Is the New World Order Here Yet? (Book Review)

Written after the 2008-2009 financial crisis, Jerome Corsi strikes an appropriately skeptical tone towards globalization in America for Sale (2009, hardcover) (updated?): "What is left challenged by globalists is the possibility that globalism itself may be inherently flawed.  The world economy is moving to a leveled labor market in which a government and business elite will be the only winners... It should be clear... that globalism has not worked... What all Americans must understand is that global governance will end up destroying the very American nation-state our Founding Fathers intended to create for us to pass on to future generations."

Corsi--who seems similar to Lou Dobbs--fairly summarizes other influential thinkers' views, such as Joseph Stiglitz, who believes globalization has failed because it has operated without sufficient protection for developing countries; however, Corsi's own ideas have several issues:

1.  When America was exporting its own values and products all over the world and imposing its influence worldwide, Americans did not complain about globalization. Quite the contrary--American writers proudly proclaimed the 21st century the era of "soft power."  Now that other countries are gaining sufficient power and influence to export their images and perspectives to other countries, suddenly Americans are unsure of globalization. America seems hypocritical and small for taking such a view rather than seeking to compete on its merits.

2.  Corsi assumes that international governance necessarily requires a loss of sovereignty.  Yet, he never considers that it's worth giving up a small or measured loss of sovereignty to gain a substantial benefit, especially when so much of American innovation and prosperity come from its multinational corporations, which make most of their money overseas.

3.  Corsi assumes that all international governance mechanisms will harm American values; however, if American values are superior, why wouldn't they prevail in negotiations and other economic "battles"?  Corsi writes that in "a world economy, the United States was valued as a consumer country, not as a producer, manufacturer, or exporter." (pp. 162) There is no reason such a scenario must always be true.  With the appropriate level of tax credits and proper negotiations, the U.S. could produce (and export) whatever it likes.  Thus far, however, its tax incentives have failed to be on par with China's, creating predictable consequences.

When America's major source of innovation comes from military R&D, it's no wonder countries like Japan have been more innovative than America with respect to quality-of-life matters and domestic infrastructure.  Of course spending to kill will result in entertainment-oriented and consumer applications rather than constructive ones.  Ships and aircraft carriers don't have too many transferable uses in a landlocked domestic economy other than supply chain advantages (logistics), which benefit transporting consumer goods worldwide, not making everyday life easier for residents.  Innovation is different when it seeks to control and monitor populations in unknown or rural areas compared to when it seeks to make life more efficient in densely populated cities.  America once again looks small when it complains about trade deficits while creating budgeting incentives that guarantee them.

4.  Corsi correctly identifies America's relatively high wages as an impediment to eliminating trade deficits.  However, he once again fails to address them in a concrete or constructive way, assuming always that negotiations cannot resolve such issues.  Even if we assume that wages in America will stagnate over x number of years, there are ways to negotiate against artificial financial manipulation, such as devaluation in other countries' currencies.  One way would be to increase tariffs only one way by x percent relative to any devaluation.  (That one I got off the top of my head, so you can see that an almost infinite number of ways exist to balance trade in ways that force countries to compete based on quality or merits rather than price or labor costs.)

Another example would be the granting of x dollars to the country or corporation whose products are being copied due to lax copyright or IP enforcement.   The real problem is how to calculate such penalties and how to encourage domestic IP enforcement without resorting to lengthy or expensive litigation, and Corsi offers no solutions here.  Corsi and other protectionists lament the idea of international tribunals, but their whole point is to protect companies from having to litigate in other countries' "home courts," where they would be at a disadvantage due to language and cultural barriers, even if using local counsel.  The fact that international tribunals are slow or clunky is no reason to stop globalization.  A hardy people would seek to reform court systems or to implement better oversight, not to give up substantive economic activity due to slow lawyers and ill-prepared judges.  No one argues we shouldn't have the Olympics because some referees make terrible decisions.

5.  Corsi is fantastic when it comes to evaluating and explaining other economists' positions, but his own haven't stood the test of time.  Chapter 7 is titled, "The Plan to Destroy the Dollar."  From pp. 186: "Regional currencies like the euro are merely stepping-stones on the path to the Holy Grail of a one-world currency."

About a decade later, the US dollar and the Japanese yen are the world's strongest currencies, and the euro has been in steady decline.  This is one example of Corsi's narrow academic focus.

Here's another, from pp. 211: "Ironically, the United States may be approaching an era where it will be impossible to buy a U.S.-manufactured auto, or an era marked by a global economy in which the only manufacturers that survive will be the multi-national corporations with car-manufacturing capacity in China, aimed at taking China's low-cost labor markets."  Last time I checked, not only do Ford and GM make cars in the southern U.S., but even Volkswagen and other foreign car companies make cars in the U.S.

One more, from pp. 228: "Avoid Investing in Stocks and Bonds."  Since the publication of Corsi's book, both stocks and bonds have increased substantially.

6.  I did not see any substantive opinions on the state of American K-12 education, which is an interesting omission to the extent the quality of one's education matters as workers compete not just domestically but worldwide.

