Packing for a Trip 'Round the World

A few people asked me what I bring when I travel. First, I don't make anything complicated. I don't buy packing cubes, I don't roll my shirts, and I don't buy the most expensive jackets or fanciest backpacks. Though I don't have kids or a wife, I do what every penny-pinching parent does: I scour the clearance racks for winter clothes in the summer and look for summer clothes after back-to-school season is over. As a general rule, I shop at home state outlets where I can easily return items if they don't fit. 

Outside of North America, Lazada.com, owned by Jack Ma's Alibaba, is great for ordering items in SE Asia. In Singapore, it seemed like every woman sitting near me on the MRT/subway was browsing the Lazada app. (Competitors have a long way to go before they catch up to Alibaba/Aliexpress and Amazon--DHGate.com rejected my Abdul-Rauf jersey order because its security procedures erroneously flagged my order as suspicious. At least they refunded my money promptly.) 

Before I list my preferences, it may be useful to know I'm 6 feet tall and weigh over 200 pounds, and I have not been paid money or received free merchandise to write this article. I'm sharing my tips because I sincerely believe the more people who travel independently, the easier it will be to build meaningful cross-cultural links. 

1. Dri-FIT casual shirts and socks from Nike. Only one of Nike's Dri-FIT shirts hasn't lived up to its billing. Although laundromats are cheap in SE Asia and northern Africa, you can't always be sure they'll be open, and being able to hang your clothes to dry overnight after hand-washing is crucial in humid climates. I've wasted many hours pointing a borrowed or hotel hand hair dryer at my cotton shirts the night before my next flight. (Luckily, in mountainous or high-altitude areas, clothes dry quickly with no special assistance.) 

Also, I suffer from sweaty feet, and the only socks that help are Nike's Dri-FIT brand. Despite the expense (15+ USD for one pair of the Jordan brand), I gave in because I grew weary of removing dead skin from my feet. I've avoided blisters because regardless of the brand, I follow Coach John Wooden's advice to roll up socks completely to ensure no wrinkles. 

Jordan Dri-FIT socks & shoes from Lazada.com. The shoes were 36 USD, including shipping.
Unpopular colors are marked down eventually.

2. Shorts from Under Armour. Clothing stitched or manufactured in Jordan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, or Bangladesh--in order from best to good--seems to last the longest. Under Armour must agree because much of their apparel, at least as of 2018, is made in Vietnam and Jordan. 

Bought in Houston, TX. 2 for 15 USD each.
BTW, don't visit Galveston if you're not a TX resident. Trust me.

Quality manufacturing is a fast-moving game. I remember when Shenzhen, China was the premier manufacturing location, but costs quickly increased, driving manufacturers to SE Asian locations. In contrast to developing countries, advanced countries tend to focus on IP-intensive manufacturing like semiconductors and pharmaceuticals as well as weapons. There's a lesson somewhere in there for developing countries... 

3. Anything from Columbia. Once you sign up for the complimentary membership, shipping is free. I like Columbia products that dry quickly (look for Omni-Shade and Omni-Wick products). The website has a convenient "SALE" link on its front page, and once on the "Sale" page, you can sort by "Low to High" prices. 

Screenshot of Columbia website with drop-down menu.

Recently, I spent about 160 USD online, mostly on collared fishing (PFG) shirts. For me, a person so cheap I risk fistfights with unscrupulous cab drivers in developing countries, it's a huge purchase. I plan on wearing these products for 5 to 10 years and bought them as a homecoming gift to myself in March/April 2019. One issue: some clothes don't do well in dryers, so I recommend line drying if possible. 

My top suggestion is to buy a lightweight jacket from Columbia. Their mesh pockets have saved my wallet and valuables many times, and I also put items in them when I fly to avoid cluttering my bags. Even if I'm in humid weather, I bring my jacket because rain can occur anytime. (Side note: countries close to the equator allegedly receive more rainfall, but I haven't noticed any definite pattern. I'd say countries close to the equator receive more than average flash storms but not extended rain.) 

