I am not sure i have enough facts yet but with China getting ready to bail out EU nations, and Obama coming to India to seek US jobs, another set of data is coming to light: Turkey, which has long been waiting to join the EU, is now in far better economic shape that many of the member states. It is a healthy economy with a lower deficit than the EU. It already has pragmatic working relations with both the Arab world and Israel. It will have a free trade zone with Jordan as of March 1, 2011.
Two years ago, the prospect of China bailing out the EU or India providing jobs to the US would have been laughable. But with this trend, is there a possibility of Turkey returning to its traditional role as a major arbiter between East and West? If the EU weakens further, will individual EU nations seek help from Turkey? Stranger things have happened in the last few years . . .
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Is the US moving backwards as fast as China advances forwards?
Is the US moving backwards as fast as China advances forwards?
Whether asking Democrats or Republicans, Conservatives or Liberals, Independents or RINOs (or any other pejorative you can think of), multiple polls ranging from the New York Times to New Media sites show that over 75% of Americans agree on one thing: we are going in the wrong direction.
Which is not surprising: Sarah Palin places cross-hairs on a Democratic congresswoman's district and she is later shot by a kook. The President, no less, threatens that if the opposition brings a knife, he would bring a gun. The poor middle-class voter finds that no one is truly working on the issues: the financial crisis, unemployment and general sense of unease are still there, two years after the last election.
Not surprising, after all. We vote for who is going outdo the other in rhetoric and who is going the attack the illegal farm worker harder. After all, stock market swaps and financial bailouts are just too hard for us to understand.
Keep this going and all we are left with is an unkempt yard, neck-deep in foreclosure while JP Morgan laughs all the way to their own bank.
All this while, the real competitor, the Chinese juggernaut, moves further and moves faster. America should applaud and leverage China's economic rise but oppose its military growth that threatens all of Asia. The question is: do we have any strength left to do so?
To get back in the right direction, we need to go back to the principles that made this country great:
Small government--our government is huge--and still cannot fix the economy!
Low taxes--we pay through our noses--and still cannot stop corruption and bailouts
Strong Defense--if we still cannot beat a bunch of guys in the Afghan caves, what will we overcome? The Chinese stealth fighter?
What are we doing wrong?
1. Fighting with civilian farmhands rather than dangerous terrorists over illegal immigration--there is a difference. As a corollary, we are also keeping out legal skilled immigrants--for the first time in many years, the H1 quota went unfilled showing that skilled Indians, Russians and Chinese scientists would rather stay home or go to other countries than America. To clarify again--we need talented Chinese (and other) people in America--our concern is the Chinese government, not the Chinese people.
2. Not holding the big banks accountable--that won't happen because too many politicians are beholden to their funds.
3. Not holding the politicians accountable for making us the first generation whose standard of living is lower than that of our parents. But that is our own fault, because we don't vote that way.
Aah, then, it looks like we have met the enemy and it is We, the People. Maybe we deserve what we get. Whether the Chicago machine wins or the Wall Street machine wins, one thing is clear: the American people lose.
Whether asking Democrats or Republicans, Conservatives or Liberals, Independents or RINOs (or any other pejorative you can think of), multiple polls ranging from the New York Times to New Media sites show that over 75% of Americans agree on one thing: we are going in the wrong direction.
Which is not surprising: Sarah Palin places cross-hairs on a Democratic congresswoman's district and she is later shot by a kook. The President, no less, threatens that if the opposition brings a knife, he would bring a gun. The poor middle-class voter finds that no one is truly working on the issues: the financial crisis, unemployment and general sense of unease are still there, two years after the last election.
Not surprising, after all. We vote for who is going outdo the other in rhetoric and who is going the attack the illegal farm worker harder. After all, stock market swaps and financial bailouts are just too hard for us to understand.
Keep this going and all we are left with is an unkempt yard, neck-deep in foreclosure while JP Morgan laughs all the way to their own bank.
All this while, the real competitor, the Chinese juggernaut, moves further and moves faster. America should applaud and leverage China's economic rise but oppose its military growth that threatens all of Asia. The question is: do we have any strength left to do so?
To get back in the right direction, we need to go back to the principles that made this country great:
Small government--our government is huge--and still cannot fix the economy!
Low taxes--we pay through our noses--and still cannot stop corruption and bailouts
Strong Defense--if we still cannot beat a bunch of guys in the Afghan caves, what will we overcome? The Chinese stealth fighter?
What are we doing wrong?
1. Fighting with civilian farmhands rather than dangerous terrorists over illegal immigration--there is a difference. As a corollary, we are also keeping out legal skilled immigrants--for the first time in many years, the H1 quota went unfilled showing that skilled Indians, Russians and Chinese scientists would rather stay home or go to other countries than America. To clarify again--we need talented Chinese (and other) people in America--our concern is the Chinese government, not the Chinese people.