Corsi would benefit from adding a review of actual terms and conditions of the trade agreements he complains about, but the first half of his book is fantastic because it so clearly lays out many of the issues we face today. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2016)

Bonus:

Jill Stein supporters are generally smarter than other party supporters but they still don't realize their positions are effectively the same as Donald Trump's, but in different ways. 

Extreme liberals don't want to build a physical wall but they want to stop the free flow of global capital and development or restrict them so thoroughly, it's almost the same in the end. 

Her: "NAFTA costs American jobs, including good management jobs, and allows companies like Ford to take advantage of fewer regulations in other countries. It also reduces tariffs, hurting some industries like agriculture." 

Me: "I like poor people. I have no problem with a corporation helping them in other countries. The problem with the loss of manufacturing jobs isn't NAFTA--it's our own gov's failure to invest in retraining or other higher skilled work programs, along with extended unemployment benefits for displaced workers." 

Her: "But these companies destroy domestic competition when they move, like Walmart destroys mom and pop shops." 

Me: "You have not said how specifically, but if you're arguing Walmart pays better wages or makes products more cheaply than the competition, why is that a problem? Why shouldn't Venezuelans and Mexicans have better access to higher paying jobs and cheaper products? No one is forcing people to take those jobs, so the pay is probably much better than domestic companies. 

I agree working conditions must be monitored, but just because the level of legal protection isn't the same as here doesn't necessarily mean they're being taken advantage of." 

Her: "Over time, the competition destroys domestic industries and smaller businesses in other countries." 

Me: "But if GDP increases over time, then both countries benefit as industries are modernized and newer technologies are introduced to workers and residents who would not otherwise gain access to those advancements without corporate investment." 

Her: "The TPP allows corps to sue entire countries." 

Me: "Yes, because if the country confiscates corp assets, there needs to be a way for the company to protect itself. You have a billion dollars. Would you invest it in Venezuela without legal protection?"

Her: "The money shouldn't be there in the first place." 

Me: "So screw the poor people in Venezuela who would otherwise have greater access to jobs." 

Her: "You're raising your voice. This discussion is over."

The Soloist

I just finished Steve Lopez's nonfiction book, The Soloist. It was a good read, even though the ending was much too abrupt. If you're looking for quick, easy summertime reading, this is a good choice. (San Jose residents take note--Mr. Lopez attended San Jose State and worked for the SJ Mercury.)

The Soloist is about a gifted but mentally unstable musician, Nathaniel Ayers, and a journalist who attempts to get Mr. Ayers to reach his full potential. The interactions between Ayers and Lopez are well-described, offering readers a glimpse into how the homeless and mentally ill survive. Mr. Lopez successfully highlights the plight of the homeless, especially L.A.'s lawless "Skid Row," without being overly judgmental or sentimental. He also casts aspersions on Tom Cruise and others who denigrate drug treatment for the mentally ill. (One gets the feeling that anyone who spends enough time on Skid Row will probably believe that drugs are an important part of treating the mentally ill.)

The Soloist peels back the curtain of comfortable civilization, revealing a broken system. The key question is, "How do we help people who are prone to violent outbursts and who refuse help because of deep-seated fear and mistrust?" Mr. Lopez answers this question through his book: patience, trust, and friendship.

Mr. Lopez also touches on racial issues, but doesn't develop that storyline much. Even so, I felt Mr. Lopez identified with Mr. Ayers and stuck with him for so long was because they shared a racial similarity: neither had the "right" color for the business they were in. Here is one interesting passage, from/about the author himself (p. 110, Berkley paperback):

The issue of race is inescapable for me. I often joke that the main difference between the East Coast and the West is that when I wrote columns for the Philadelphia Inquirer, the mail said Go Back to Puerto Rico, and in Los Angeles it says Go Back to Mexico. It's a strange phenomenon for someone with grandparents from Italy and Spain, and it makes me more attuned to the hatred aimed at people of color even in a place like Los Angeles, which is defined by its multiculturalism.

My take on the source of Mr. Ayers' mental illness is that it resulted from a combination of stressors--poor racial relations, the hyper-competitiveness of Julliard, and the burden of being a minority in a place where few minorities existed. Mr. Lopez seems to agree with my opinion--he quotes Hal Slapin, who says that "Julliard in the 1970s 'was not a place where students...were encouraged to bond...racial tensions were high.'" (p. 247-248). Mr. Lopez also mentions that Mr. Ayers was drawn to another musician, Eugene Moye, who was half-black (p. 246).

Mr. Ayers' story has a happy ending, but that's only because Mr. Lopez became involved and used the power of the press to change Mr. Ayers' life, and, by extension, his own. Mr. Lopez probably wrote his book to shed some light on the plight of the homeless. At one point, he practically pleads for government intervention, asking, "What's more human, after all? To respect someone's civil liberties to the point of allowing them to wither away on the street, or to intercede in the interest of their own welfare?" (page 101) Later, he implies that L.A.'s annual budget for housing and services is not enough, saying that New York City's is "three times that of Los Angeles" (p. 132). Yet, he also mentions that, at least around 2006, California's state commission had "more than $1 billion a year...[to spend] on expanded mental services" (page 133).