4. Two pants, OR one pant and one jeans. One long pant for cold weather and one for hot weather is all I've needed. For cold weather, I found Adidas CLIMA 365 (Climalite), 100% polyester basketball pants in an Iowa store's clearance rank. For warm weather, I use Nike Dri-FIT pants, especially if I know I'll be visiting a formal place like a church or mosque. The Vatican turned me away the first time because I had shorts, but mosques will lend you a robe if your attire is too casual.  

I don't frequent nightclubs or bars, but if you do, bring jeans and wear them with your jacket when you fly to reduce baggage weight. On my third trip around the world, I didn't bring any jeans--they were too heavy compared to other options. 

If you're going to subzero temperatures, buy thermal undergarments, also called base wear. North Face is one place you can shop for these, but many stores have them, including Dickie's. I usually avoid North Face and Patagonia because their sizing is inconsistent, but for thermalwear, I own North Face underpants I've yet to use. My everyday underwear from Uniqlo does the job in all weather conditions. [Update: if you're going someplace colder than minus 4 Celcius, then you'll need fleece-lined pants from upscale Norwegian Helly Hansen or ski/snowmobile brands like American Polaris.] 

5. Backpacks. This is the most expensive single item you'll buy. I've only used Eagle Creek carry-ons, but the company was bought by a multinational corporation and now focuses on more fashionable items with flimsier material. Their website is still fantastic--employees demonstrate each carry-on bag's features in short online videos. The first carry-on I bought in 1999 used a tough corduroy material, which the company sadly no longer uses. I bought their largest carry-on before my most recent trip, but the company appears to have stopped making it, too. From 1999 to 2018, I've used only two carry-on bags, both from Eagle Creek. 

If you're a woman, Osprey is probably your best choice. Most of their packs are light yet durable. I suspect one reason Eagle Creek stopped making my preferred bags is because they're too heavy for both genders, and targeting only 50% of your customer base isn't typically a winning strategy. I don't know anything about Deuter, but they're also a popular brand. 

Most airlines allow one carry-on and one personal item, and the personal item usually doesn't get a second look as long as it can fit under your seat. (Strangely, some employees ask if I have a laptop in my backpack, as if it's a requirement for a personal item--it's not--but airlines probably don't want to handle laptops in checked bags.) I've heard horror stories about European budget airlines like RyanAir and Wizz Air refusing to allow one personal item on board in addition to a carry-on, which is an unfortunate part of budget travel--sometimes, you take the risk of checking in luggage and paying an additional fee. Over time, if budget airlines continue to be unpredictable with personal item allowances, they'll lose business or go bankrupt like Air Berlin (though to be fair, Germany has excellent train systems, so fewer residents rely on planes for domestic travel). After the way they treated me, I'm personally hoping Blue Panorama Airlines goes bankrupt sooner rather than later. (I avoid Blue Panorama Airlines, United Airlines, and Avianca when possible.) 

For backpacks aka personal items, anything will do, even the 15 USD backpack at your local Walmart, as long as it has a laptop sleeve or compartment. I bought my backpack on L.L. Bean's website for about 30 USD. It was marketed to elementary school kids, but the reviews by parents said high school kids used it, too, and I haven't had any issues. 

Another "off color" sale item.

I don't like Quechua, but many people seem to like their small daypacks (my preferred minimum size is 15 liters, even for a daypack). A lot of young women like the Anello brand, which opens like a 19th century doctor's kit. If you can spare the money, Fjallraven (their logo looks like a sleeping fox) seems to make the best backpacks, but this space is crowded with competitors, including the little-known Craghoppers and the up-and-coming Eiger. 

6. Buy a TSA-compliant lock. They should cost less than 10 USD and are worth the peace of mind. Make sure you read the instructions about setting the combination--it's not intuitive. 

7. My biggest mistake has been waiting too long to replace my shoes/trainers after I depart. I walk 3 to 5 miles a day, and my habit of buying new shoes only when part of my shoe had a hole was a classic "penny wise, pound foolish" approach. Now that I'm older and heavier, I regularly throw away and replace shoes when traveling. 

