Economics, Malaysia, and Economic Growth

Economics is broken because other than Hernando de Soto's work, it fails to account for politics and sociology. One of the field's most egregious mistakes is assuming protectionism always equals failure within a globalized trading paradigm--or that slower economic growth is necessarily inferior to faster growth. Post-WWII, debt within allied Western nations created an interdependent system facilitating common goals and knowledge transfers. Meanwhile, in formerly colonized countries, most residents remained poor during as well as after colonization, and the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998 confirmed a distrust of Western finance. 

When judging formerly colonized countries like Malaysia, one must remember just how poor the natives were. According to Tun Dr. Mahathir, "The country's per capita income in 1957, the year of Independence, was less than USD350. Under British colonial rule more than 70% of the population lived below the poverty line... there were only about 100 university graduates in the whole country." If an Asian country associated Western influence with mismanagement--not an illogical conclusion after the Vietnam War--then it would prefer homegrown businesses over FDI, even if slower growth resulted. 

Why so much misunderstanding? When globalized trade focuses on things rather than people, cross-cultural understanding cannot succeed except on a superficial level. In a debt-soaked world, will the 22nd century be different?

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2021)

Capitalism's Flaw: a Cycle of Failure then Possible Rebirth

Sadly, capitalism has become a dirty word in some circles, especially amongst young Westerners. I don't blame them. If my best-case prospect was 30,000 USD in debt (credit, car, and student loans) by the age of 24, I'd be against the system, too. 

But capitalism isn't the problem per se--it's the way adults have engineered the economic system with lenient banks. Too many people fail to realize how much the U.S. dollar--or any empire's currency--has been propped up by military force and the slave trade. 

The United States and Mexico, 1821-1848 ((c) 1913, 1969)
by George Lockhart Rives

Most young people do not know that England occupied Havana, Cuba in 1692 in part because of its strategic port; that Guantanamo Bay and Hong Kong are consequences of superpowers legally occupying weaker countries to perpetuate subservient relationships; that a treaty, Utrecht in 1713, specifically gave the British an exclusive license to take captured slaves to the Americas for sale and labor; that in the next phase of empire handover, Spain hastened its decline by supporting the English against France (choose your allies carefully, especially in wartime, when shifting allegiances are common); that the idea of absolute monarchy only crumbled in 1812 thanks to both French and American Revolutions; or that Mexican law (as of July 13, 1824, before America's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation) prohibited the slave trade; that the March 11, 1827 Constitution of Coahuila (Mexico) and Texas expressly declared, "in the [Mexican] state no one is born a slave"; that America invaded Nicaragua in 1912, Haiti in 1915, and the Dominican Republic in 1916 (because the Dominican Republic owed Wall Street money); and so on. 

Averell "Ace" Smith in Commonwealth Club Magazine (2019)

The American conquest of Mexican territory in 1848 is significant in that it created a playbook for Wall Street involvement: 1) create a pretext to invade; 2) take territory from the weaker country; and 3) force the country to go in debt in your currency. 

Published by Colegio de Mexico

This same playbook backfired severely in Germany when dominant powers imposed financial terms and conditions paving the way for demagogues, who always arrive with scapegoats in hand. (Ironically, it was a German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, who created a universal moral law in 1785 that should have assisted future German populations: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.") In those days, the world learned from its mistakes post-WWII, creating a Marshall Plan that led to defeated Germany and Japan becoming superpowers and stable trade partners. Today, no one believes Iraq--attacked and invaded twice by the United States--will ever become a superpower or more than an oil supplier. 

Domino effect on debt non-repayment usually leads to a crisis.

Whither Western capitalism? Within historical context, it's hard to believe capitalism has ever worked an honest day in its life. To recapture the hearts and minds of young people all over the world, capitalism needs honest, sincere politicians, diplomats, and journalists. Currently, all of the aforementioned are MIA. Until that changes, we might as well prepare the obituary of capitalism--and our young. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat

Bonus I: John Swinton, late 1800s: 

I made the acquaintance of Wendell Phillips and found that he, too, had come to similar conclusions. He believed that the capitalist system was steadily undermining the world and bringing his countrymen into a condition quite as wretched as that of the slaves; and he vehemently condemned it.

Bonus II: Wendell Phillips (1861): 

I think the first duty of society is justice. 

The nation which, in moments when great moral questions disturb its peace, consults first for its own safety, is atheist and coward... Slavery has made our churches of Christ to churches of commerce. 