The cynic in me doesn't think we're going to see any systemic change--no matter how much money is spent on the problems of the homeless, it must feel like a Sisyphean task to anyone involved. The real problem is that the public doesn't see much return on their taxpayer dollars when it comes to any kind of social services. As a result of the lack of visibility, social and welfare services will be the first to get cut in our modern era of massive state deficits. Indeed, unless homeless men kill someone or get killed, they tend to be invisible. Mr. Lopez has clearly added something valuable in his descriptions of "Skid Row," which exists, apparently unabated, to keep the problems of the homeless segregated from the public. The question is whether the public will listen after reading/seeing The Soloist, and what their response will be.

Personally, I was moved, but not so much that I would feel the need to increase taxes to fund more housing/welfare programs. Mr. Ayers is a sympathetic character, but it is difficult to justify spending taxpayer dollars when there is no corresponding tangible benefit to society. I am sure I will be accused of being heartless, but let's think through this issue. If Mr. Ayers had never met Mr. Lopez, what would have changed? Mr. Ayers would have probably continued to play his music, but to a small, local audience. Post-Mr. Lopez, the only difference to society is that Mr. Ayers now has a wider audience for his story and his music.

At first, I saw some parallels between Ayers and James "Radio" Robert Kennedy, popularized in the Cuba Gooding Jr. movie, Radio. In both of these instances, two members of the middle-class try to help socially-challenged African-Americans. After some reflection, however, I realized that the stories were not substantively similar at all. In Radio's case, the football coach bucked an entire town's prejudices, which almost cost him his job. Here, in contrast, Mr. Lopez has taken up an easier cause--the plight of the homeless, which actually helped him maintain his job and his salary. That's one reason I wasn't quite sucked into the story--there is some personal benefit to Mr. Lopez here, no matter how hard he tries to show his reader the sacrifices he and his family have made. (At one point, the author talks about moving to a cheaper house and city.) Overall, I enjoyed reading The Soloist. I don't know if I will see the film, but it is receiving good reviews.

Of course, I realize Mr. Lopez has done a wonderful thing. Without his intervention, Mr. Ayers might not be alive today. In 2007, San Jose saw its most famous homeless man, Cornelius Van Der Vies, die after a street altercation. Two weeks before his death, I looked into Cornelius's eyes and saw an abject fear behind his clean, dignified appearance. It was then that I realized that many homeless persons survive through an alertness provided by constant fear.

There is no question that current resources are inadequate to solve homelessness. While Mr. Lopez has provided us with a success story, it's hard to contemplate enough willing people who want to become deeply involved in strangers' lives. That probably means that despite Mr. Lopez's efforts, the problems of the homeless will continue, out of sight, and out of mind.

Book Review: The Great Depression of Debt

After reading Warren Brussee's The Great Depression of Debt, you may feel compelled to buy canned goods, water, and weaponry. If a Depression is coming and is as bad as Brussee thinks it will be, Americans are in deep trouble (and yes, "trouble" is a euphemism for something else). Here's one typical excerpt:

[I]t will take until 2012 or 2013 before the economy bottoms out and our economy again begins to grow. In the meantime, the stock market will drop dramatically, unemployment will be over 15%, and the dollar will lose its position as lead currency. Our country will be humbled as it is forced to adapt to a far lower and simpler standard of living. [page xii, hardcover, Wiley, 2009]

The problem with Brussee, however, is that his unpolished writing style mutes his persuasive power. For example, he uses far too many exclamation points, which is especially inappropriate when his message is that a financial apocalypse is near. In fact, I almost stopped reading after seeing yet another unnecessary exclamation point. While I'm glad I continued reading, Brussee needs to improve his writing style. In any case, below are his major points.

1. Brussee neatly summarizes the problems of having a large trade deficit:

If these [U.S.-debt-buying] countries get tired of the current decline in the dollar, which makes their investments net losers, they will will instead use the deficit funds to buy investment instruments elsewhere, for example in Europe. However, the United States needs these countries to buy our bonds because that is how we fund our deficit spending. So, if the foreign investors start to hesitate to buy our treasury bonds, the interest on the bonds will have to be raised high enough that the foreign investors won't go elsewhere. [page 28]

From what I've read elsewhere, if the current state of affairs continues, at least 2 to 3% of America's budget will go to paying interest to foreign investors. That's not a politically stable situation.

2. Listen up, market bears and Nouriel Roubini fans: Brussee thinks the S&P 500 will hit 423. As of February 27, 2009, the S&P 500 was 735.09, so Brussee believes the stock market--which is at 12 year lows--is 42% overvalued (See page 66).