2. Not holding the big banks accountable--that won't happen because too many politicians are beholden to their funds.
3. Not holding the politicians accountable for making us the first generation whose standard of living is lower than that of our parents. But that is our own fault, because we don't vote that way.
Aah, then, it looks like we have met the enemy and it is We, the People. Maybe we deserve what we get. Whether the Chicago machine wins or the Wall Street machine wins, one thing is clear: the American people lose.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
The assassination attempt on Rep Giffords is a watershed
The assassination attempt on Rep Giffords is a watershed in modern American life; the tangent on the curve; the American equivalent of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, or any other hyperbolic analogy of your choice.
We may not physically have a civil war in the country but we certainly do, in the hearts and minds of our people.
We may not physically have a civil war in the country but we certainly do, in the hearts and minds of our people.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Day to day life in America
I came back to the US a few days ago.
Sitting in Arizona for the last ten days, wondering how peaceful it is to drive at 35 miles an hour and not have to wonder about which crazy driver will blow the horn at you for going too slow . . . wonderful.
Looking at the structural weaknesses and reading the expensive, absurd rants about Fox News saying that Obama should not have praised Chief Sitting Bull . . . sad (aren't we all Americans, including the descendants of Sitting Bull? When are we going to reconcile our shared history?)
Reading the DailyKos complaining that the only problem with health reform is the way it was "sold": even sadder.
If we don't stop talking past each other, when are we ever going back to being one country?
Sitting in Arizona for the last ten days, wondering how peaceful it is to drive at 35 miles an hour and not have to wonder about which crazy driver will blow the horn at you for going too slow . . . wonderful.
Looking at the structural weaknesses and reading the expensive, absurd rants about Fox News saying that Obama should not have praised Chief Sitting Bull . . . sad (aren't we all Americans, including the descendants of Sitting Bull? When are we going to reconcile our shared history?)
Reading the DailyKos complaining that the only problem with health reform is the way it was "sold": even sadder.
If we don't stop talking past each other, when are we ever going back to being one country?
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Obama to India
Okay, so Obama is not spending $ 200 million a day in India. What he is doing is spending political capital, kowtowing to another emerging power without a clear agenda.
The US and India have a lot in common: democracy, a shared interest in containing China, defeating terrorism, etc. One area where their interests diverge to a great extent is global economics. India today is the rising economic power, the US is the struggling one. So where exactly is the synergy in focusing so much on finance so much so that 90% of your delegation is business oriented and the Secretary of Defence is absent?
Clearly, Bangalore is not an area where the countries share a common interest. So while it is good that he is not visiting there, why not spend more time on the military and geo-political ties that do bind?
For similar thoughts, from an Indian point of view, check out: http://myexperimentswithindia.blogspot.com
The US and India have a lot in common: democracy, a shared interest in containing China, defeating terrorism, etc. One area where their interests diverge to a great extent is global economics. India today is the rising economic power, the US is the struggling one. So where exactly is the synergy in focusing so much on finance so much so that 90% of your delegation is business oriented and the Secretary of Defence is absent?
Clearly, Bangalore is not an area where the countries share a common interest. So while it is good that he is not visiting there, why not spend more time on the military and geo-political ties that do bind?
For similar thoughts, from an Indian point of view, check out: http://myexperimentswithindia.blogspot.com
Monday, August 11, 2008
If Edwards had quit before Iowa, Hillary would have been the Democratic candidate
It is another interesting twist of history that fate, along with the media led by Tim Russert and Co., seems to have conspired to deprive Hillary Clinton of the Democratic nomination.
Consider this: in January 2008, long after Edwards' affair and long after he had lied repeatedly to deny it, Clinton came a humiliating 3rd in the Iowa caucuses. The final count was: Barack Obama with 940 delegates with Edwards at 744 and Clinton at 737. Based on the voter demographic for Clinton, if Edwards' delegates were divided 2-to-1 in her favor, we would end up with Clinton 1233 and Obama 1188 (51 to 49). This would have reinforced her image of invincibility and likely propelled her to the nomination.
All this tells us one thing: men really have done Hillary in: starting with her own husband first, then Russert and then Edwards. However, i still don't see Obama's hand anywhere in the mix.
Let me be clear: i do not like the way Clinton handled her loss. It had to be one of the most graceless ways to lose, from playing the race card against her own party rival to wishing for his assassination. Contrast this to McCain who promptly upbraided his own supporter (talk show host Bill Cunningham) when he called Obama by his middle name "Hussein".
All i am pointing out is that if Clinton had won in Iowa, the rest of the Obama magic may well have been history.
