Rizal Shidiq wrote this the other day in the Jakarta Post.
Although it mentioned endogenous growth (don't ask) it brought up an important issue - what role does democracy have to play in economic growth?
Rizal referenced research which shows that democracy doesn't necessarily have much to do with economic growth.
However at their core both freedoms help people to cooperate together. Economic freedom minimises the costs that people have to endure to make a living for themselves and their families. Similarly, with democratic freedom, societies can cooperate together in order to set generally accepted rules of fair play, reducing the friction of individual's interactions (economic or otherwise).
According to Rizal, the links between economic growth and democracy are hard to identify; I suggest, that's because both freedoms fundamentally do the same thing, i.e. improve cooperation.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Probably the Best Programming Language in the World
I want to learn Erlang next.
Erlang is kinda cool, because it's functional and concurrent.
Functional programming takes up about 1/7th the number of lines as imperative (eg. Java, C etc.). That means more elegant programming and less numbers of lines for bugs to occur in.
Concurrent programming splits your program into threads. That means that one part of your program won't hold up everything else. Concurrency is normally quite difficult to do with traditional programming languages, which is why many programs still don't take advantage of machines with multiple processors (Core Duo etc.) or run one program on multiple machines over a network. Erlang (apparently) makes concurrency real easy.
Erlang is kinda cool, because it's functional and concurrent.
Functional programming takes up about 1/7th the number of lines as imperative (eg. Java, C etc.). That means more elegant programming and less numbers of lines for bugs to occur in.
Concurrent programming splits your program into threads. That means that one part of your program won't hold up everything else. Concurrency is normally quite difficult to do with traditional programming languages, which is why many programs still don't take advantage of machines with multiple processors (Core Duo etc.) or run one program on multiple machines over a network. Erlang (apparently) makes concurrency real easy.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
18 Songs
I'll send these songs (either by email or by post on CD) to anyone who cares to ask for 'em.
They sum up where I'm coming from (although not where I'm going to!).
Life and Fate's Whims
Sunday morning. I accidentally stumbled upon this elegy for Morgan Mellish, an Australian journalist based in Indonesia.
Morgan was flying from Jakarta to Jogjakarta. He was booked on Indonesia's most accident prone airline (Adam Air) but generously, Australian embassy officials offered him a ticket on Indonesia's safest carrier, Garuda. The Garuda plane crashed on landing and Morgan died in the crash.
Condolences to those that loved Morgan. He sounds like a truly inspiring, vibrant person.
-----------
This weekend I have been pondering quietly to myself about my own life. There has been nothing whimsical about my current thinking, it has to be calculated, I can't make a mistake.
But a nerve was hit when I read about Morgan Mellish.
How awe-full, complex, subtle and intricate causation can be.
Morgan was flying from Jakarta to Jogjakarta. He was booked on Indonesia's most accident prone airline (Adam Air) but generously, Australian embassy officials offered him a ticket on Indonesia's safest carrier, Garuda. The Garuda plane crashed on landing and Morgan died in the crash.
Condolences to those that loved Morgan. He sounds like a truly inspiring, vibrant person.
-----------
This weekend I have been pondering quietly to myself about my own life. There has been nothing whimsical about my current thinking, it has to be calculated, I can't make a mistake.
But a nerve was hit when I read about Morgan Mellish.
How awe-full, complex, subtle and intricate causation can be.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Like Frogs Trapped in a Coconut Shell
So how does one sell freedom of movement?
Freedom of movement would, in my opinion decimate much of the poverty in the world. However free movement would also slash western living standards in the short term as the poor compete with westerners for jobs. Despite their rhetoric, western governments therefore have little or no incentive to open up their job markets and really help the needy.
Tossing this conundrum back and forth in my head, led to a rather dangerous idea (coincidentally a few days later I read this illuminating article).
Could Western governments open up particular industries to foreigners, while ensuring that new influxes wouldn't adversely affect the indiginous workforce?
For example, Ireland has little or no textile industry, it evaporated years ago due to expensive labour costs in comparison to the Far East. Ireland could import Indonesian or Chinese workers to help resuscitate the Irish textile industry.
The "imported" workers would receive much higher wages and working conditions than they could ever dream of at home (but still a fraction of Irish wages). Ireland would have a new textile industry which would employ locals in IT, finance, management etc. The Irish government would pick up 12.5% tax on all profits made (China's tax rate is 25%).
Overnight a re-emergent Irish textile industry could then compete somewhat with the Far East. Supply lines to markets in Europe would be much shorter, meaning quicker turnaround times and lower transportation costs. There'd be fewer communication and cultural barriers and most importantly /rock/ /solid/ legal certainty for investors.
There are many other advantages and possible beneficial side effects of such a partial freeing of movement.
I can't see any downsides (although am sure there are some). Can anyone point out major holes in the idea?
Freedom of movement would, in my opinion decimate much of the poverty in the world. However free movement would also slash western living standards in the short term as the poor compete with westerners for jobs. Despite their rhetoric, western governments therefore have little or no incentive to open up their job markets and really help the needy.
Tossing this conundrum back and forth in my head, led to a rather dangerous idea (coincidentally a few days later I read this illuminating article).
