Author: Dale Walker

Dale Walker https://walkerviewpoints.wordpress.com San Francisco is home. I was in Cambridge MA for 2017 in the Harvard Advanced Leadership Initiative, with 45 other folks from around the world. My background is banking and financial services. I'm interested in a better world, reducing inequality and a more inclusive form of globalization.

Religious Issues in Globalization

Leave a comment
September 2, 2012

Perhaps 30 years ago, the case of a 14 year old learning handicapped Christian girl being accused of burning the Koran in Pakistan would not make it to the papers in the US or London. If it did, perhaps most people would not feel we have any right to judge or to interfere.

But we have this thing called globalisation, which has instantaneously delivered this news to every major city in the world. Along with the news comes a plethora of observations by foreign notables. This is a dramatic example of issues exacerbated by globalisation.
The young girl is in jail, awaiting trial, the penalty for conviction potentially being death. And, even if she is released, local press report that her life will be in danger in Pakistan, notwithstanding that there are strong allegations that a Muslim cleric, arrested today, was seen planting burned pages of the Koran into her belongings.
These comments are not intended to address the right and wrong of this situation. It’s clear that most all of us Christians and many of other religions in the West are of the opinion that this young woman should not be arrested. While it is not morally OK in the west to burn our religious books, it is not illegal. There might be a few extremists who would endanger one who did so, but such threats or endangerment would not be tolerated in most Western societies.
However, in Pakistan, it seems there is a very vocal and significant group of citizens who feel strongly that destroying the Koran is a sin so very grievous that anyone doing so should face death. Have we ever had such types of beliefs in Western societies? Yes, of course, we have, probably some such sensitivities and/or laws dating back only 2-300 years. Would it have occurred to those conducting the Salem witch trials in 1693 that people of a different mind on this from other countries should have a right to opine or to interfere? Of course not.
It is clear that today, 2012, we have instant knowledge transfer of news like this, and we have strong feelings in countries very foreign to Pakistan, with no clear authority or rights to influence human rights (or religious freedom, as some of those extremely dedicated Muslims might call it–those who see the burning of their religious book as a mortal sin), feelings that say “No!” “This is wrong.” “Stop, release this young woman, and by the way, change your laws to give people the same freedoms of religion (choices, practices, all of it) that we have in the West!”
I admit to being of this opinion. Most everyone I know would probably agree. Nevertheless, herein we see a vivid example of the process of globalization. What right do the people of my nation state have in judging and trying to control the attitudes, religious preferences, and laws of another distant nation state? There is no IGO with overriding rules covering this aspect of human behavior. There are no rules, no authorities, nothing other than publicity and moral suasion available to the objectors to enable them to force the will of the majority of developed Western nations upon those of a different persuasion!
We will soon know the outcome of this particular extraordinarily sensitive matter.
As to globalisation, one thing we can say is that it’s unstoppable, permeating into all aspects of life, worldwide. Notwithstanding the absence of authorities, rules or agreements, whatever weapons that can be found will be used to influence. It doesn’t mean that the opinions of developed countries will always prevail, but it does mean that the time of quiet enjoyment of your own local traditions is gone, likely never to return!

London Approaching

Leave a comment
July 22, 2012

We are now within weeks of departing San Francisco for London, where I will enter the Masters program at the School of Oriental and African Studies in the subject: Globalisation and Development. In anticipation of the program, I have read a number of the better recommended books on the subject of globalisation. These readings and reflections have changed my preconceived views on the subject–already–and I haven’t even begun the course yet.

