Two Reading Tips: Money and China

National Geographic Magazine is probably one of the most overlooked publications in the U.S. This month's (April 2008) issue focuses on China and is absolutely fantastic. In addition to the articles and pictures, there is a detailed map of modern-day China.

I also read a newer publication, Lapham's Quarterly, Vol 1, No. 2, titled, About Money. All of the articles in the Spring volume's journal are about--you guessed it--money. There are too many interesting tidbits to quote everything, but the writers include everyone from Alexis de Tocqueville to Orson Welles. I especially enjoyed the Benjamin Franklin and Jim Cramer pieces. Here are some quotes from the journal:

Thomas Jefferson: "Money, not morality, is the principle of commercial nations."

Roger Starr: "It is not the accumulation of money which is vicious, but overconsumption...[the very poor] are "dehumanized because his relative poverty deprives him of the human responsibility of choice."

Henry Ford(!): "The automobile business was not on what I would call an honest basis, to say nothing of being, from a manufacturing standpoint, on a scientific basis, but it was no worse than business in general." "How much gasoline it [a car] used was of no great moment..." (In 1922, oil was around $3.50 a barrel)

James Boswell: "In civilized society, personal merit will not serve you so much as money will. Sir, you may make the experiment. Go into the street, and give one man a lecture on morality, and another a shilling, and see which one will respect you the most."

Tocqueville: "What grips the heart most powerfully is not the peaceful possession of a precious object but the imperfectly satisfied desire to possess it and the constant fear of losing it."

Elias Cannetti: "What is that happens in an inflation? The unit of money suddenly loses its identity. The crowd it is part of starts growing and, the larger it becomes, the smaller becomes the worth of each unit...Just as one can go on counting upward to any figure, so money can be devalued to any depth... [Are you listening, Bernanke?] An inflation cancels out distinctions between men which had seemed eternal and brings together in the same inflation crowd people who before would scarcely have nodded to each other in the street."

Upton Sinclair: "The assumption [in the entertainment business] was that they would live happily ever after, though never was it shown how that miracle would be achieved, and though the divorce rate in America was continually increasing."

Andrew Carnegie: In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves; to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give who desire to use the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to do all. Neither the individual nor the race is improved by alms-giving. Those worthy of assistance, except in rare cases, seldom require assistance."

Sallust: "Growing love of money, and the lust for power which followed it, engendered every kind of evil. Avarice destroyed honor, integrity, and every other virtue, and instead taught men to be proud and cruel, to neglect religion, and to hold nothing too sacred to sell."

Jack Weatherford: "Compared with the physical force of the military and the spiritual authority of religion, money offered a third and completely novel way to organize society. Without regard to rank, class, or standing, anyone with the proper coin could buy a goat or a turnip, a jug of wine or a basket of fish, a parcel of land for a vineyard or a pinch of salt to flavor dinner...In the global economy that is still emerging, the power of money will supersede that of any nation, combination of nations, or international organization now in existence. The newly ascended financial elites hold no brief or loyalty for any particular country, and the third revolution in the history of money threatens to erode the value of kinship, religion, occupation, and citizenship as the defining components of civil and social life."

Tim Parks: "The real scandal of money, and particularly usury, as we have already said, is that it does not respect traditional hierarchies. The merest artisan can make a fortune and start strutting around in expensive crimson. The feudal order breaks down."

Mozart

Other than a classical music class I took at a community college--one of the best deals in existence, as the CDs that came with the textbook are still used--I have no expertise in music. But this article about Mozart caught my attention, primarily because it states in different, more concise words my belief that our brains get caught up in limited local patterns that inhibit intellectual growth.

See Corinna Da Fonseca-Wollheim: "The Magic Flute" is as utopian and abstract as "The Abduction" is fresh. By placing his characters in an oriental setting, Mozart reminds us that it is only in confrontation with an Other from whom we allow ourselves to learn that we can find our own voice and transcend prejudice. (WSJ, April 26, 2008)

Absolutely correct, in my humble opinion.

Peggy Noonan's Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

I enjoy reading Peggy Noonan's column in the Wall Street Journal, so when I saw one of her books in a used bookstore for $5.50, I bought it. Noonan's style is difficult to describe. It is best-suited to columns and short speeches, but I could not explain to you why I feel this way. The writing in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Adams Publishing (1994)) evokes a calm, folksy demeanor, favoring anecdotes over heavy prose. Basically, Noonan's style is vintage Erma Bombeck--if Bombeck had a political agenda.