Despotisms are cheap; free governments are a dear luxury--the machinery is complicated and expensive. 

Were safety or security the first objective of human society, this principle, "if unlimited, false... [and] unqualified, it justifies every crime, and would have prevented every glory of history... But grant it. Suppose the Union means wealth, culture, happiness, and safety, man has no right to buy either by crime." 

Look at our history. Under it, 700,000 slaves have increased to 4,000,000. We have paid $800,000,000 directly to the support of slavery. This secession will cost the Union and business $200,000,000 more. This loss which this disturbing force has brought to our trade and industry, within 60 years, it would be safe to call $500,000,000... slavery has been strong enough to rule the nation for sixty years, and now breaks it to pieces because it can rule no longer. 

Bonus III: Alexander Hamilton: "Justice is the end [goal] of government. It is the end [goal] of civil society." 

The Only Legitimate Civil War is against the Establishment

The only legitimate cause of internal social strife is the old versus the young, or change against the established ways. Once a society moves into any other kind of conflict, decay is inevitable.

If you see your media, intellectuals, or government focus on minorities without political power or some other domestic threat, you must learn from history. They are trying to distract you from their own incompetence.

Bonus: Old versus the young, it's the same old story, played differently and with greater amplification because of the way modern debt can be structured. https://www.hvst.com/posts/the-pension-storm-is-coming-to-europe-it-may-be-the-end-of-europe-as-we-know-it-Nwb82MQo

A Nation of Immigrants? Not Unless the Bondholders Agree.

"If we ever close the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost." -- President Ronald Reagan

America has always claimed it is a nation of immigrants, but we are discovering it is a nation of immigrants when it needs them--especially ones with technical skills--and hostile to them when convenient.  Is America's openness to immigrants based on whether it can exploit their labor? 

Over 150 years ago, America needed immigrants to farm and work in the fields, so it got them--illegally.  Their legal status didn't matter. America needed railroads, too, but when the Chinese proved to be better than the natives, America decided it disliked competition and passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 restricting immigration.  

Today, America is restricting immigration directly by spending more on immigration enforcement, even against law-abiding residents with American children, and indirectly by restricting H1B and other visas. It's true if one country designs its school system around math and science instead of trying to teach all things to all people, it will have an advantage over a Dewey-designed system that prizes social control above practical skills. Yet, America's response to being outgunned, outmaneuvered, and out-educated has always been the same: do anything but change the status quo unless absolutely necessary, demonize the other side, and pass laws restricting their ability to compete.

Before you get too upset, it's useful to realize America has always used the law to defend the status quo, whether it was Buck Leonard playing baseball too well in the Negro Leagues and being excluded from MLB; Muhammad Ali correctly analyzing the Vietnam War better than the so-called experts and having his title taken away; Jackie Robinson getting court-martialed by the military; Swedes and Norwegians in Minnesota discriminating against immigrant Finns; and so on.

The modern American Establishment uses land-use restrictions to prevent building mosques while allowing churches with political connections an easier process; restricts H1B visas but does little to reform K-12 educational outcomes; sends PhD graduates back to their home country even if their skills are useful and their character good; protects government teachers, mostly native-born, from accountability; attacks charter schools, Uber, and Airbnb because they take revenue away from existing players with political connections; and does not adequately audit tax exempt entities that claim charitable works. (How many students could afford to pay for colleges, which are nonprofits even if public or private, without receiving government-backed student loans? How many churches could show they spend most of their funds on charitable services serving the public rather than their own members?) 

Ironically, Americans able to effectively protest and change existing rules were often protected by the police or the military--the same Establishment upholding those same rules. Muhammad Ali discovered boxing after a white police officer introduced him to the sport, which later put him under the protection of Louisville's most established lawyers. Baseball's #42, Jackie Robinson, was drafted by the Army in 1942.  Malcolm X? Murdered. MLK? Killed.

Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who exposed the NSA? Ex-military, from a military family, and ex-intelligence. He's having fun with his girlfriend in Moscow. Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower who brought down President Nixon and helped end the Vietnam War? Marine Corps officer (First lieutenant). Still alive and very much an activist.

No matter what, the Establishment prevails, which always favors insiders rather than outsiders such as immigrants. Today, barriers are systemic, and the Establishment prevails through legal loopholes, legal restrictions, and high prices. Resistance to change is a feature, not a bug, of America's debt-soaked system. It prioritizes bondholders getting paid in order to continue to keep taxes lower than otherwise possible and government employment relatively constant or growing. When your economic system depends on ensuring bondholders are paid every three months or every month, openness to outsiders who cannot contribute immediately to the tax base becomes more difficult, long-term thinking be damned.