I suppose the overview is that I have been moved to a more complex understanding and a realization that the free market alone (unmanaged globalisation) will not best benefit the world. Of course, if we had only one choice–globalisation or no globalisation, then we should definitely be in favor of continued globalisation. It has brought hundreds of millions out of poverty in China, India, and elsewhere in the world, not to mention all the benefits to those not impoverished. And, we certainly do not have the choice of not having globalization anyway, because it is a powerful force driven by wealth creation opportunities of a massive nature.
Yes, we’d be far worse off without it.
Fortunately, we don’t have this choice to make. We don’t have the opportunity to choose not to have globalisation, although there are certainly many movements toward protectionism all over the developed world. For the most these are disparate and fragmented initiatives on behalf of industry groups in various developed nations, pursued by well funded lobbyists and presented to sympathetic members of government who are sensitive to the influence (monetary and political) of the industries and companies funding lobbying for those benefits. They usually manage to eventually end up persuading trade conference representatives of their countries to support manufactured and distorted selfish arguments to serve only their best interests, with no eye toward the better good of all on a worldwide basis. And, if fact, these efforts often do not even benefit the greater good of the country making such arguments, as in the case of US agricultural subsidies to cotton producers, resulting in higher than average incomes for those 25,000 cotton farmers in the US, and higher costs of cotton to US consumers, higher taxes to US taxpayers, and continued poverty for Sub Saharan Africans who could produce cotton well below our costs in the US. There are thousands of other such narrow and selfish legal and trade advantages throughout this country and the rest of the developed world.
But, these are not going to prevent the continuation of the grand worldwide expansion of globalisation, because there is a lot of money to be made from globalisation and therefore a lot of momentum behind it.
So, we need to understand that our opportunity is to try to make it work for more people, not just for the wealthy 1% of the world and not just for the developed nations. It needs to work for the underprivileged of the world as well, and especially for the impoverished of the world.
Why, some might argue, should we concern ourselves about those people–the ones in countries so far from us that we have no connection with them, no understanding of them, and we can’t be certain they’re not of some persuasion that is in fact, determined to do us in, if only they get the chance? And, don’t we have enough problems just concerning ourselves with our country, and defending only our citizens against any losses to citizens of other countries?
There are three main reasons we need to concern ourselves with those who are not benefitting from globalization: (1) we have a moral obligation; (2) if we don’t, we may thereby contribute to the unrest of the world, and to the hatred of the haves, and this could well engender a degree of terrorism and war risk that is dangerous to us; (3) the greatest long term wealth and lifestyle benefits of globalisation are going to be realized through helping the rest of the developing world rise to a level of income, such as to enable them to buy our products and makes us wealthier too. It’s not a zero sum game–improved opportunity, income, and wealth for the underprivileged does not result in less for the advantaged. In the long term, it means more for all.

Partisan Interpretation of Facts and Reality

Leave a comment
June 10, 2012

Just now, June 10, 2012, I am watching C Span, which is broadcasting the House Budget Committee, chaired by Paul Ryan. Douglas Elemendorf, who is Director of the Congressional Budget Office, is giving testimony. I missed his opening remarks and caught the Q&A. I was struck by, and very irritated to see, in action, what we all feel has become the nature of our Congress–partisan politics. I will pick on Bill Flores, R-TX, who was so very clearly attempting to force Elemendorf to admit that the stimulus program did not work, and thus any further stimulus would not work. Elemendorf was very clear–it did work, but the weakness of the underlying economy during this period of unusual crisis, such as the US has not experienced since the Great Depression, has caused the impact of the stimulus to be less than we had hoped. Flores is so clearly “partisan” in his attitude and his questions (really statements of his opinion). James Lankford, R-OK, spoke with far less in the way of bias to his party’s position. But the preponderance of speakers were clearly biased–not open to better understanding Elemendorf”s analysis, but rather, trying to disprove his conclusions and embarrass him

Partisanship was so clearly evident and must be so easy to see if one watches such hearings on C Span. Why don’t we Americans watch and why don’t we rise up and denounce and throw out the representatives who so very clearly display resistance to accept facts and realistic analysis, such as that supplied (in my opinion) by such as Elemendorf and his staff?
If we just watch, we can each so easily see how we are being failed by the clearly visible positioning of our elected representatives, how they become more and more entrenched in their positions.
Partisanship was not limited to Republican representatives. Democrats also displayed the full range, one to another, of reasonableness and extreme entrenchment in liberal ideology. However, there has been considerable bi-partisan scholarly recognition that the right wing Republican camp (most of the party now) has been by far the greater offender. I wonder how many Americans know the name Grover Norquist? Do we Americans recognize that somehow he managed to persuade almost all Republican members of Congress to sign a pledge that essentially removes all elements of revenue increase (via taxes), only leaving the still debated principle of using tax reductions to stimulate growth. Either that, or somehow stimulating growth by reducing entitlements via the avenue of reducing debt and following that logic to some connection to growth. This is a pledge not to listen, not to be open minded, a pledge to be resolutely partisan and refuse any possible compromise.
The essence of this debate is around spending vs. taxing; whether there is any way to reduce the budget deficit and the debt burden without making painful cuts in entitlements; whether there is any magic to be found in tax code restructuring such as to stimulate growth.
How have we ended up in this stalemate, which can only make the situation worse, and which we tolerate continuing month to month and year to year in taking no action?
I imagine most thoughtful Democrats recognize that entitlements must be reduced. And, our military budget exceeds the total of the defense budgets of at least the next 14 countries combined (Fareed Zakaria). All of this will need to be reduced. And, there is value to the arguments that tax cuts can potentially increase growth and thus reduce employment–but just right now, there should be little disagreement that careful spending choices on such as infrastructure and education will help to grow us out of the hole we are in.
Why can’t we compromise and move forward?