When Noonan is more concise and quoting others, she is less preachy; for example, she introduces the reader to two interesting quotes, such as "Life makes conservatives of us all," and "Politicians prefer unarmed peasants." The second one made me laugh, and the first one was used very well in its full context. Noonan clearly aims to be a political philosopher, and here is what she says when she refers to Jack Kemp's evolving views of limited government:

[I]t's not the federal government that is the prime helper of the poor in America, it is freedom. Freedom to build, freedom from excessive taxation, from regulations and lawsuits that can ruin your dry-cleaning business because someone says you don't employ enough of this race and that gender. Freedom to work as a kid off the books and learn and get good habits and not have the guy who runs the candy store be buried under tax and medical forms. (page 178)

As a political insider, Noonan also has access to Justice Clarence Thomas, and in response to how he felt during the Anita Hill hearings, we see a more human side of the man:

"I didn't go in there strong," he says. "I went in there a broken man. I had been broken. They had reduced me literally and figuratively to a fetal position. I was broken. And what got me through it was I prayed, I said 'Lord, I am weak, I am weak, you must help me.'" (page 114)

On Dick Cheney, Noonan's experience is telling, even in 1994. After asking him to keep a diary so he could one day write a book, here is what happens:

Cheney makes that wince face he makes and looks down. "No, unfortunately you can't keep diaries in a position like mine anymore." "Why?" I ask. "Because," he says, "anything you write can be subpoenaed or become evidence in a potential legal action. So you can't keep and recount your thoughts anymore. (page 89)

Later, Noonan, a Republican insider, states, "Fact: No one really knows what Cheney would do or think domestically." (page 184) It's enough to make an American do a wince face.

Speaking of domestic issues, California is having heated discussions about immigration in 2008. However, it appears the issues were the exact same in 1994, and after 14 years, California is doing relatively fine, and the same issues keep coming up every few years (it's almost enough to make you think that politicians play the immigration card when it's convenient for them and when they need to get votes):

"What are you going to do about immigration?" "It isn't xenophobia," he said; the Mexicans and other recent immigrants were coming up to him and asking about it, they're taxpayers and they're seeing California sink under the weight of illegals who come into the state and go on its services...California's going broke." (page 186)

And there is what makes Noonan slightly unbearable to read in an expanded format: wide brushes of policy packed in folk style, which are designed to impart a certain lesson, but without regard for accuracy. It's passive-aggressive politico-speak. California is suffering from a lower bond rating in 2008--many years after her book was published--but it is not clear at all whether undocumented immigrants are the reason for the decline in the state's ability to pay future projected costs. (In fact, it appears most payments from the State go to bonds relating to schools--which, last time I checked, needed approval by by citizen taxpayers and which benefited all children.)

Noonan's folksy style becomes excruciatingly asinine in some places:

Young black men will save our country. I'm not sure completely what I mean by this but--they're tough and smart and know how to survive...Anyway, something just tells me they're going to save our country." (page 26)

Although she is foremost a political insider, Noonan comes across best when she dispenses common sense advice:

When you think about your enemies, you're letting them live in your head without paying rent. (The same person told me, When you worry, you're paying a deposit on trouble that may not be delivered.) (page 157)

Noonan continues to be most interesting when she talks about being a mother and about life in general, such as her own born-again experience. Noonan's use of personal experiences are her greatest strength--feet on the ground, writing to lift you just far enough so you can see beyond the horizon and see the promise of conservative principles:

[I]n a way, life is overrated. We have lost somehow a sense of mystery--about us, our purpose, our meaning, our role. Our ancestors believed in two worlds, and understood this to be the solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short one. We are the first generations of man that actually expected to find happiness here on earth, and our search for it has caused such unhappiness. (page 215)

As long as she sticks to shorter pieces of work, she'll continue to be one of my favorite writers.