8. Even if you're not an adventurous eater, chances are high you'll eventually drink parasite-infested water. It's happened to me three times so far, and each time, it took 36 hours--and 5 to 8 pounds--to realize I wasn't dealing with garden variety diarrhea and needed antibiotics. (By the way, the reason hygiene tends to improve after outdoor food stalls are "upgraded" to indoor businesses is mainly because of consistent and clean water supply. My last incident occurred when I ordered two fruit juices containing fruits mixed with contaminated water.) 

The holy grail of travel medicine is amoxicillin. No other drug is able to so rapidly remove parasites in your body. For diarrhea, loperamide is the usual remedy, though many variations exist (an older Dutch acquaintance swears by activated carbon/charcoal). Both amoxicillin and loperamide are on the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines. 

That's all I can think of for now, but feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I can be snarky, but I answer my own messages, and I'm always looking for international movie recommendations. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2018) 

Bonus: Thinking about Nike and Under Armour made me realize no one has put together a definitive All-Star Muslim NBA team yet, so I gave it a shot: 

PG Abdul-Rauf (aka Steph Curry before Steph Curry); 

SG Fadi El Khatib (a poor man's Oscar Schmidt); 

SF Abdur-Rahim (Mr. Consistency aka the glue guy); 

PF Faried (rebounding and defensive specialist--not quite Rodman, but damn close); 

F Türkoğlu/İlyasova/Abudurexiti; (Türkoğlu should have won it all with the 2002 Sacramento Kings, but Tim Donaghy happened); 

C Abdul-Jabbar/Olajuwon (tie) 

By the way, the reason I shop at Nike is because they have several outlet stores near me. You might prefer other Dri-FIT brands, but the key is to look for outlet stores with large clearance sections. 

Two Random Quotes

"No greater nor no better Law, say I, than to love God above all, and all our Fellow-Creatures as ourselves; these two contain Law, Prophets and Gospel, do to all as we would be done by." -- Quaker Benjamin Lay 

"Schools are quick to blame everyone and everything but themselves for the failures of American education. To them, every bad teacher is the exception and every bad parent is the rule." -- Thomas Sowell 

Bonus: "She wasn't like some of the girls. She wouldn't have gone with a fellow she didn't like even if he had all the dough in the world. That's why I liked her so, that's why I loved her so much... You don't know how tough it is to get a job, not when you don't know anyone." -- Donald Roberson, "Thursday Night at Roy's" (Autumn 1936, The Folio) 

Book Review: John Perry, Singapore: Unlikely Power (2018)

I'm about halfway finished with Perry's Singapore: Unlikely Power (2018). Despite a too-flowery start, the book settled down and became much more tolerable to read. Below are a few passages that caught my eye. Perhaps they'll interest you, too. 

History is more interesting than you can imagine.
Scroll all the way down this post for more.

Interestingly, LKY left out housing, another essential item.
For most Singaporeans, the gov is heavily involved in providing access to housing.

LKY was a POW when the Japanese defeated the British
and until the British re-gained Singapore circa 1945.

Today, Singapore is known for its strict laws--including the death penalty--for drug possession. Given its history, Singapore's draconian drug policies make perfect sense as a way to eliminate the former power structure's source of income.

Despite more countries building land-based infrastructure,
the sea continues to be important in the modern economy.

Surprise!

Bonus: in Surabaya, Indonesia, I visited the Cheng Hoo mosque aka Zheng He mosque. (The Bahasa language apparently replaces the "z" with a "c," similar to how Spanish calls the "v" a "b.") The mosque provided even more information about the fascinating seafarer not as famous in the West as he should be. Here is more information explaining some of Zheng He's remarkable feats, including navigating seven(!) journeys: 

From Surabaya, Indonesia

Bonus II: from Clark Winter's The Either/Or Investor (2008). 

pp. 66, hardcover, Random House

Advertising

Advertising is an interesting business. Harley Davidson used to market itself to fishermen, hardly the "bad boy" image the company would later adopt after its motorcycles were featured in Easy Rider (1969). 