It gets worse--according to Brussee, "[b]y 2013, people in the United States will have given up...the stock market will be akin to poison for most people...We will withdraw from many trade relationships with other countries, having set up trade barriers in response to our country's huge financial and unemployment problems." [page 83] These predictions may come true, but Brussee takes his pessimism to a level of hysterics, which ruins his credibility:

Retirement age will be changed in 2011 to age 70...A law will be passed that companies cannot lay off any more people due to reduced sales...The birth rate will go to zero...No one will want to bring a child into the very tenuous economy that will be gripping the United States. [Page 82]

Let's examine these claims. First, Brussee is vague when he refers to "retirement age," but he is probably concerned with Social Security. However, Social Security is not America's worst problem--Medicare is the much larger elephant in the room. Social Security's problems can be temporarily alleviated by raising payroll taxes and limits. Both these solutions will probably occur before Congress raises the retirement age to 70 for Social Security benefits. As for extending Medicare's eligibility age, it is very difficult to deny senior citizens necessary health care. In addition, senior citizens are a powerful voting bloc and will use their political power to prevent any major changes to Medicare. (See The Simpsons' "Wild Barts Can't Be Broken," Season 10, Episode 11, for a hilarious reminder of senior citizens' voting power.)

Second, the day Congress--with its influential corporate lobbyists--passes a law preventing layoffs is when a socialist party gains majorities in Congress. (Before you make jokes about the Democrats, remember which president increased our deficit by trillions of dollars in just eight years.) What will most likely happen first is that Congress will make it more expensive for companies to lay off workers, increasing corporate unemployment insurance contributions, or lengthening the time period employees can accept unemployment insurance. At most, Congress may require companies to pay some severance pay to laid-off employees.

Third, the idea that America's "birth rate will go to zero" requires an almost impossible set of events to occur: one, all illegal and legal immigration must stop; two, the Catholic Church must cease having influence over its adherents; and three, unplanned pregnancies must cease, or abortions must become as ubiquitous as Starbucks. Yet, none of these things will happen in our lifetimes. Whoops, there goes your credibility, Mr. Brussee. That's a shame, too, because Brussee makes some very good points. See below.

3. Brussee is against Obama's shovel-ready recovery plan, but for clean and renewable energy:

Where possible, government money given to industry should be accompanied by matching funds from the receiving company. In this way, the involved company has a vested interest in success... It will be very tempting to invest money on rebuilding our infrastructure, like roads, bridges, dikes, and so on. This was done in the thirties depression, and we are still enjoying the benefits of this work in our parks and in our infrastructure. But, as desirable as this is, funds invested in infrastructure will not lead to self-sustaining additional jobs...We must stay focused on meaningful job creation...Eventually the goal must be to develop completely electric vehicles. [pages 111-112]

Brussee is saying that shovel-ready stimulus is only a short-term fix. If the government spends money on building bridges, at some point, the bridge will be built, and the job will go away, and it's back to square one. Prior to reading the above paragraph, I had not thought about this now-obvious point.

4. Some random facts:

a. The wealthiest 1 percent of people currently own 40 to 50 percent of the country's [America's] wealth. [page 68]

b. Inflation is running at a 6 percent annual rate. [page 37]

c. In Smithers and Wright's Valuing Wall Street, the authors state that, when using a buy-and-hold strategy, investors never lost money when they were invested in stocks for 20 years. [page 145]

5. What makes Brussee more interesting than the average world-is-coming-to-an-end "economist" is that he's not a gold bug--he's a TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) bug:

[G]old actually went down in price from 1933 (when the United States went off the gold standard) to 1968. It also generally lost money after its peak in 1978. So, it appears that for most periods between 1933 and 2007, the real value of gold did not keep up with inflation...Although gold may be a good crisis hedge...gold has generally not been a good inflation hedge. [page 123]

Investors interested in Brussee's investing tips may want to explore iShares Barclays TIPS Bond (TIP) and/or Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities (VIPSX).

6. Here is Brussee's investment strategy:

[B]uying the most recent stocks added to the Dow, when the S&P 500 price/dividend is 17.2 or below; [and buying] stocks anytime the price/dividend ratio on the S&P is at or below 17.2. We will not only putting investment money into buying these stocks, but we will also sell all the TIPS we have accumulated and use those funds to buy stocks. When the price/dividend again goes above 17.2, we will stop buying stocks with new investment money and start buying TIPS. If the price/dividend goes above 28, we will sell all the stocks we have accumulated and use the funds from the sale to buy TIPS. [pages 116, 261]

Got that? What's the price/dividend ratio right now? Good question--that kind of current data is harder to find for average investors. Googling "price/dividend ratio" got me nothing current or useful.

7. Brussee is obviously a number junkie, and I loved his inflation stats at the end of his book [See page 296 et al]. Brussee lists the inflation rate in each year, from 1900 to 2007, along with some other numbers. You can get more economic numbers by going to Robert Shiller's website, located here.

Overall, Brussee has some compelling ideas. It's unfortunate he intersperses unlikely scenarios in between his rational ideas, which reduces his credibility. Readers deserved more respect and less sensationalism, especially with all the other good ideas in The Great Depression of Debt.