© Matthew Rafat (first published April 2008, revised)

April 21, 2008 -- Stocks

I have a bench trial this morning where I'm representing an employee not paid his wages, so I went to the office at 6:30AM to review my notes. I did my usual routine and checked my stocks, and also noticed that oil was selling for $117 a barrel. I immediately sold most of my individual stock holdings, except for MOT (I have only 200 shares, which I bought at around 9 dollars a share), PFE (earnings already released), and SNY (a Buffett holding). I even sold GE, but will buy it back if it dips. I did buy a few shares of SWZ for my Roth, and I continue to have stock holdings in my 401(k) in the form of mutual funds. However, I now have no individual holding worth more than 2,400 dollars.

I sold most of my individual stocks because the market rose too much last week without any fundamental change in the economy. Merely because one company--Google--reported stellar earnings, the Dow almost hit 13,000. But Google is not dependent on oil prices or consumer spending, and most of the economy is dependent on those two factors. With oil priced at $117/barrel and consumer spending projected to be anemic, the case for owning individual stocks becomes harder to support. In addition, with several earning reports coming out this week, the market should be volatile. If you own stocks in a Roth, there is no tax penalty for selling, and the case for being a buy-and-hold investor diminishes with increased volatility.

Ted Sorenson, JFK's Speechwriter

Ted Sorenson, a former aide to President John F. Kennedy, gave this moving commencement speech at the New School University in New York on May 21, 2004.

"A Time to Weep"

This is not a speech. Two weeks ago I set aside the speech I prepared. This is a cry from the heart, a lamentation for the loss of this country's goodness and therefore its greatness.

Future historians studying the decline and fall of America will mark this as the time the tide began to turn - toward a mean-spirited mediocrity in place of a noble beacon.

For me the final blow was American guards laughing over the naked, helpless bodies of abused prisoners in Iraq. "There is a time to laugh," the Bible tells us, "and a time to weep." Today I weep for the country I love, the country I proudly served, the country to which my four grandparents sailed over a century ago with hopes for a new land of peace and freedom. I cannot remain silent when that country is in the deepest trouble of my lifetime.

I am not talking only about the prison abuse scandal, that stench will someday subside. Nor am I referring only to the Iraq war - that too will pass - nor to any one political leader or party. This is no time for politics as usual, in which no one responsible admits responsibility, no one genuinely apologizes, no one resigns and everyone else is blamed.

The damage done to this country by its own misconduct in the last few months and years, to its very heart and soul, is far greater and longer lasting than any damage that any terrorist could possibly inflict upon us.

The stain on our credibility, our reputation for decency and integrity, will not quickly wash away.

Last week, a family friend of an accused American guard in Iraq recited the atrocities inflicted by our enemies on Americans, and asked: "Must we be held to a different standard?" My answer is YES. Not only because others expect it. WE must hold ourselves to a different standard. Not only because God demands it, but because it serves our security.

Our greatest strength has long been not merely our military might but our moral authority. Our surest protection against assault from abroad has been not all our guards, gates and guns or even our two oceans, but our essential goodness as a people. Our richest asset has been not our material wealth but our values.

We were world leaders once - helping found the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, NATO, and programs like Food for Peace, international human rights and international environmental standards. The world admired not only the bravery of our Marine Corps but also the idealism of our Peace Corps.

Our word was as good as our gold. At the start of the Cuban Missile Crisis, former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, President Kennedy's special envoy to brief French President de Gaulle, offered to document our case by having the actual pictures of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba brought in. "No," shrugged the usually difficult de Gaulle: "The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me."

Eight months later, President Kennedy could say at American University: "The world knows that America will never start a war. This generation of Americans has had enough of war and hate ... we want to build a world of peace where the weak are secure and the strong are just."

Our founding fathers believed this country could be a beacon of light to the world, a model of democratic and humanitarian progress. We were. We prevailed in the Cold War because we inspired millions struggling for freedom in far corners of the Soviet empire. I have been in countries where children and avenues were named for Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. We were respected, not reviled, because we respected man's aspirations for peace and justice. This was the country to which foreign leaders sent not only their goods to be sold but their sons and daughters to be educated. In the 1930's, when Jewish and other scholars were driven out of Europe, their preferred destination - even for those on the far left - was not the Communist citadel in Moscow but the New School here in New York.

What has happened to our country? We have been in wars before, without resorting to sexual humiliation as torture, without blocking the Red Cross, without insulting and deceiving our allies and the U.N., without betraying our traditional values, without imitating our adversaries, without blackening our name around the world.