Nestle used to market Milo--now primarily a kid's drink--to active adults, touting its vitamins. 

From Singapore's National Library exhibit, "Selling Dreams," 10th Floor (July 2018 to February 2019). 

Isabella Bird, World Traveler

Isabella Bird, world traveler, on America, a "nationally sensitive" country, and the truth: 

 

Scandinavia, Socialism, Capitalism, and Taxes

1. The only two questions to ask when discussing an economic or taxation program are: 

1) Do the taxes or fees generate sufficiently positive returns for all taxpayers and residents relative to the tax or fee?; and 

2) Are the programs created or maintained as a result of the tax or fee sustainable over time when accounting for all expenses, both short-term (e.g. salaries) and long-term (e.g., pensions)? 

In short, what is the benefit relative to the tax, and is it sustainable? 

2. Here's a relevant link re: Sweden's pension reform: http://www2.ilo.org/public//english/protection/socfas/publ/discus/swedish.pdf 

3. "The key to Sweden's success is that it slashed taxes, greatly reduced its public sector, and underwent a massive privatization program in the 1990s." -- Michael Booth, The Almost Nearly Perfect People (2014) 

4. Increasing funding for a program doesn't always improve the program because much of the new funding may go to existing obligations, not new employees or new improvements. More here: https://bit.ly/2LF6tgx 

5. Full video here discussing issues more in depth: https://youtu.be/sMlCn66_yFo 

Elin Ersson, Hero

Let our descendants not think none of us did something. A few did something. A few disrupted the security apparatus. A few acted out of conscience. And from a few, many can be added, if not today or tomorrow, then at some undisclosed time in the beautiful future.

___________ 

For the first time, someone figured out how to resist. Elin Ersson is a hero. Adults will not create lasting change on their own; change must come from the young and foolish: 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/25/swedish-student-plane-protest-stops-mans-deportation-afghanistan 

Update: apparently, the male subject of Ersson's intervention was not the same person she originally believed was on the plane but a different Afghan refugee, one with a criminal record. He was eventually deported. Yet, the lesson is the same: if a citizen cannot disrupt the security state non-violently in favor of a universal principle, the security state's convenience has superceded individual agency. Whether such supersedence is appropriate depends on whether a publicly-engaged citizenry has access to all the facts and the ability to remove leadership. Some call this democracy in action; others would prefer citizens practice governance once every four years and not a second more.

["The majority will always vote for the status quo because their livelihood depends on it." -- Michael Booth (2014)]

Bonus: https://www.dw.com/en/elin-ersson-and-ismail-k-how-an-activist-tried-in-vain-to-rescue-an-asylum-seeker/a-47295356 

Dear Kids: It's Up to You Now, and It Always Has Been

Philip Larkin was more right than he realized. They do f*ck you up, your mum and dad, but this time, they've managed to f*ck up the entire world. Let us count the ways--and provide a few lessons from their failures. 

1. Segregation has been the defining feature of 21st century Western civilization, as has constant warfare. You'd think more people would make the connection between conflict and segregation, but you'd be overestimating humanity's ability to self-analyze--especially when much of its wealth derives from selective inflation in residential property. Seen properly, segregation constitutes unconscionable insider trading on the future of one's neighborhood at the expense of all other residents. 

From Perry's Singapore (2017)

To fight this alliance between respectable taxpayers and the shills they elect, we must understand segregation is not the natural result of registering property, respecting property rights, insurance company incentives, or Hernando de Soto-style capitalism. ("The issue in the 21st century in the West is assetless paper and everywhere else it is paperless assets.") It is the result of lawyers and governments creating legal systems that prioritize tax revenue using short-term metrics (i.e., not factoring in long-term costs of segregation) and then delivering services based on assumptions of expected tax revenue. To take one extreme example, during the 1992 L.A. riots, LAPD cordoned off affluent Beverly Hills, leaving Koreatown and other minority areas to fend for themselves. Of course more prosaic examples of segregation's long-term inefficacy exist, but by now, even the most myopic must see two systems: one for respectable taxpayers, and another for the ones left behind invisible lines until a crisis makes them visible. 