Let's take a more personal example.  Want to be a politician and help society? First you have to go to law school.  How much is law school? 40,000 USD a year, including room and board? You're going to need lots of loans. Once you're saddled with six figures in student loans, are you going to protest your professor or government official, who may be able to assist you with job placement? Even if you wanted to protest, how would you first gain the relevant experience necessary to determine which ideas weaken accountability and which ones might work? If one day, your professor or government official decides fewer rather than more immigrants are ideal, what can you really do?  You're in debt, and student loans are non-chargeable in bankruptcy. You may want to assist immigrants, but what if that immigrant is going to compete against you for a job or divert revenue that might otherwise help subsidize your loans? Having debt automatically limits options because it forces you to prioritize your own financial interests rather than the public good or long-term outcomes. When your entire society runs on debt, the Establishment will accept outsiders only if it benefits the insiders--and their ability to pay off accumulated debt. 

Slavery was wrong in America even when some slaves were allowed freedom and the ability to migrate. Slave-mastering is wrong today, even if its form and shape have been modified to resemble the smiling faces of a college admissions employee, a bank's mortgage officer, and a retail employee asking to open a credit card account. 

© Matthew Rafat (2017)

The "Warrant Canary"

After September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Patriot Act with only a single dissenting vote in the Senate and only 66 Representatives out of 432 voting nay.  (The House is a strange creation--there can be up to 435 voting Representatives, but some entities have a seat but no voting power, such as Puerto Rico, so technically there are 441 Representatives.)  Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only Senator voting against the Patriot Act on October 24, 2001.  When the Act was up for renewal in 2006, at a time when more level heads should have prevailed, 86 out of 100 Senators voted in favor.

Because of such sweeping consent by America's politicians, America in 2017 lacks privacy and is under more surveillance than East Germany at its peak.  The surveillance is so broad and so invasive, the law itself prevents companies from even disclosing cooperation with it. If an electronic communications company--and what technology company isn't involved in electronic communications these days?--receives a National Security Letter ("NSL") demanding records, the company cannot even disclose the governmental request under 18 U.S.C. 2709(c).

That whole "checks and balances" idea allowing America to claim it had more freedom and stability than repressive regimes?  It has not existed from 2001 to 2017, because law enforcement agencies like the FBI are able to send a form letter and demand reams of consumer and citizen data without needing to get judicial approval.

 In 2017, a few companies are trying to fight back through end-to-end encryption and now a "warrant canary."  Basically, companies that haven't yet received a National Security Letter publish something in their annual report indicating they've never received one, and if the statement is missing from future annual reports, the consumer can make an educated guess about what has changed.

While this type of protest is encouraging, it is still facile and futile in actually stopping governmental and law enforcement overreach. As such, someone caring about privacy is now better off moving to another country where taxes are spent more meticulously, preventing governments from expanding law enforcement resources at will.  A country that can issue whatever money it needs on the backs of future generations may not go bankrupt due to currently low interest rates, but the kind of society it can create is not necessarily a healthy or sustainable one.  Indeed, a government relying on debt to maintain the status quo has an interest in normalizing its use amongst its own citizens as it diverts taxpayer funds into increasingly questionable endeavors.  In today's topsy-turvy world, countries with less financial flexibility are more nimble psychologically and perhaps more financially sturdy because choices must be made.  When choices must be made with finite funds, at least a few people tend to think of the long term.  Not so in America, but at least it looks like a few are rebelling--11 and 16 years too late.

Trivia Fun: as of 2017, the six non-voting members are Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Are You Smarter than a 7th Grader?

Are you smarter than a 7th grader? Here is a letter from a 7th grader to the CBO, the federal budget oversight office:

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1045

How will budget deficits affect people under the age of 18?

When the federal government borrows large amounts of money, it pushes interest rates higher, and people and businesses generally need to pay more to borrow money for themselves. As a result, they invest less in factories, office buildings, and equipment, and people in the future--including your generation--will have less income than they otherwise would. Also, the government needs to pay interest on the money it borrows, which means there will be less money available for other things that the government will spend money on in the future.

Kudos to the CBO for publishing the letter.

Foreign Holders of U.S. Debt

If you were wondering which foreign countries own most of our debt, here is the list:

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

China, as expected, is the top holder of U.S. debt.