Sweatshops and Activists

Leave a comment
June 3, 2012

Sweatshops and the Issues
It seems likely that any thoughtful and studied person, examining the logic and the reality of experience, would conclude that, in general, globalization is good for the poor of the world. There are significant nooks and crannies of exception, but in a broad and general sense, it is well understood that more than a billion of the world’s population has risen from poverty across the last two decades, largely as a result of the growth of their respective national economies and that growth is largely the result of enhanced and accelerated globalization.
So, that being so undeniably true, why do the activists continue to rail against globalization and why do many look for ways to stop it?
One might ask a few questions to better understand this continuing and growing phenomenon: Do they deny that the above is true? Do they feel that while it is true, it is still appropriate to protest—they want more? If they want more, then who is best to protest against?
Let’s use an example: If Walmart and Apple are perhaps paying above local custom and local law in their foreign manufacturing and satisfied that is the case in regard to the vendors they buy from in foreign countries, and if they are not engaging in employment behaviors which are abusive or contrary to local law or custom, then who is to be protested against? What do the protesters want?
It appears that the protesters want to see the employment in the foreign country adopt a set of compensation and management practices which are “foreign” to the foreign country. They have some kind of ideal employment situation in mind. Maybe it’s the best of the US employment situations, or it’s some modified version. It’s usually not clear exactly what standard they are “exporting” to the foreign country.
Suppose it is common in China for employees to make 100 RMB per day. That’s only about $16 at today’s exchange rates, while here in San Francisco, minimum wage exceeds $10 per hour. Suppose it is common for factory workers in China to work 6 days per week, 10 hours per day (60 hours per week), whereas in the US it is common to work only 40 hours per week.
Further, let’s suppose the factory offers housing and food to its employees in China, many or whom elect to take this offer, because it is cheaper for them to take the factory housing and food than to rent and pay for food on the outside. Suppose the housing and food cost 50% of the gross pay, and thus the net available to the employee is then only 50 RMB ($8 per day).
Many of the factory workers in China are migrants from the countryside, having moved to the city just to work in the factory. Let’s assume they have access to competitive information, a variety of factory jobs for which they could apply, and that they are capable of basic analysis. They can calculate what the factory job will mean in net income, vs. what they could earn in agriculture in the countryside. They have friends or relatives already working there. So, they anticipate that the $8/day is better than what they could earn in agricultural work in the countryside. They think they can send most of $48/ week back to their families in the countryside.
What is wrong with this picture? The migrant factory worker has improved his/her income and life style as a result of the employment offered, and that is as a result of growth and globalization. What is there to protest about? The workers have bettered themselves. They had choices and they chose this job. No one forced them to take these jobs. No one is locking the factory premises and forcing them to stay if they want to leave.
Still, it appears there are numerous protesters who do not accept this reality. Maybe to them, $48/week is horrendously unfair. Maybe they have in mind some far higher wage, closer to US wages. They think working 10 hours per day, 6 days a week, is a “sweatshop,” and they do not choose to acknowledge that if it is, then the work in the countryside, which might be 12 hours per day for 7 days per week, for less money, with far worse housing and food—that’s NOT a sweatshop…?
Let’s skip the process of protesting and who can be effectively protested against to change this seemingly beneficial and fair reality, for a moment, and assume the protesting is successful. Foir whatever reasons Apple moves its production and Walmart drops those vendors. Then, no one can dispute that those same factory jobs might well move to Bangladesh or Angola, and the protestors can start all over again. And, regardless of whether they move or not, the cost of goods to buyers throughout the world increases. When prices increase, as economists attest, there is reduced demand (price/demand elasticity affects most factory produced products). Thus, there is need for fewer factory jobs and fewer poverty stricken migrants from the countryside are able to start the process of climbing out of poverty.