Once we realize the primary evil in the world can be reduced to a single phenomenon, we can marshal our resources to eliminate it. Unlike abstract wars on poverty and terrorism, a war on segregation is capable of producing tangible results. Complexity by and for lawyers can be made simple; government hiring practices can be reformed to avoid nepotistic job structures often benefiting one race, one religion, or one ideology; and mafias thriving in the ruins of political neglect can be co-opted. 

Any decent sociologist or city planner's goal should be to create James J. Guild's Indonesia, the opposite of segregation: 

This is not a city of sanitized and detached nuclear families living in insulated bubbles and disconnected from one another. It’s a city of bonds, where neighbors — probably because they are packed together so densely — chat with one another and hang out on the curb eating fried tempe with raw chilis. The city may not be perfectly planned, but everyone that lives here — minus the super rich — experience and share in those imperfections together.

There has never been a sustained War on Segregation. Its supporters are too numerous, too united, too powerful. Brown vs. Board of Education failed even as it succeeded, but as the world becomes increasingly globalized and diverse, I foresee mandatory conscription if civilization is to continue.  

2. Any entity that can attract and deploy capital without consequences will become corrupt--often with unforeseen consequences. For example, study Project MKUltra or review America's "black budget," estimated at 50 billion USD annually (as of 2016). Ted Kaczynski, a domestic terrorist caught only because a family member recognized his handwriting, was part of Project MKUltra. Some lessons: community collaboration and other factors not part of any formal accounting mechanism can be more valuable than tools valued at billions. Meanwhile, progress is often packaged with expensive bells and whistles to prevent you from seeing gifts proffered are less valuable than the ones you already have. 

3.  Incremental change is common in advanced societies because compromise is a sign of maturity. When consistent, incremental change occurs in pursuit of a specific goal benefiting all--educational reform, tax reform, etc.--progress continues. When incremental change occurs because political factions are preserving their own bailiwicks, social cohesion suffers, revolution inches closer, and propaganda proliferates. If you see stagnation and greater inequality--potentially fatal self-inflicted wounds when others are improving living standards--be flexible in your choice of location unless you have a long history in one place.

From Jim Rogers' Street Smarts (2013)

4.  Don't read or listen to people who rely on secondhand information. Every single scenario has two sides--look at Barry Seals' life, for example--and remember: if one person's motives and motivations vary so vastly by the month, large organizations with hundreds of individuals cannot be summarized in neat packages. 

5. You will hear others telling you to keep your "inner child." They mean your sense of wonder. To that end, watch and find good movies. Almost anything with Audrey Hepburn, Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant, or Hong Kong filmmaker Wong Kar-Wai will do. These are my sources of wonder--yours may differ. 

6. Be careful whenever you establish legal preferences. First, all laws will be enforced by Establishment-minded employees, whether police, lawyers, or judges. Second, the enforcement of the law matters far more than the law itself. (Selective drug arrests and prosecutions are simple examples of the aforementioned principle.) Third, the original purpose or intent of any law will always degrade or attenuate, and as society itself changes, laws made by previous legislators are more likely to be useless over time--except to characters within the Establishment desiring to entrap political or other enemies.

7. In the end, the world is filled with charlatans, liars, and thieves, but it has always been this way, and one of your ancestors may have been one of them. Your lack of knowledge about the past--and the future--does not excuse you from being honest and forthright. In the end, each generation must contend with an ever-increasing pile of dung, so get your shovel, and get to work. 

Book Review: Murakami's Norwegian Wood: Sex, Suicide, and Love in 1960s Japan

"Don't feel sorry for yourself. Only assholes do that." 