Disclosure: I own shares of TIP.

Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, by Chalmers Johnson

Chalmers Johnson’s book, Nemesis: Last Days of the American Empire, sounds sensationalist. Unfortunately, the content is anything but, and even the most diehard patriot will feel deflated after seeing the vices of the Bush II presidency laid bare. On page 249 of the Metropolitan Books 2006 hardcover edition, Johnson quotes Judge Damon Keith, who wrote, “Democracies die behind closed doors...A government operating in the shadow of secrecy stands in complete opposition to the society envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. When government begins closing doors, it selectively controls information rightfully belonging to the people. Selective information is misinformation.” Johnson also quotes James Madison, who wrote, “A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.” Johnson proves that Bush has used his executive power to prevent information from reaching American citizenry throughout his book. Johnson lists the Bush II administration’s acts and contrasts it with Rome and the original intent of America’s founders. While all of this may be old hat to anyone who’s been reading The Guardian or watching the BBC, the slow trickle of information provided to American citizens about the Bush II administration seems insufficient to cause anger because of the secrecy of the acts, the delayed reporting of the acts, and the lack of overt visual evidence of corruption (e.g., Does anyone believe the majority of Americans understand why Alberto Gonzales was forced to resign?). When we see the aggregate of what Bush has done from 2000 to 2007, what emerges is a deliberate intent to increase the executive branch’s power at the expense of privacy, currency, and decency. As a result, the Supreme Court in the 1952 case, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, seems prescient: “The doctrine of separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but by means of inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.” For example, Johnson talks about the importance of the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). He then tells us how Bush attempted to subvert the intent of the law by signing Executive Order 13233 as well as charging non-profits $372,999 for simple requests (p. 247, 248). Unsurprisingly, John Ashcroft, who administered the executive branch’s wishes, ordered the Department of Justice, the agency charged with enforcing civil rights, to limit FOIA requests, stating, “When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis.” In other words, the federal government intentionally encouraged its employees to withhold information from the people by charging excessively for information or redacting vital information. Of course, had the requests been ambiguous and voluminous, such an order would be reasonable, and the citzenry would understand if the FOIA were limited. In a time of war, and with the billions spent on defense, one wonders why Congress does not also authorize a separate budget for FOIA requests. Johnson mentions later that “as of 2006, the overall cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since their inception stood at about $450 billion” (p. 276). Johnson also reveals that Congress raised the national debt limit from $8.2 trillion to $8.96 trillion in 2006 (p. 270). This is a precursor to Johnson’s most sensationalist line in the entire book: “The likelihood is that the United States will maintain a facade of constitutional government and drift along until financial bankruptcy overtakes it.” In related news, Bernanke lowered interest rates today. In response, the Swiss Franc increased 0.41% in just one day. In the last three months, it has appreciated almost 5% against the American dollar. The Euro increased 0.82% today. In the last three months, it has appreciated around 4% against the American dollar. Since January 2006, it has appreciated over 14% against the U.S. dollar. The U.S. currency is depreciating, making it easier for foreign interests to buy U.S. property and assets. A country that cannot control its currency places itself at the mercy of foreign interests. Eisenhower knew this, and once said, “[T]o support progress in our country, and indeed throughout the free world, we must make certain that there is no cheapening, no debasement of our currency” (Presidential Reflections, 1960). Johnson does not merely expose the Bush II administration’s follies. He also uses his background as a former CIA analyst to explore missile defense expenditures and satellite technology. We learn that we have spent around $92.5 billion and $130 billion on “the basic problem of shooting down an ICBM in flight...without even once...succeeded in doing so” (p. 230). He also makes the important point that we are spending massive amounts of money on controlling space and missile defense, but terrorists are more likely to use a cargo container on a transport ship, or an offshore vessel, or the mail to attack Americans (p. 231). My personal belief is that the L.A. and New York/New Jersey ports are the most likely targets of terrorists because of their economic importance and the general hubbub that makes it easy to be anonymous. Yet, rather than spend vast sums of money increasing protection of these ports, it appears that Congress is diverting funds to save military and defense jobs in their own districts. Johnson makes this point in the 2005 film, Why We Fight, which is a good prologue to his book. Perhaps the most intriguing parts of Johnson’s book are his analysis of SOFA and space. He talks about how the most mundane tasks now use satellites, from the card scanner at Walmart, which uses the information to track inventory, to the Garmin GPS system in cars, television broadcasting, and even atomic clocks. He says that Congress has referred to an enemy “jamming” a satellite’s capabilities as one reason to spend billions on space defense, but that a simple missile launching of debris into space would be sufficient to endanger satellite capabilities. In one of the most interesting parts of the book, he quotes Sally Ride, who said that a “speck of paint” had dented a part of the space shuttle (p. 217). Apparently, given the velocities and gravitational forces in space, tiny objects can have extremely powerful impacts (I knew that I would weigh more in certain parts of space, but I hadn’t connected this knowledge to debris damaging satellites). Ms. Fields’ writes, “[T]he analysis afterward showed that our window had been hit by an orbiting fleck of paint, and the relative velocities were enough that the paint actually made a small but visible gouge in the window.” She then goes on to say that as soon as you increase the junk in space, the more likely it is that junk will impact expensive satellites. (So much for dumping our waste in space in case we run out of landfills on Earth.) This is Johnson’s point–that the more things