No one disputes that the improved condition of these migrant workers are still difficult. They do not have enough money to hire child care workers back home. They must rely on relatives to care for their children. They do not themselves have access to the best schools where they work, because of China’s “houkou” laws which discriminate between locals and migrants in terms of many benefits. They can’t afford vacations, best health care, much entertainment, and things we all take for granted. So, by US standards, they would be considered in the bottom 20%, not far from homeless. No one disputes that.
Nevertheless, using our assumptions, they have choice, have made their choice, have improved their standard of living and are being compensated and treated in accordance with local custom in their country and in compliance with all local law. In fact, most multinationals are thought to pay wages that are 10-40% above local standards and thus, they are pulling wages up in the country—for two reasons: They pay more and their added demand for labor contributes to pressures that increase wages in the country.
No one disputes that there are situations which do not fit these assumptions, where muti-nationals are violating local laws or dealing with employees in abusive ways. These deserve protest and change, but it would be wonderful if we could reach agreement on how to deal with those which do fit these assumptions, because I think these are the majority and it seems a very significant amount of disagreement and energy is invested in trying to “fix” these, also.
So, back to the question of protesting. Notwithstanding the arguments above, protesting continues. Against whom? Is it right that the activists should protest Walmart and Apple? They are entirely in compliance with local law and custom (our assumption), even where some locals are not, simply because local law is not very well enforced. This is happening. Is it right that they protest the World Bank and the IMF when the multi-nationals are in compliance with the agreements of these organizations? It would seem not, unless the protest is aimed at changing those agreements. Why shouldn’t the protests be against the local country, where the minimum wage laws are determined, the length of the allowable work week, etc?
Why? Apparently because it is extraordinarily difficult for protesters in wealthy nations to effectively protest the Chinese (or any foreign) government. It’s so much easier to try to protest world organizations and the multinational. Mounting publicity which highlights the dramatized difficult lives of the migrant factory workers is not hard, and is so poignant when properly displayed in the wealthy developed country, especially when there exists a host of varied motivations to attach to any potentially significant effort to slow globalization, punish the Chinese, or effect a wealth transfer.
Finally, how many of the protesters would vote for increased tax in the country in which they live, which could be distributed to those workers who are underpaid—something coming from their individual paychecks? Doubtful many would. Who do they want to pay for the improved conditions of the migrant factory worker? Bill Gates? The US Government? If the US, who will pay that bill in the end? They want the “wealthy” multi-national corporation to pay the bill, thus reducing its profits, reducing the taxes it pays, reducing its competitiveness against other muti-nationals from Japan or elsewhere? In the end, doesn’t someone pay for this wealth transfer? Shouldn’t we address who that should be at first, and make sure it is fair on a global basis?

Meaning of Globalization–May 27, 2012

Leave a comment
May 27, 2012

Before signing up for the SOAS Masters program, I naively thought that globalization was about the movement of people. I thought it was most significant in what we see here in San Francisco, or even in my home town of High Point, North Carolina, a much smaller town. In every place we visit in the US and in the world, we find a wide array of languages, ethnicities, customs, dress, behaviors, that were not prevalent when I was growing up. I though globalization was a social issue–dealing with how do we all best “get along” with each other, accept each other, and cooperate in making our communities meet our needs.