Last year when asked on short notice to speak to a European audience, and inquiring what topic I should address, the Chairman said: "Tell us about the good America, the America when Kennedy was in the White House." "It is still a good America," I replied. "The American people still believe in peace, human rights and justice; they are still a generous, fair-minded, open-minded people."

Today some political figures argue that merely to report, much less to protest, the crimes against humanity committed by a few of our own inadequately trained forces in the fog of war, is to aid the enemy or excuse its atrocities. But Americans know that such self-censorship does not enhance our security. Attempts to justify or defend our illegal acts as nothing more than pranks or no worse than the crimes of our enemies, only further muddies our moral image. 30 years ago, America's war in Vietnam became a hopeless military quagmire; today our war in Iraq has become a senseless moral swamp.

No military victory can endure unless the victor occupies the high moral ground. Surely America, the land of the free, could not lose the high moral ground invading Iraq, a country ruled by terror, torture and tyranny - but we did.

Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein - politically, economically, diplomatically, much as we succeeded in isolating Khadafy, Marcos, Mobutu and a host of other dictators over the years, we have isolated ourselves. We are increasingly alone in a dangerous world in which millions who once respected us now hate us.

Not only Muslims. Every international survey shows our global standing at an all-time low. Even our transatlantic alliance has not yet recovered from its worst crisis in history. Our friends in Western Europe were willing to accept Uncle Sam as class president, but not as class bully, once he forgot JFK's advice that "Civility is not a sign of weakness."

All this is rationalized as part of the war on terror. But abusing prisoners in Iraq, denying detainees their legal rights in Guantanamo, even American citizens, misleading the world at large about Saddam's ready stockpiles of mass destruction and involvement with al Qaeda at 9/11, did not advance by one millimeter our efforts to end the threat of another terrorist attack upon us. On the contrary, our conduct invites and incites new attacks and new recruits to attack us.

The decline in our reputation adds to the decline in our security. We keep losing old friends and making new enemies - not a formula for success. We have not yet rounded up Osama bin Laden or most of the al Qaeda and Taliban leaders or the anthrax mailer. "The world is large," wrote John Boyle O'Reilly, in one of President Kennedy's favorite poems, "when its weary leagues two loving hearts divide, but the world is small when your enemy is loose on the other side." Today our enemies are still loose on the other side of the world, and we are still vulnerable to attack.

True, we have not lost either war we chose or lost too much of our wealth. But we have lost something worse - our good name for truth and justice. To paraphrase Shakespeare: "He who steals our nation's purse, steals trash. T'was ours, tis his, and has been slave to thousands. But he that filches our good name ... makes us poor indeed."

No American wants us to lose a war. Among our enemies are those who, if they could, would fundamentally change our way of life, restricting our freedom of religion by exalting one faith over others, ignoring international law and the opinions of mankind; and trampling on the rights of those who are different, deprived or disliked. To the extent that our nation voluntarily trods those same paths in the name of security, the terrorists win and we are the losers.

We are no longer the world's leaders on matters of international law and peace. After we stopped listening to others, they stopped listening to us. A nation without credibility and moral authority cannot lead, because no one will follow.

Paradoxically, the charges against us in the court of world opinion are contradictory. We are deemed by many to be dangerously aggressive, a threat to world peace. You may regard that as ridiculously unwarranted, no matter how often international surveys show that attitude to be spreading. But remember the old axiom: "No matter how good you feel, if four friends tell you you're drunk, you better lie down."

Yet we are also charged not so much with intervention as indifference - indifference toward the suffering of millions of our fellow inhabitants of this planet who do not enjoy the freedom, the opportunity, the health and wealth and security that we enjoy; indifference to the countless deaths of children and other civilians in unnecessary wars, countless because we usually do not bother to count them; indifference to the centuries of humiliation endured previously in silence by the Arab and Islamic worlds.

The good news, to relieve all this gloom, is that a democracy is inherently self-correcting. Here, the people are sovereign. Inept political leaders can be replaced. Foolish policies can be changed. Disastrous mistakes can be reversed.

When, in 1941, the Japanese Air Force was able to inflict widespread death and destruction on our naval and air forces in Hawaii because they were not on alert, those military officials most responsible for ignoring advance intelligence were summarily dismissed.