A cross between Joyce's Ulysses and Kerouac's On the Road, Haruki Marakumi takes the reader on a stumbling, windy journey from teenager to adult in Norwegian Wood (2000). Set in the 1960s, our protagonist Watanabe is out of place at his university but takes on habits--obsessive cleaning, wanton sexual flings, etc.--of his more polished, affluent students. He quickly tires of the pomp and false fronts--characterized by one suicide after another--and sets out to find himself. In the meantime, he is caught between two women: Naoko, a friend in a strange, bitter love triangle who cannot bring herself to consummate her relationship with Watanabe more than once; and Midori, a carefree, unpredictable woman also out of place among affluent classmates but from a working class background that grounds her and her sister. Midori is so captivating, so passionate, the book pales until she enters, like the Kate Winslet character in the 2004 film, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Later, another woman enters the mix and allows Watanabe to move forward, but until the very end, his desires vacillate between a love he cannot have and a love he cannot predict. 

Unfortunately, the translation from Japanese to English creates stilted dialogue. Only Midori's conversations seem unforced. Perhaps Watanabe intended Midori to be the only interesting character in the book, but it's hard to believe he deliberately made all other characters bleak in order to let Midori's light shine that much brighter. If you can tolerate the dreary first 65% of the book, the final 35% is well worth your time. 

Poem: For Anthony Bourdain

I can explain suicide to you. It's as simple as an analog TV's antenna. 

Some people are lucky--the manufacturer delivers the set ready to watch straight out of the box. The antennas stick up in exactly the right places, making it easier to stay close to home. 

Others, not so lucky. Their antennas need adjusting for a clear picture, or they'll only get static. Most of the time, though, it works so life goes on. 

The rest? Companies call them defective, defying QC. These TV owners keep adjusting their antennas because the pictures and sounds, when they come through, are the brightest and most interesting in the neighborhood. 

And only this TV, this antenna, could show you the world from a Colombian barrio rooftop, a Vietnamese restaurant with plastic chairs, and a tiled floor with foul-smelling Icelandic fermented shark. 

But the antenna, as we mentioned, is defective. No one knows the right adjustments, and nothing dampens its signal. Its sharpness captures every smell, every song note, and every person (especially his first love). It's all in there somewhere, jostling around, looking for a place to call home, until one day, he decides the cacophony is too much, too bright, too much. 

He turns it off.

Dedicated to Anthony Bourdain (1956-2018) 

by Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2018) 

America in 2018: Debtor Democracy

America's debt-fueled economic model is incompatible with merit and possibly tolerance once we account for physical and educational segregation. A debtor democracy cannot succeed without new immigrants and/or new residents willing to contribute to ensure existing and new debts roll over. As with America's entitlement programs, its political structure is geared not towards resolution of problems but using debt to pass responsibility to future generations. 

Outsiders fail to appreciate how much American inequality and de facto segregation are premised on assumptions of meritocracy. When almost 50% of your population is without significant assets in a debtor democracy, the foundation cracks, causing the younger generation to question capitalism and other values. In short, at the same time the status quo needs to be preserved in order to repay debt, the younger generation has every incentive to break its shackles. We have arrived at this troublesome scenario in large part because of the ways debt and the tax code, especially the mortgage interest tax deduction, have promoted segregation. 

Rather than attempting to fix segregation in ways that identify deserving residents, America's government has outsourced the task of social cohesion to private schools and private banking institutions--with one notable exception. A teenager poorly educated has little choice but to rely on parental connections--increasingly tenuous as segregation increases--or join America's military, the sole entity the federal government has decided is worthy of its direct involvement in identifying talent. 

Consider a society where the government borrows virtually unlimited money to promote a program heavily biased in favor of men while using the men in increasingly meaningless ways as wartime readiness favors technology, economic agreements, and diplomacy over brawn and manpower. Such a society will inevitably create tensions between its banking sector--and, by default, the private sector--and its government by issuing bonds and inviting foreign investment in ways that favor the status quo over residents' well-being. In a dictatorship, such an approach may be viable; in a democratic republic, it is suicide. Welcome to America in 2018. 

Scandinavian Military Conscription: Cyberattacks & the Failure of Diplomacy

Sweden recently enacted mandatory military service, following Norway's lead. Both countries claim they must be ready in the face of renewed Russian threats, but Crimea's one-off aside, it's hard to believe higher troop counts will prevent continued cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns. The truth is the United Nations' failure to create a deterrence framework for cyberattacks has opened the door for useless and counterproductive military expansion and recruitment. 

