

"The hard reality of our low birthrate is forcing us to realize that we can't be homogeneous anymore," said Park Hwa-seo, a professor of migration studies at Myongji University in Seoul. "It isn't easy, but there is no turning back but to embrace these more diverse families."

Hmm. Hard to believe.

A soft 'deadline' and political 'victories'

OP-ED: A deadline written in quicksand, not stone, By Dana Milbank, Washington Post, December 3, 2009

Hmm. The backtracking on the 18-month-deadline begins almost immediately.

As well it should.

But expect all politically-expedient "victories" to be declared on schedule, nonetheless.

Nice to see a little U.S.-China teamwork

ARTICLE: Climate talks remain alive, but so do many obstacles, By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, November 29, 2009

Nice bit of dual--and dueling--leadership by China and the U.S. as we head toward Copenhagen. Even if the results disappoint, I like this dynamic.

The Economist foresees no dollar collapse

LEADERS: "Currencies: The diminishing dollar; Why it's unlikely to turn into a dangerous collapse," The Economist, 24 October 2009.

FINANCE AND ECONOMICS: "Dollar depreciation: Denial or acceptance; The dollar's slide is complicating life for countries with floating exchange rates," The Economist, 24 October 2009.

No dollar crash over the past two years, although it's been predicted by uber-bears for a while. Instead, we get a nice slow devaluation--totally welcome and needed.

Good point in editorial: much of the recent drop is a simple correction from the flight-to-safe-haven that occurred with the global financial panic.

Plus, a weak dollar makes sense, given where the U.S. is in its business cycle, relative to the rest of the world, thus is "should help rather than hinder the global recovery."

The danger? China's peg. But since China is unbelievably incentivized not to resolve that tension overnight, triggering a dollar collapse, there's less danger there than meets the panicked eye.

Confidence comes in realizing China's own enormous hidden deficits

LEADERS: "The odd couple: America should be much more confident in its dealings with its closest rival," The Economist, 24 October 2009.

SPECIAL REPORT: "A wary respect: A special report on China and America," by James Miles, The Economist, 24 October 2009.

China as the "new Prussia," as some DC experts opine, especially since it is "colonizing" swathes of Africa and Latin America.

Ah, the sheer stupidity of inappropriate historical analogies.

Even the Economist indulges here: China owns $800B of US T-bills, and thus has the "power of life and death over the American economy."

A dumber statement has never been made by this fine magazine.

Tension must get worse, we are told, because of elections in 2012 in Taiwan, the U.S., and China. I have no idea why, based on recent experience (no mention of China in the U.S. election in 2008, Ma's rise in Taiwan, and the total lack of any unpredictability in the Chinese "election."

Honestly, this is some of the goofiest writing I've ever seen in this magazine.

It must also get worse because there is a growing perception of China and the U.S. being equal powers, when China is nowhere near America's true weight in global affairs.

Again, am I the only one who finds this logic just plain stupid?

How America's relative strength makes tension more likely is beyond me, except for the possibility of hyperbolic defense hawks on either side driving policy, something that neither political system seems willing to tolerate.

So the big fears are a too easily frightened U.S. and a too easily internally-destabilized China.

Wow, thanks for the news.

The Special Report is decent, but nothing truly innovative (Taiwan and North Korea will "complicate" bilateral relations--okay). Disappointing effort overall--the second time in just a few months that I've said that about a Special Report.

I don't disagree with the basic premise: the next few years provide the opportunity for the relationship to sour. Been saying that in speeches for years. I just find the assumption of rising tension to be BS, in addition to the sin of extrapolating way too much meaning from the 1 October military parade

I don't think it makes sense to assume anything--one way or the other. But if I am going to lean one way on the 5th generation of Chinese leadership (incoming, 2012), it's toward greater cooperation and not greater tension. This will be a serious upgrade in worldliness on their side.

A reasonable comparison to nation-state economies

NATION: "The End of California? Dream On!" by Michael Grunwald, Time, 2 November 2009.

Experts love to cite stats that show how multinational corps are some of the biggest entities in the world, implying that they are the near-equivalent of nation states. It's a terrible apples-oranges comparison, but there it is.

More sensible is comparing sub-national units, like U.S. states or EU members.