When, in the late 1940's, we faced a global Cold War against another system of ideological fanatics certain that their authoritarian values would eventually rule the world, we prevailed in time. We prevailed because we exercised patience as well as vigilance, self-restraint as well as self-defense, and reached out to moderates and modernists, to democrats and dissidents, within that closed system. We can do that again. We can reach out to moderates and modernists in Islam, proud of its long traditions of dialogue, learning, charity and peace.

Some among us scoff that the war on Jihadist terror is a war between civilization and chaos. But they forget that there were Islamic universities and observatories long before we had railroads.

So do not despair. In this country, the people are sovereign. If we can but tear the blindfold of self-deception from our eyes and loosen the gag of self-denial from our voices, we can restore our country to greatness. In particular, you - the Class of 2004 - have the wisdom and energy to do it. Start soon.

In the words of the ancient Hebrews:

"The day is short, and the work is great, and the laborers are sluggish, but the reward is much, and the Master is urgent."

New Colonist

One of the greatest benefits of the internet is the delight comes with an unexpected discovery. I've just unearthed a great website: http://www.newcolonist.com/asians.html

It's about cities and people, two of my favorite topics. The "Letters" section is fun to read. Browsing the website, I ran into some gems of writing, like this one:

California breeds high expectations and then crushes them. Through history and myth, it tells you there are no limits, and then it leaves you stranded in a cracker box tract house between a 7-Eleven and a freeway interchange." -- Steve Lopez

If you like good writing about cities, check out The New Colonist.

Speaking of good finds, I also enjoyed Aaron David Miller's article in the Spring 2008 (Vol. 32, No. 2) Wilson Quarterly, "The Long Dance: Searching for Arab-Israeli Peace." Here's one sentence from the article: "We must make a fanatical commitment to seeing the world as it is, not as we want it to be or as others want us to see it." This same vein of pragmatism is what I see in successful leaders (e.g. Lee Kuan Yew). I am beginning to realize that the American way--of getting an ideology and then defending the ideology against another (e.g. capitalism v. socialism, rich v. poor, Democrat v. Republican) in a Socratic or adversarial method--must give way to a new paradigm. For progress to continue in a world that is becoming more and more complicated in terms of culture, people, and resources, the smartest people will be the ones without hubris who realize they cannot possibly factor in all the necessary variables to arrive at the right decision or ideology on a macro-level. As a result, we should move towards a more cooperative model where we work with others to achieve solutions that can be modified as needed, rather than try to make singular, dramatic changes based on any particular overarching theme.

Richard Florida's Who's Your City?

Richard Florida has published an interesting book about what makes certain cities more desirable than others, and what factors ought to be taken into consideration when a person decides to move. The main points I got out of his book were these:

1. People don't buy houses or land for the property--they pay high prices in CA and NY to gain access and proximity to certain types of people. In the South and Midwest, people pay to be around more agreeable personalities, while on the East Coast, people are more neurotic and pay to be around people like them. In addition, highly educated people cluster together, creating super-centers of innovation, such as San Jose, CA, or, for offbeat, artistic types, Portland, OR. In short, people pay (in some cases, extraordinary costs) to choose their neighbors. It's an interesting premise, based on the old adage that "people of the same feathers flock together," and destroys the idea that people pay for a house based on square footage rather than neighbors and local amenities. (Potential buyers of a 550 sq foot guest house in Palo Alto, CA for 500,000 dollars, take note!)

2. Cities with high gay/lesbian populations tend to have favorable characteristics such as tolerance and culture, thereby attracting more affluent people who favor such openness. I agree that gay/lesbian populations add to the vibrancy of a city, but not because of any innate predilection towards "culture." The answer is far more simple. Gay people, on average, do not have children or many children; as a result, they tend to have much higher disposable incomes than families, who typically save more due to future expected expenses, such as college educations. Cities with residents who have higher disposable incomes tend to attract interesting outlets for spending money and more small businesses willing to take the risks of setting up shop to cater to affluent residents.

Mr. Florida has some charts in the back of his book that list "best buys" and ranks different locations for potential nomads based on different criteria (families, singles, etc.) I wouldn't call Mr. Florida the second coming of Jane Jacobs just yet. Reading his book is like eating a sweet, light cupcake with sprinkles of statistics--it'll fill you up for a little while, but in about two hours, you'll start getting hungry for more substance.