It is about that, of course, but it turns out to be much more, as defined by many scholars and authorities. It’s also about trade (and trade tariffs, embargoes, restrictions, etc.). It’s also about economics. This is a very big part of the study and understanding of globalization, as our jobs, wealth, and many of the benefits of our lives are defined in terms of economics. It’s also about how governments collaborate or fail to do so, and about the rules of the road in terms of how we best maintain the quality of the planet and share the burden or maintenance in a fair and rational way. It’s about culture and faith and whether we are drawn more to homogenity or whether we can protect the valuable elements of our individual beliefs and cultures. It’s about all of this and more. And, it’s not new–we have been trading and moving around this planet for thousands of years. But, it does seem to many that the pace of globalization is accelerating rapidly and bringing with that heightened pace, a whole new set of opportunities and challenges.

In starting the reading the half dozen books I am into now, I began with the presumption that the invisible hand of the market would be the best way to deal with the issues of globalization. As an example, I started with feeling exasperated that some Americans blame China for “stealing” their jobs, while failing to acknowledge they they shop at Walmart and save significant amounts of spending money by buying quality products made extraordinarily cheaply in China.

I still feel that way, but I do now see that there is much more to consider. There is another side to all of this. The interests of corporations are rightfully in their own betterment, and so are those of countries, and if we don’t find better ways to resolve some of them, we’ll have huge problems in our world. One example–our agricultural subsidies in the US are enormous, and those (as well as a variety of trade restrictions, tariffs, etc.) make it impossible for some poor nations to supply us with food at prices which would be (a) well below our cost for domestic production; and (b) lifesaving sources of income for certain poor countries which only have agriculture to offer to the world.

Leave a comment
May 22, 2012

My perspective is that of a beginning student of the vast subject of globalization. I am currently reading about 10 books on various aspects of this subject. I simply must stop and take the time to recommend this one to any of you who may want to better understand the condition of the world today.

The word “globalization” is not in the title, but globalization is about trade, about movement of people, and about every way in which we interact globally. What could be more relevant to globalization than an outlook on the key issue of world leadership in the next decade or two?
Ian Bremmer has written a captivating book on that subject. He argues clearly that we are likely to be leaderless for a time. The US is neither able nor willing to play the role it has played (not to say that that role was played well or poorly in the past few decades–it was some of both). There is no other country or group of countries or world organization which is properly designed, equipped, and prepared to take on that role.
Some might say that China is prepared to do so, but Bremmer clearly explains the issues that China, in the words of its own Prime Minister only 2 years ago, “still a developing country,” must maintain as priority. China has major internal challenges which it is rightly dedicated to managing. We will all benefit greatly is Chinese leadership only does that well for another decade. Neither is Russia, India, or Brazil ready. Clearly the European Union has years of financial struggle ahead before it could consider spreading its wings.
The implications of a world which is spinning rapidly in terms of trade and migration toward more and more globalization, but yet has no leader and no vehicles for agreement on a wide array of critical issues, such as water, technology, the internet, trade, and on and on, are indeed vast.
The book does not seek to frighten us or to mollify us. I am usually distrustful of arguments which take to those extremes.
I highly recommend this book to those who want to understand the risks and opportunities that lie ahead of us in a world that is struggling to find the answers to cooperation in ways that will be of greatest benefit to all of us.

Personal Experience

Leave a comment
August 19, 2012

Here’s something about globalization–on the surface, pretty mundane, but can be interesting (especially if you’re the one faced with it!):