we send into space, the higher the likelihood of polluting space to the extent that our ability to maneuver there becomes impossible. See Primack, who says, “Weaponization of space would make the debris problem much worse, and even one war in space could encase the entire planet in a shell of whizzing debris that would thereafter make space near the Earth high hazardous for peaceful [space exploration] as well as military purposes” (p. 217). Again, Johnson seems to say that much of missile defense and space weaponry research is a boondoggle, to the tune of billions of dollars per year (the satellite expenditures cost $97.2 billion dollars in 2004, with the U.S. spending three-quarters of this amount) (p. 237). At the beginning of the book, Johnson stated, “It is a sad fact that the U.S. no longer manufactures much–with the exception of weaponry” (p. 5). Johnson also talks about SOFA and Japanese-American relations, which is his specialty. SOFAs are Status of Forces Agreements. They basically exempt American soldiers from international law. When such soldiers rape women and pollute local cities, they can return to the base, where they cannot be interrogated by local police. Johnson brings up this aspect of international relations to show American arrogance when dealing with other countries. The flip side of the coin is that American soldiers are in other countries to protect them and forcing consent to local laws would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy; however, when Johnson tells us that American soldiers in Okinawa are responsible for raping local women around once a month, including ten year old girls, the agreements seem to provide excessive immunity and be a moral hazard. What is interesting about this section is that Japan’s pacifism, enshrined in law under Article 9 after WWII, is apparently a fiction: “Japan, with 139 warships, now has the second most powerful navy on the planet. Its army, navy, and air force has a total of 239,000 officers and men, deploys 452 combat aircraft, and is financed by a budget roughly equal to China’s military expenditures” (p. 203). Japan, of course, needs oil from the Middle East to sustain its economy and also fears a rising China, which is still stinging from its treatment during WWII, and the Japanese failure to apologize for “comfort women.” (Even countries that strive for racial harmony, like Singapore, still have public exhibits showing how the Japanese tortured POWs and civilians.) Johnson does a terrific job of showing that American-Japanese policies seem to be headed towards an inevitable clash with China, which is angling for more international respect. While he is extremely harsh on U.S. policies, which are based on realpolitik, Johnson forces the reader to see the problems of being the world’s policeman. It is unlikely, for instance, that the Canadians and Swiss have similar problems as the U.S. Johnson indicates that there are two paths: one, be like the Roman Empire, refuse to give up the military bases (de facto territories) we have, and collapse; or two, be like the British, who eventually repudiated their empire and focused on domestic issues. Johnson’s other interesting point is that where the U.S. has intervened, we have made the countries worse off, relatively speaking. He mentions the Philippines, which is not doing as well as its neighbors in Southeast Asia who were not occupied by the U.S., such as Singapore, Vietnam, and Thailand. But Johnson’s analysis is debatable when it comes to other countries, such as Chile and Panama, and he conflates free markets with colonialism. Johnson is clearly anti-imperialist, so he does not give a balanced view. Joseph Nye’s words come to mind: “The biggest kid on the block always provokes a mixture of admiration and resentment.” In fact, Nye is the best counter-argument to Johnson. See Foreign Affairs, July 2003: “[T]he problem of creating an American empire might better be termed ‘imperial understretch.’ Neither the public nor Congress has proved willing to invest seriously in the instruments of nation building and governance, as opposed to military force. The entire allotment for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development is only 1 percent of the federal budget. The United States spends nearly 16 times as much on its military, and there is little indication of change to come in this era of tax cuts and budget deficits. The U.S. military is designed for fighting rather than police work, and the Pentagon has cut back on training for peacekeeping operations.” More to the point, Nye points out that the defense expenditures for 2001 were only 3.2% of GDP. Even if they have increased to 5% of GDP after 2001, that is still a tiny percentage of GDP in exchange for ruling the world (healthcare costs, i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, may be 13% of GDP by 2060). The Roman Empire never had this kind of efficiency. Such efficiency brings us to the problem: perhaps it is so easy for the U.S. to dominate the world militarily that we can continue to be unilateral until a counterweight exists. But of course, we’ve been here before–it was called the Cold War, and it seemed unnecessary then, and it seems regressive now to return to that state of existence. Back to the book: Johnson spends the first half of it castigating the Bush administration, with gems such as this: “Secretary Rumsfeld[!] noted that international law allowed the use of force only to prevent future attacks and not for retribution...’No,’ the President yelled....‘I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass’” (p. 34). Later, Bush is shown ordering the New York Times to hold off on a story relating to FISA and warrant-less wiretapping in the name of “national security” (p. 255). The bastion of liberal news, the New York Times, actually went along with Bush and did not print the story until a year later, which caused a FISA court judge to voluntarily resign in protest (p. 255). Bush seems to provoke this reaction in many people: Judge J. Michael Luttig also resigned after being lied to by the Bush administration. Yet, with all of these facts laid bare, Americans aren’t crying out for impeachment or blood as our founders might have. The economist in me seems convinced that as long as the people are making money, they won’t care about external events. Most frightening of all, perhaps the current state of affairs can continue for another 100 years, because the weakening of the American dollar won’t be noticeable until many more Americans travel internationally, and most Americans won’t be traveling to Tokyo or London anytime soon. Even if Chinese products increase in price, there will be a Cambodia or African country to take its place, guaranteeing cheaper prices for years to come, and masking the decline of American primacy. As long as the American consumer is the master of the economic machine, perhaps current affairs will remain in its uneasy, simmering stasis.