Foreign Debtholders and National Debt

It's one day early, but Happy Halloween. If the above chart doesn't scare you, click on the link below and view the national debt:

http://perotcharts.com/home/

Debt, debt, and more debt

The SJ Mercury News published a chart about America's addiction to debt. As Barry Ritholtz would say, this is lovely chartporn.

If you're into credit cards, the chart also lists the market share of each major credit card company:

Visa 46%
Mastercard 36%
American Express 12%
Discover 6%

NYT Article on Credit Card Debt

The NYT has an outstanding series on debt ("The Debt Trap"). Today's article was about ballooning credit card debt in Turkey (Landler, "Credit Cards Tighten Grip Outside U.S."). Most European citizens, until recently, used debit cards, not credit cards, so Turkey's acceptance of credit cards is unusual. 

Here are some facts from the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/business/worldbusiness/10card.html 

1. Outstanding credit card debt in Turkey ballooned to nearly 18 billion dollars in 2007. 

Before any Americans start gloating, here is a link to our consumer credit numbers--and yes, that's in billions of dollars, and percentage-wise, we're in the same boat as Turkey, a country that recently had to pay over 15% on its bonds/Treasuries to get buyers: 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/g19/current/ 

(The Federal Reserve tracks outstanding revolving consumer debt in its "G19" release. What is revolving consumer debt? It's mostly credit card debt. The G19 stats include all outstanding balances outstanding, including balances from people who pay off their debt at the end of the month, not just those who have continuous balances.) 

2. Cute Turkish proverb re: risk-taking: "Stretch your leg only as far as your blanket." 

3. South Korea at one point, prior to nationalizing some banks/issuers, had a 28% default rate. South Korea had 148 million credit cards. South Korea's population at the time was only 49 million people. 

Unrelated note about our FBI and wonderful national security people: the same 8/10/08 NYT has an article about closing the anthrax case (page 17). We now know the perpetrator/terrorist was probably an American-born Christian. The FBI, in its infinite wisdom, reflexively targeted Muslims, in this case, Pakistani-born residents, including one American citizen. (Makes sense. We all know Pakistani Muslims have a long history of using anthrax in America, right? Wait...) The FBI apparently asked these suspects, who worked for the city, "What do you think about 9/11?" (Because if you're a terrorist with half a brain, this is the question that will get a confession or relevant admission about anthrax.) Here's a chilling line about how the FBI works:

[A]n [FBI] agent pointed a gun through an open window at [the suspect's] home while others knocked down the front door as his wife was cooking in the kitchen. 

Here's where it gets really tragic. Two of the Pakistanis were non-citizens. Their visas expired, and they had to find work abroad. As for the remaining Pakistani-born citizen suspect, every time he traveled to Canada to see his brother, he was searched and interrogated for up to two hours, and his name was put on a watch list. 

Congrats, FBI. With friends like you, who needs enemies to sully the name of America? 

As for Bruce Ivins, the white American-born Christian-raised anthrax suspect who killed himself, may you burn a slow death in the lowest levels of hell. 

I am of course specifying Ivins' racial and religious background. Aren't racial and religious traits relevant in understanding why people commit evil acts? More important, has President Bush declared a War against Chemicals yet? Do we need a new security agency to handle these chemical issues? There are millions of chemical compounds just waiting to be unleashed on Americans. Should we petition the government to open a Department of Chemical Security? Something must be done. Perhaps we should spend billions of taxpayer dollars restricting chemicals from entering the hands of American-born citizens to prevent future terrorist incidents. For more information, or to register your comments, write the government at 

Attn: George Orwell 

Ministry of Peace 

1984 Ave. 

Washington, D.C. 20500 

And don't forget: War is Peace. 

For more on this topic, check out this earlier post:

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/06/terrorism-socialism-and-danger-of.html

Charles Wheelan and the Fed Budget Deficit

Charles Wheelan, a Yahoo Finance columnist, is the author of Naked Economics, one of my favorite and most accessible economics books. Here's what he had to say recently:

If you want to know how bad this [debt] problem is likely to get, check out this alarming graph [above] from the Heritage Foundation based on data from the Congressional Budget Office. (Warning to parents: The graph is inappropriate for children -- not because it's pornographic, but because they'll realize how much your generation is totally shafting them.)

See http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/98587?count=30&start=6#dtk-cmtscnt for more.

Bottom line: we're borrowing from many future generations to pay for obvious mistakes now. The U.S. dollar and our world image are suffering as a result.