We’re newly arrived in London. Both of us have student visas for Masters programs beginning soon. We’ll be here for 18-24 months, we expect, maybe longer. We have excellent credit in the US. All we need is a mobile phone and an apartment. A local bank account and a credit card/ATM card in local currency would be nice.
Here’s the problem: You can’t get a mobile phone without a local bank account. You can’t get a local bank account until you have a lease. A hotel address will not do. You can’t get a local lease based on any form of international documentation–eg., copies of US bank statements, letters of reference from friends, your bank, landlords, etc. If all of your experience is from outside the UK, it means nothing. If you can find a “UK guarantor” who is sufficiently creditworthy, you can start the process, but we dare say that few of us have such, nor would we wish to impose on such a UK friend for a guarantee if we did have one.
This is the case, apparently, for all who come without a UK employer waiting for them–all who want to rent and have a mobile phone, etc., for the duration of an allowed tourist visa, or as students, immigrants, etc. It seems likely this circumstance applies to thousands of visitors to the UK annually.
So, the only solution that is offered is that the tenant pays 6-12 months rent in advance. With that, the lease can be obtained. With the lease, the bank account can be opened, and with that, the mobile phone can be contracted, and you’re in business.
Setting aside the few days or weeks in limbo until you find an acceptable flat, that’s OK for those who have that much cash to provide in advance. However, even for those, it feels like an insult that all of one’s years of conscientious determination to be creditworthy in an equally advanced country is considered of no value–zero. Also, paying so much in advance clearly reduces the tenant’s leverage in event the flat develops problems which the landlord is not compelled to fix–what power does the tenant have if the landlord has been so fully paid in advance?
What’s the globalization question here? This is it: Why does this system exist, when we are in the year 2012, and how much longer will it survive? Isn’t this “difficulty” all about borders? Wouldn’t it be a great opportunity, considering all the tools of the modern age and globalization, for some enterprising property owner or intermediary, to offer to accept (or guarantee in the case of the intermediary) qualified tenants without all this hassle? Or, to provide such guarantee to the mobile phone company? Or, for an enterprising banker to offer to provide accounts to those who can be qualified, even if perhaps with limited exposure arrangements?
How could this be done, if there was a mind to do so? Without question, there are a number of countries in which credit verification systems are equally advanced as those in the UK. We imagine those would include US, Canada, Australia, and a number of European countries. So, step one could be to verify against those systems in the traveler’s home country. Without today’s internet and fibre-optics lines, this step could take seconds to accomplish.
One might say, however, that there is still a risk–the risk that even with a good US credit history, someone might leave the UK with some remaining obligation unresolved, but all of his/her assets are in the US, making it difficult for the mobile phone company, the bank, or the landlord to collect. Couldn’t that be resolved by an arrangement where a certain amount of the traveler’s cash in a US bank is put into an escrow and held until some of this is resolved? According to the above set of rules, the mobile company and the bank would release their need for protection when the lease is obtained, and perhaps some aggressive landlords would agree that if they could be guaranteed at least 60 days of rent if the tenant leaves without paying, they would be comfortable to be paid on a monthly basis. So, maybe all the tenant with good credit from certain developed countries would need to do would be to put two months of rent in escrow–very doable for most people who are making such pilgrimages. Such a deposit could even be kept in the UK at an established bank or escrow company, even better for the local landlord.
All of this could be made public. People like us could make the necessary arrangements in advance, and when we arrive our hotel in London, we’d already have access to full mobile services, bank accounts, credit cards, ATM cards, and be ready to negotiate a lease. We’d be happy to pay a fee for that!
Is there any doubt such a system could work? It would be to the benefit of thousands of travelers to the UK, and this set of arrangements would also work as it relates to similar rules/circumstances in other countries. Clearly, we have all the technology to make it happen easily and fast, and if we don’t yet have the legal structures to make it foolproof, those could be easily arranged between countries, if there is a will.
And, it seems there is likely sufficient profit for the parties to justify working this out–for the banks, for the mobile companies, and for the landlords.
What are the reasons it hasn’t been done?
1. Perhaps the analysis of the opportunity has not been done, although in this world, it seems unlikely anything with profit potential, especially something that causes such inconvenience, has just been overlooked.
2. Perhaps the analysis of the volume of profits to be obtained reveals that the opportunity is not large enough to motivate the parties to try to address the opportunity. Usually it takes only one competitor to decide that a segment of underserved can be served and a significant volume drawn away from competitors. E.g., if a collective of landlords offered a better solution to prospective tenants, they would get a lion’s share of the traveler business.
3. Perhaps the legal agreements between countries do not yet make it easy to draw on that escrow abroad. That could be resolved between countries, if there was a mind to do so. And, the escrow could be here, as well, in the UK.
4. And, could it be that the banks, mobile companies, and landlords are all too lazy to address it–yet? Or, simply enjoying the low risk present alternative. After all, it’s unlikely this pesky inconvenience is actually deterring anyone from coming to the UK. If we (the landlords, banks, and mobile companies) all just sit quietly, no one rocks the boat, we collectively do not have to take more risk. After all, as landlords, it’s awfully nice to get paid 6 months in advance, isn’t it? This is true until one party starts to offer an easier solution!
I predicted to our Estate Agent here that this system will fall within 10 years. Globalization will tear it down–just my opinion!
What do you think?