Notwithstanding diplomatic shortcomings, cyberattacks present substantial and difficult problems under the military's existing approach of deterrence. For example, when should a country launch physical attacks against another country's cyberattacks? When the cyberattacks impact more than 2% of GDP? When they result in actual theft or loss above a certain threshold? What evidentiary standards ensure impersonation hasn't occurred? What is the penalty for online false flag operations? As of 2018, no one knows. 

Consequently, until a framework for proportional response to cyberattacks can be formulated, Scandinavia's sudden interest in military readiness revolves around trade and access to international markets. Note that almost all international trade still occurs through shipping, necessitating protection through naval cooperation and port security. In the modern world, whether your country's products get safely from Point A to Point B depends on your leverage in trade agreement negotiations, which can be tied to NATO membership or alliances. Such membership is not a casual affair but one involving long-term financial and other commitments. NATO members are required, on paper, to spend at least 2% of their budgets on military spending to ensure proper readiness; however, much of these taxpayer monies will not be used to improve domestic disaster readiness or the lives of military recruits but on military hardware and products from the U.S. and its partners. 

Jim Rogers' Street Smarts (2013)

In the meantime, non-NATO countries, especially Russia and China, are building alternative trade routes on land (aka new Silk Road) or through bridges, presenting a threat to ever-increasing military expenditures that assume constant or increased shipping volumes. 

Now that we have a proper overview, I'm concerned about the discourse in Scandinavian countries following legislation on military conscription. One Swede wrote, 

Sweden needs to impose tax reliefs and increase salaries for its military members as two instruments to meet policy goals. Even if this could result in higher costs, the Swedish government must come to conclusion that the current spending levels are insufficient to meet its own goals, making its latest mandatory conscription policy merely symbolic.

Interestingly, his approach mirrors the United States' desire for Sweden to increase its military spending from around 1% of its budget to 2%. I researched him online, and he is an intern for the Republican Party in America, the pro-military political party. I added the following comments to his post, and I'll share them here as well: 

The United States has mismanaged its economy and harmed social cohesion by failing to properly audit its military spending. The benefits you mention--as well as job preferences for veterans in the private sector--are tied to trillions of dollars of debt post-9/11, most of it on adventurism and some of it on the jobs and benefits you mention. 

One reason these benefits exist is because military volunteerism is often the primary way for citizens and non-citizens to avoid working low-level, dead-end jobs in small American cities. Such spending is not popular in larger, more affluent American cities with diversified economies because people with options don't generally want to join an entity that has arguably lost every war since Vietnam. Where such spending is popular in larger cities, it is often tied to high-paying private sector jobs, i.e., defense contractors.   

In short, the U.S. military has the military benefits you mention as a de facto jobs program, especially for young men in rural areas with underdeveloped private sectors. A country able to create enough meaningful jobs in the private sector may find its military overlooked by most of its citizens. In such a situation, it may need to resort to conscription to maintain troops ready to assist in case of domestic disasters (earthquakes, floods, etc.). In the absence of a clear and present danger or need to spread economic gains more equitably across territories, your advice to increase military spending seems beneficial to countries with military spending as primary economic catalysts rather than countries focused on social welfare and social cohesion. 

Feel free to contact me with any questions. I haven't visited Sweden yet, but Uppsala is on my list :-) 

I often quote Eisenhower in my writing, and I'll quote him again: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft. The cost of one modern, heavy bomber is this: a modern, brick school in more than 30 cities."

American discourse once recognized citizens could not have both thriving domestic infrastructure and excessive military spending, i.e., "guns vs. butter." In other words, do you want a new aircraft carrier or a new university? When presented with the question directly, almost every citizen will choose the latter. Absent active war or a credible threat, fear or a lack of common sense are needed to choose the former. Accordingly, the so-called Russian threat is being used by NATO and its allies to convince Europe and other countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia) to maintain the military-industrial complex and its trillions of dollars of debt--debt that is unsustainable without additional buyers of weaponry or presumed naval dominance in trade.