West by West: My Charmed, Tormented Life

[This post was published on October 26, 2011 but backdated.]

Jerry West's autobiography showcases a man of pure class and professionalism.  I've summarized parts of the book I found most interesting below. 

West grew up poor in West Virginia, the fifth of six children. He had a distant mother plagued by her husband's infidelity and a father who was abusive towards West and his siblings. West writes that his dislike of authority figures probably comes from his father. At the same time, West has a non-confrontational personality due to his shyness.

Jack Nicholson describes West as "fierce, frank, but very fragile."

West suffers from depression and atrial fibrillation. He takes Coumadin and Xanax for the atrial fibrillation and Prozac for the depression.

Two interesting quotes: "The coal industry and its lobbyists have run West Virginia for years, and it depresses me that education is not the first priority." (page 28)

"I have a coal -mining, company-store mentality, born out of the state we both grew up in: that if you are doing well, the company will reward you. But there's no point in asking because it would be un-Southern and ungracious, and besides, they have all the power anyway."

West voted for Obama. West dislikes Jesse Jackson. His hero is James Brown, who also wore #44.

Cooke, the Lakers' owner before Buss, was apparently a pompous arse. One example: he called John Wooden to his home to ask him to coach the Lakers, even though Wooden had insisted beforehand he would not leave UCLA. Nevertheless, Cooke wrote a number on a piece of paper and slid it over to Wooden. Wooden looked at it and said, "No coach is worth this amount of money." Cooke immediately told Wooden to get out of his house. 

West pulled a "Barry Bonds"--he surprised his second wife with a prenup shortly before the wedding day, primarily because his first marriage (he married too young) had ended badly and expensively. He is still married to his second wife, Karen.

West on Kobe Bryant, the player he recruited, with the help of Arn Tellum: "Kobe was young and immature. He had a showboat style and a bottomless reservoir of drive that fueled him; he wasn't content just to beat people, he had to embarrass them, even players on his own team."

Although West views himself as a father figure to Kobe, Kobe chose not to participate in the book, unlike Kareem, Pat Riley, etc.

West thinks that Kobe was "set up" by the woman in Colorado who accused him of rape. When the incident occurred, Kobe sought out West for advice, even though West was working for Memphis at the time.

Phil Jackson told Jerry to get the eff out of the locker room after a game. No one had ever told Jerry to get out of the Lakers locker room before, and that incident strained an already tense relationship. When Phil first joined the Lakers, West felt that Phil deliberately ignored him.  Jackson apparently wouldn't even say hello as he walked by West's office.

Basically, Phil had already won six championships when he joined the Lakers, had just come from a situation in Chicago where he and the GM had clashed, and had no need for West's advice or input. As Mitch Kupchak says, "Phil didn't need Jerry's advice and wouldn't have wanted it anyway."

At the end of the day, West didn't leave the Lakers solely because of Phil--there were many reasons, including Buss's increasing separation from the team once they moved to Staples Center, as well as Glen Rice's back-handed salary negotiations.

West praises Kurt Rambis both in personal and professional terms. He also says that Kurt was responsible for the Showtime Lakers' success because of the quick way he would collect the ball, get out of bounds with one leg, and pass the ball to Magic to start the fast break. Magic agrees.

West participated in a strike where the players were demanding a pension plan. They succeeded.

West believes that the expansion of the NBA roster from 10 (the limit during his time) to 15 players allows non-NBA-caliber players to join the league.  These days, West says the additional three to five players basically serve as practice players, i.e., players who are primarily utilized to challenge teammates during practice.  He seems to say that we should either reduce the roster size or the number of teams.  He believes the higher number of teams harms the ability of small market teams to compete against larger market teams.  Ironically, West indicates that Pat Riley--whose work ethic was exceptional--may have been in the category of a practice player.  Given Riley's success as a coach, one wonders whether a modern-day version of a Pat Riley would still be able to get his start in the NBA today, especially if it had smaller rosters or fewer teams.