On that score, California is a G-8 member at $1.8B, just above Brazil and just below Italy.

Iran's feeble over-reach

ARTICLE: Ahmadinejad boosts Latin America ties
boosts, By Juan Forero, Washington Post, November 28, 2009

Having just read Bob Gates' quasi-autobio, From the Shadows, I note the odd parallel between the Soviets grasping for influencing in the region in the late 1970s and early 1980s (at the height of their adventuring in the Third World--or what Gates calls the "'Third World' War") and Iran doing it now.

In both instances, we see the aging revolutionary regime settling uncomfortably into its elders years, but not without some fantastic dreams of still instigating worldwide whatever. The Russians got nowhere, spent a lot of money, and by 1982-83, rethought the process and slowly started pulling back (my PhD diss). Point being: it was a crazy, last-gasp.

I think we see the same thing here with Iran: great show, but little to show for it once the photo-ops fade.

More on legalizing marijuana

ARTICLE: Support for legalizing marijuana grows rapidly around U.S., By Karl Vick, Washington Post, November 23, 2009

Per my WPR column a bit back.

Analysis: imperialism v. globalization

Stuart Abrams writes:

I thought your latest piece in WPR was superb. However, I still have a bit of a problem with your views on colonialism/imperialism. In particular, there is this statement in your piece:

In the West, this situation naturally triggers shameful memories of past colonial efforts: Europe's disastrous attempt to force global capitalism at the barrel of a gun.

This statement reflects a sort of Hobson/Lenin view of imperialism, namely, that it was a by-product of capitalist evolution. While I agree with Hobson's economic analysis of capitalism as leading inevitably to globalization, I think that he was wrong in jumping to the conclusion that these economic forces were also responsible for the political forces that produced imperialism. I prefer Schumpeter's analysis of imperialism, namely, that it was the product of pre-capitalist forces that retain political power in capitalist societies, such as European aritstocrats like the Junkers, but who actually take actions inconsistent with capitalist development. Schumpeter showed that imperialism actually impeded capitalist globalization. For example, the old European colonial empires were bastions of protectionism. This was not designed to foster global capitalism; on the contrary, it was designed to use political power as a means of fostering the interests of artificial monopolies controlled by cronies of European aristocrats against the threat of capitalist competition. Adam Smith's rants against government interference were not directed against socialists and "progressives" - they were directed against the mercantilist system that enabled politically-connected companies to undermine capitalism. I would argue, with Schumpeter, that these were the forces responsible for European colonialism, and not any attempt to promote global capitalism.

I don't think this is just historical nitpicking. I think it goes to the heart of what is at stake in shaping the role of the US in current world events. The US is not the successor to the European colonial empires - it is the antithesis. Because the US largely developed in a post-capitalist environment, the US has few of the vestiges of the pre-capitalist elites who continued to dominate European political systems during the 19th Century, and who were responsible for European imperialism. Thus, the US's role as the leading power in the world has been truly to foster capitalist globalization, not imperialism. Contrary to European colonialism, free trade has been the lynchpin of American economic policy throughout the postwar era - it was the centerpiece of both Wilsonian idealism and FDR's New Deal for the World. A system grounded in free trade cannot possibly be imperialist.

This does not mean, however, that the US political system is not susceptible to influences that are opposed to the spread of capitalist globalization. There are strong anti-globalization strains in "populist" movements currently gaining traction on both the left and the right. More significantly, I see anti-globalization as a component of ideologies prevalent among certain elements of the American political elite. Anti-globalization lies at the heart of both American isolationism and unilateralism. Anti-globalization is present in the thinking of neo-isolationists such as Andrew Bacevich and foreign policy "realists" who promote the concept of "national interest" in a manner that is often inconsistent with the demands of capitalist globalization. I also see hostility to globalization among the neo-cons (best articulated by Robert Kagan) who really are promoting what I see as nothing more than a form of American imperialism which, as I have emphasized, is fundamentally at odds with capitalist globalization.

So, bottom line, my head starts to explode whenever I see anybody draw any connection between imperialism and capitalist globalization. Globalization is the ultimate force in anti-imperialism, and to the extent the US has been the hand-maiden of globalization, we are the ultimate anti-imperialists. Getting the rest of the world to see that - and believe it - is Obama's greatest challenge.