North Korea–Jan 1, 2012

Leave a comment
January 1, 2012

It should be apparent that I am supportive of China in a broad way, feeling that many of the areas of widely agreed need for improvement (such as intellectual property, human rights, and others) are best understood in the context of what has been accomplished for the greater good of not only the huge Chinese population, but also the world which benefits from the production of the Chinese machine.

But then, there is the matter of North Korea, and the opportunity that arises for change, which none other than China is positioned to better enable. It is largely now the responsibility of China and Russia to influence the change which might result in the elimination of poverty, political imprisonment, and the lack of opportunity that is so prevalent in North Korea at this time. The Kim Il Eun regime is protecting the elite at the expense of the vast population. Millions have been tortured, been imprisoned, or have died as a result of the political and economic policies of this regime, which will certainly fight to protect the privileges of the same elite and its progeny, if no one does anything. There need not be a war, there need not be further economic sanctions, if only China (in particular) would step forward at this time with appropriate pressure on the regime, supported by Russia, the US and others.

This should be an easy choice, with little to be lost (except for the regime) and so much to be gained, for so many.

Trump Again–Dec 7, 2011

Leave a comment
December 7, 2011

Dec 7, 2011, Donald Trump goes public with his view that Barack Obama is arrogant! From the most arrogant guy I know in the whole media scene–how ridiculous! Does it not occur to him that he is widely regarded as the kind of arrogance?

And, his recent “disclosure” of his wealth at $7B, regrettably one indicator to many of his wisdom and acumen, is very likely to be wildly distorted to the upside. Forgetting all the banks and others who have lost fortunes in association with him in his past failures, we can only say: “Donald, produce all the details to support these claims–property addresses, descriptions, valuation calculations, etc.” It’s highly doubtful that he can legitimately claim a fraction of this if subjected to proper scrutiny.

It’s just too much to really believe, isn’t it?

Republican Primaries–Dec 6, 2011

Leave a comment
December 6, 2011

The latest blip in the Republican Presidential polls favors Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney (and all the others). This is a disappointing reflection of our political process, because Newt is not the kind of leader we need for the critical next four years. His personal life is a concern, his positions have been A-Z on some key issues, he shoots from the hip, and he’s arrogant to the extreme–seemingly believing he is the smartest and wisest person on earth, a rather disgusting trait. In this regard, Romney is much more the man we’d like to have dinner with, the man we’d trust to carefully consider decisions before advancing. Even better would be Huntsman, but that choice is regrettably academic at this point.

To emphasize our point, Gingrich’s recent decision to seek the advice of Donald Trump pretty much wrapped up our willingness to respect his judgment. Trump has already revealed his lack of knowledge and wisdom on most key issues. Is Donald Trump the kind of adviser President Gingrich would turn to for advice in making decisions, such as those on China, where Trump clearly doesn’t even understand the country, the issues, or how to negotiate with them?

So, the Obama presidency has been less than what we’d like to see, and perhaps many of us are vulnerable to voting for a new regime, especially one with a more fiscally conservative bent. Seems a perfect opportunity for the Republicans to take full advantage. However, they’ve done the opposite so far. The only good we can see is that, at least we are not forced to consider Sarah Palin, and we are finally rid of Herman Cain.

A word on Cain–we don’t know whether the multiple allegations are true, but it seems highly likely that some are. He may well have been able to salvage his campaign if he had come clean, admitted his mistakes, and apologized. But, this way, we’ll never know and we have to assume he had something to hide–the potential of dishonesty weighs heavier than this possible mistakes. However, if all of it were true, admitting and apologizing would have been woefully inadequate. Is that why he dropped out?

We are not the only ones who would seriously consider voting Republican in 2012–but–the only really credible candidates stand no chance of being nominated. The developing primary race so far has been a 3 ring circus.

A perfect opportunity for Republican conservatism to capture the country may be lost due to the lacklustre array of candidates to lead the Party and due to the intransigence of the Republican Congress to do something to address debt and stimulus through compromise. They seem to be betting everything on keeping us suffering until 2013. But, beware! We may turn to the Democrats again, considering this woeful lack of conservative leadership.