Some final notes: 1) Jerry's brother, David, died in the Korean War when Jerry was a boy. David was apparently the family's favorite. David's death probably gave Jerry a kind of survivor's guilt, which, coupled with his abusive father, led to his depression; 2) despite being asked to contribute some thoughts to the book, Kobe did not do so, which "shocked" West; 3) West continues to be plagued by the six times the Celtics beat his Lakers in the Finals, even though West won the championship in 1972; his Lakers team continues to hold the longest active winning streak in professional sports (33 games); and he won a gold medal in 1960, his most prized possession); 4) West claims he didn't give away Pau Gasol to the Lakers out of favoritism but because the owner of the Grizzlies wanted to save money; 5) one of the pictures in the book is of Riley with a mustache--it's hilarious; and 6) at the end of the book, West included a touching comment to his wife of "33 years (and counting)": "It has not always been smooth, I know that, but I am grateful that you stayed in the game."

Mr. West, on behalf of NBA fans everywhere, thank you for "staying in the game." 

© Matthew Rafat (2011)

Book Review: The Persia Cafe, by Melany Neilson

Ever since attempting Faulkner, I've always had a strange relationship with Southern literature. It's exasperating to read about the South and the thinking that inspired George Wallace (who was actually far more interesting than his infamous chant of "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" would indicate). Coming from California--mentioned in the book as a place to get away from constrictive social mores--reading about the Southern mentality before President Johnson and the Civil Rights Act seems foreign. But happy "normalcy" creates the same dullness, as Tolstoy might have said; indeed, perhaps the South has produced its outsized share of writers because of the turbulence caused by the civil rights movement, and the weight of history upon the Southern damp soil.

If Faulkner were a woman who could cook and wanted to write Mississippi Burning, The Persia Cafe might have been the result. Food is the motif that emanates throughout the book, placing its protagonist, a cafe owner, Fanny Leary, right on the DMZ of the racial divide. Of course, the notion of food separating people rather than bringing them together shows the reader the type of town that is Persia, Mississippi. Some passages are absolutely golden:

"You have to say this about the cafe: Smells curtained the place. Odors from one room climbed to another. Cinnamon. Frying bacon. Blackberry cobbler, serene as ink. There was a smell in our sheets like bread dough. There were nights when moonlight spilling along the river and through the window gave the wallpaper dimension."

Right away, we learn that Fannie Leary isn't your typical Southerner:

"I for one had often thanked the Lord that I did not have to listen to Brother Works's sermons as long as there was a pot of coffee and a pillowed bed, a newspaper, the loose-sheeted freedom of a Sunday morning. "

However, in the middle of the novel, some Southern soap opera makes its appearance, bogging down the novel. The beginning of The Persia Cafe is interesting, as we are getting to know the characters; the ending, absolutely enthralling, as the plot slowly unfolds; but the middle seems like one story too much as it focuses on Fanny's alcoholic husband, a Southern stereotype diluting the novel's interesting prose and plot. Still, some passages are too good not to share:

"So this too was Will. Pacing there, I had what I thought was a refreshing perspective and saw that the boy I had married had not been true and fine but just a boy. I saw that he had not been mine but merely near, and though he had taken me in his arms he had not fallen for me, but had merely felt that mysterious jolt in the pulse."

Still, as soap operas go, that's not a bad piece. And again, I take you back to food to show you that the author never loses her touch for too long:

"I hung up. It rang again. I picked up and hollered, 'What the hell you want?' A listening silence, then click, the dial tone, a long hollow blowsy tunnel, spit and crackle, like frying eggs."

The following passage also integrates food with cats, a neat feat: "their nostrils sniffing the meaty air...soft paws scurried, tiny white fangs tore at bones, backs arched and tails batoned and fur rose and brushed my ankles, making electric shocks."

But the real sadness of the South is that one never truly knows one's neighbor because of the secrets and lies buried with the strange fruit Billie Holiday sang about. Laws and social mores that constrict human interaction prevent possibilities, and this is where the novel enters a more sophisticated realm:

"And I was still mad at her for being black and being my friend, two things that together she was never supposed to have been."

"Well I had not known. I had not known; how could I in this town where it seemed you could never really know another person? I was alone in the world, in a way that made me feel the dryness in my mouth and the deep ache in my breathing, and the darkness rising through the room, like smoke."

There are two sides to this loneliness. From one perspective, loneliness is good, at least where injustice is concerned--better to be alone than complicit in the company of apathy. Thus, the reader will empathize with Fanny, but also wonder why the situation arose in the first place. Looking around, especially in California, Mississippi just forty five(!) years ago seems like another planet. Southern novels seem strange to many readers because they chronicle a bygone era. The key is to remember that this tension did actually exist once upon a time. Without suspending modern day notions, Southern novels make no sense, and we should be glad that reality has to be pushed aside to let Southern literature into our lives.

Still, no Southern novel would be complete without some reference to the thick swampy climate, and I will leave you with that weight:

"I didn't find much to say to that. So I continued to sit there for quite a while, holding Mattie's hand, which she seemed to want, and looking out into the night, which coiled dampsweet and thick toward the river, in the direction of the cafe."

© Matthew Rafat (2007)