Tom says:

Nice analysis.

Soviet ecological disaster (and some recovery, with WB help)

ARTICLE: From ecological Soviet-era ruin, a sea is reborn, By PETER LEONARD, AP, Oct 26, 2009

Kazakhstan being a stand-up guy on the environment.

If there is any country in the world that got the short end of the stick on this score, it was Kazakhstan under Soviet rule, as it was basically the dumping ground for everything and everyone that the Kremlin wanted gone.

My hat off to Astana on this effort.

Catholic fringe politics

OP-ED: From Vatican, a tainted olive branch, By James Carroll, Boston Globe, October 26, 2009

A very pithy critique of Benedict's offer:

From the misfit fringe of another denomination, Rome recruits the naysayers it needs to bolster what has become its own place on the margin of Catholic life. First there was Opus Dei, with its crypto-fascist origins, then there were the Holocaust-denying lovers of Latin - and now the Anglo-fundies. Come on over, guys!

I agree. It's a sign of the Church's weakness, not its magnanimity. It's not real triangulation, but splinter politics.

(Thanks: Jack Ryan)

Fuel of the future: algae?

ARTICLE: Algae may be secret weapon in climate change war, by Ruth Morris, AFP, October 22, 2009

The gist:

As it turns out, algae -- slimy, fast-growing and full of fat -- is gaining ground as a potential renewable energy source.

Experts say it is intriguing for its ability to gobble up carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, while living happily in places that aren't needed for food crops.

Algae likes mosquito-infested swamps, for example, filthy pools, and even waste water. And while no one has found a way to mass produce cheap fuel from algae yet, the race is on.

Enterra's in the process of allying itself with a breakthrough technology firm in this realm--very exciting stuff.

A vision for a Nigeria that addresses its many problems now that the Delta is less restive

BRIEFING: "Nigeria: Hints of a new chapter; As militants lay down their arms in the Niger Delta, the battle is on to tackle Nigeria's other massive ills," The Economist, 14 November 2009.

Not easy to summarize. It's just so rare to read anything well written about Nigeria that I felt a need to cite it.

Gist: Sharia not working in north, and those unhappy with it are going more extremist, but they're small in number. Still, the nastiest ones, like Boko Harum (Education is prohibited) bear watching. Elsewhere, we see brave politicians experimenting with new ways to manage state finances so as to trim the country's legendary corruption problems.

New take on why America can't warm up to CO2 reductions

COLUMN: "United States: Farmers v greens; The biggest obstacle to a climate-change bill is rural America," by Lexington, The Economist, 14 November 2009.

Gist: shifting to low-carbon energy use would be too costly for U.S. farmers. So cap-and-trade will be resisted by those most likely to be punished with high prices--those who live in the countryside and have no choice but to be--relatively speaking--energy intensive in their usage patterns.

People think the rural folk would be more conserving, but it's the distances that kill you (far more than for the suburbanites). People also assume that cities are the great wasters of energy, when the opposite is true: per capita-wise, cities are the way to go to reduce fuel requirements.

So Red State v Blue State is only reinforced by climate change, despite the greater religiosity in the former and the whole "stewardship" bit among Evangelicals.

Medicine at the bottom of the pyramid: no frills but solid service

FRONT PAGE: "The Henry Ford Of Heart Surgery: In India, a Factory Model for Hospitals Is Cutting Costs and Yielding Profits," by Geeta Anand, Wall Street Journal, 21-22 November 2009.

Fascinating story that's been around for a while: cheap but effective medical/surgical care in New Core countries not only represents "reverse innovation" but triggers a flow of patients from Old Core to New as medical tourists.

The open-heart surgery that goes for between $20-100,000 here in States is done for $2,000 at Dr. Devi Shetty's place in Bangalore.

Next up: a franchise hospital in the Cayman Islands to tap the American market.

Great stuff.

The revolution will be televised (and interactive)

ARTICLE: Video Games (No Controller Needed), By SETH SCHIESEL, New York Times, October 26, 2009

Sounds whacked, but I guarantee you my kids would all be deeply impressed.

Even as a family, we are experiencing mass media more and more through the XBox, like the really fun live game show called 1-vs-100.

The future will be highly interactive, or nobody will attend.