Consider this: in January 2008, long after Edwards' affair and long after he had lied repeatedly to deny it, Clinton came a humiliating 3rd in the Iowa caucuses. The final count was: Barack Obama with 940 delegates with Edwards at 744 and Clinton at 737. Based on the voter demographic for Clinton, if Edwards' delegates were divided 2-to-1 in her favor, we would end up with Clinton 1233 and Obama 1188 (51 to 49). This would have reinforced her image of invincibility and likely propelled her to the nomination.
All this tells us one thing: men really have done Hillary in: starting with her own husband first, then Russert and then Edwards. However, i still don't see Obama's hand anywhere in the mix.
Let me be clear: i do not like the way Clinton handled her loss. It had to be one of the most graceless ways to lose, from playing the race card against her own party rival to wishing for his assassination. Contrast this to McCain who promptly upbraided his own supporter (talk show host Bill Cunningham) when he called Obama by his middle name "Hussein".
All i am pointing out is that if Clinton had won in Iowa, the rest of the Obama magic may well have been history.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Better manage your gas dollars: start using GPM rather than MPG!
Professors Rick Larrick and Jack Soll, researchers at Duke University, have shown how a simple mathematical change in measuring gas mileage will help consumers: measuring usage in gallons per mile (gpm) rather than miles per gallon (MPG) as we do today. For further mathematical convenience, you can measure gallons per hundred miles.
Hence, if a car gives 20 miles/gallon, that would mean that one mile requires 0.05 gallons or that 100 miles requires 5 gallons. At today's rate of $4/gallon, that is about $ 20. Similarly, if a car gave 40 miles/gallon, then it would cost only $ 10 to cover 100 miles. If a typical driver drove 100 miles a week, their gas consumption would be $ 40 instead of $ 80, pointing to a clear saving of almost $ 500/year. For the mathematically inclined, more details of the non-linearity can be found at http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~larrick/bio/Reshighlights.htm.
To change this, however, we do not need a 100 million dollars and a federal mandate. To see your car's efficiency in miles/100 gallons, check this calculator.
Another elegant way to see this graphically is shown by AJ Design software:
I am getting the correct usage for my car anyway by either calculation. Why should i care?
True enough. When you compare two cars, the difference will not change. Based on this calculator, a Ford Explorer that gives 15 mpg will, over 50,000 miles, require 3333 gallons more oil, which at $ 4 per gallon, translates to a cool $ 13,000. A Ford Escort at 30 mpg on the other hand, will only cost $ 6600. This is certainly easier to calculate if we use gpm rather than mpg.
More interestingly, however, if we compare the savings in going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg as opposed to going from 30 mpg to 50 mpg, the Duke research shows that the move from 10 to 20 mpg will save a lot more than by going from 30 to 50 mpg.
Beyond the mathematical interest in how numbers are not necessarily what they may seem, this is a fascinating subject because it goes to the heart of capitalism: measuring value in dollars and cents. The next step: use this calculator from AJDesigner.com to get the cost of any form of energy over 50,000 miles. Take away the subsidies that Big Oil gets and we could have a fascinating insight into true costs of energy.
Hence, if a car gives 20 miles/gallon, that would mean that one mile requires 0.05 gallons or that 100 miles requires 5 gallons. At today's rate of $4/gallon, that is about $ 20. Similarly, if a car gave 40 miles/gallon, then it would cost only $ 10 to cover 100 miles. If a typical driver drove 100 miles a week, their gas consumption would be $ 40 instead of $ 80, pointing to a clear saving of almost $ 500/year. For the mathematically inclined, more details of the non-linearity can be found at http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~larrick/bio/Reshighlights.htm.
To change this, however, we do not need a 100 million dollars and a federal mandate. To see your car's efficiency in miles/100 gallons, check this calculator.
Another elegant way to see this graphically is shown by AJ Design software:
I am getting the correct usage for my car anyway by either calculation. Why should i care?
True enough. When you compare two cars, the difference will not change. Based on this calculator, a Ford Explorer that gives 15 mpg will, over 50,000 miles, require 3333 gallons more oil, which at $ 4 per gallon, translates to a cool $ 13,000. A Ford Escort at 30 mpg on the other hand, will only cost $ 6600. This is certainly easier to calculate if we use gpm rather than mpg.
More interestingly, however, if we compare the savings in going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg as opposed to going from 30 mpg to 50 mpg, the Duke research shows that the move from 10 to 20 mpg will save a lot more than by going from 30 to 50 mpg.
Beyond the mathematical interest in how numbers are not necessarily what they may seem, this is a fascinating subject because it goes to the heart of capitalism: measuring value in dollars and cents. The next step: use this calculator from AJDesigner.com to get the cost of any form of energy over 50,000 miles. Take away the subsidies that Big Oil gets and we could have a fascinating insight into true costs of energy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)