Jim Rogers' Street Smarts (2013)

I never imagined a world where diplomacy would be actively thwarted or ignored in order to promote ever-increasing military spending, regardless of necessity or results. Even tiny Singapore has caught the bug: "[D]efense constitutes the largest item in the annual national budget." 

Chua Beng Huat's Liberalism Disavowed (2017)

You're never too young to be indoctrinated, I guess.
Remind me... does Singapore have any enemies besides SARS?

It's as if everyone in the world has forgotten the reason the United Nations was created: to prevent war through superior diplomacy and, by implication, unnecessary military spending. But of course people haven't forgotten the reasons for diplomacy at all--they've replaced international diplomacy with trade agreements and import-export or development banking institutions, reducing the United Nations' efficacy through fragmentation and rendering it a body for social progress and humanitarian aid rather than conflict avoidance. Such changes have serious implications for smaller and less developed countries wishing to maintain their independence and for larger, more developed countries like Turkey, which has realized NATO membership does not automatically confer greater labor and trade cooperation. (Notice how few Turkish products are on European supermarkets' shelves?) 

A world where no international body commands the moral weight necessary to ensure peace without de facto military bribes to larger countries means a world where "might makes right," and larger, more economically-powerful countries can take advantage of smaller countries. Such regression is tragic. Witness Woodrow Wilson's speech on the League of Nations, later the United Nations:  

There is only one power to put behind the liberation of mankind, and that is the power of mankind. It is the power of the united moral forces of the world, and in the Covenant of the League of Nations the moral forces of the world are mobilized. For what purpose? Reflect, my fellow citizens, that the membership of this great League is going to include all the great fighting nations of the world, as well as the weak ones... They enter into a solemn promise to one another that they will never use their power against one anther for aggression; that they never will impair the territorial integrity of a neighbor; that they never will interfere with the political independence of a neighbor; that they will abide by the principle that great populations are entitled to determine their own destiny and that they will not interfere with that destiny; and that no matter what differences arise amongst them they will never resort to war without first having done one or other of two things--either submitted the matter of controversy to arbitration, in which case they agree to abide by the result without question, or submitted it to the consideration of the council of the League of Nations. 

Has everything America championed become dust in the wind? Do we not realize freedom from war and freedom from a police state require sober statesmen and worldwide cooperation to corral private and public weapons markets? Every soldier who joined the military or was conscripted did so because he or she trusted the government not to waste their time, effort, or sacrifices. To that end, neither military leaders nor international bodies have adapted to the threat of unconventional warfare, which vitiates most military expenditures. No matter what Hollywood tells you, nations that cannot resolve agricultural tariffs or shootings of unarmed journalists but seek to increase military cooperation require sleight of hand to maintain such strange juxtapositions. May all of us--not just Scandinavians--remember why diplomacy exists before we weaken domestic economies and social cohesion in honor of the military-industrial machine and its debt-fueled, precarious expectations. 

Bonus: "The United Nations has no power to prevent war, but it can try to avoid another war. The U.N. will be effective only if no one neglects his duty in his private environment. If he does [neglect his duty], he is responsible for the death of our children in a future war." -- Albert Einstein, at Lincoln University in 1946 

Book Review: Mingfu's The China Dream

Liu Mingfu discusses the scourge of hegemony, preferring superpowers that balance each other's excesses and tendencies to overreach. However, he is too sanguine on military spending, seeing it as necessary for deterrence. To justify continued military spending worldwide, he even argues the military has a more educated population than the civilian population on a per capita basis, but cherry-picks above a certain rank and references a Joseph Nye quote out of context to make his argument. 

Mingfu admires Russia's military history, especially in WWII, and claims Marxism's economic ideals helped influence America by making it more moderate. He likely means unions and socialist leaders like Eugene Debs. 

The book would have improved with an American editor clarifying some gaps. Nevertheless, it is a must-read for anyone interested in China's views on the rest of the world. 

Bonus: "A country that makes enemies everywhere in the world, no matter how large or powerful, is a country that will never be safe."