Could Western governments open up particular industries to foreigners, while ensuring that new influxes wouldn't adversely affect the indiginous workforce?
For example, Ireland has little or no textile industry, it evaporated years ago due to expensive labour costs in comparison to the Far East. Ireland could import Indonesian or Chinese workers to help resuscitate the Irish textile industry.
The "imported" workers would receive much higher wages and working conditions than they could ever dream of at home (but still a fraction of Irish wages). Ireland would have a new textile industry which would employ locals in IT, finance, management etc. The Irish government would pick up 12.5% tax on all profits made (China's tax rate is 25%).
Overnight a re-emergent Irish textile industry could then compete somewhat with the Far East. Supply lines to markets in Europe would be much shorter, meaning quicker turnaround times and lower transportation costs. There'd be fewer communication and cultural barriers and most importantly /rock/ /solid/ legal certainty for investors.
There are many other advantages and possible beneficial side effects of such a partial freeing of movement.
I can't see any downsides (although am sure there are some). Can anyone point out major holes in the idea?
Sunday, March 11, 2007
'Smart' Rebels
American Generals admit that Afghani and Iraqi rebels are causing more problems than expected (surprise, surprise).
The rebels don't have very sophisticated weaponry and their numbers are only in the tens of thousands (there are about 140,000 American soldiers on the ground in Iraq alone for example).
But,
1) the rebels have a flat hierarchy, small groups aren't directed centrally, therefore the Americans can't knockout one central command
2) the rebels learn from each other /fast/
For example, if one group figures out how destroy American tanks or aircraft, they tape a "howto" and post it up on the Internet. Also, American soldiers have rules on when they can and can't shoot (rules of engagement) rebels learn these rules and keep each other up-to-date on changes, giving them a good idea on how their enemy will act in any situation.
The rebel's tactics evolve quicker than the American's, and in a meritocratic culture (what works best is used) similar to how open source software evolves.
America has more or less lost the military battle in Iraq (and possibly Southern Afghanistan) and I don't think they have the cultural nous to socially undermine the rebels and regain an advantage.
Although I have no affinity with President Bush et al, America losing Iraq and Afghanistan will mean a very bleak foreseeable future for both countries.
The rebels don't have very sophisticated weaponry and their numbers are only in the tens of thousands (there are about 140,000 American soldiers on the ground in Iraq alone for example).
But,
1) the rebels have a flat hierarchy, small groups aren't directed centrally, therefore the Americans can't knockout one central command
2) the rebels learn from each other /fast/
For example, if one group figures out how destroy American tanks or aircraft, they tape a "howto" and post it up on the Internet. Also, American soldiers have rules on when they can and can't shoot (rules of engagement) rebels learn these rules and keep each other up-to-date on changes, giving them a good idea on how their enemy will act in any situation.
The rebel's tactics evolve quicker than the American's, and in a meritocratic culture (what works best is used) similar to how open source software evolves.
America has more or less lost the military battle in Iraq (and possibly Southern Afghanistan) and I don't think they have the cultural nous to socially undermine the rebels and regain an advantage.
Although I have no affinity with President Bush et al, America losing Iraq and Afghanistan will mean a very bleak foreseeable future for both countries.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Ba’asyir on "Modern" Punishment
Abu Bakar Ba’asyir explains how cheap Sharia amputations are compared to imprisoning people, and that Sharia punishment is the way of the future.
As the spiritual head of JI (Indonesian al-Qaeda group) involved in the Bali bombings, Abu Bakar Ba’asyir was jailed for 2.5 years, but exonerated of involvement last year.
Ironically though, if Indonesia did apply Sharia, I doubt Mr. Ba’asyir would have been released at all, he'd probably be 6 feet under.
As the spiritual head of JI (Indonesian al-Qaeda group) involved in the Bali bombings, Abu Bakar Ba’asyir was jailed for 2.5 years, but exonerated of involvement last year.
Ironically though, if Indonesia did apply Sharia, I doubt Mr. Ba’asyir would have been released at all, he'd probably be 6 feet under.
Pig Racing Protest Against Mosque
After reading repeatedly how Islamic radicals in Indonesia are endeavouring to take religious bigotry to new levels, it's refreshing to know that Texan Christian bigots are rising to the heights set by their Muslim brothers by creative means.
Locals of Katy, Texas are protesting the building of a new mosque by racing pigs around the proposed site.
Locals of Katy, Texas are protesting the building of a new mosque by racing pigs around the proposed site.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Economising Freedom
Apart from the obvious good of emancipating people from evils and injustices; what have been the repercussions of emancipations?
Slavery in all its forms has had a certain evil logic which has locked in its victims and masters. No emancipation has come without a struggle.
The slave trade was abolished 200 years ago by Britain.
Through blood sweat and tears, slaves provided plentiful cheap labour in the capital rich colonies in the Americas, Africa and Asia; vertiginously growing enlightenment Europe's opulence and wealth.
What then was the logic behind the abolition of slavery? We would love to think that morality was a driving force, but in fact economics and power may have had a bigger influence. The British feared increasing slave revolts, which could have weakened its hold on its colonies altogether.
I don't have any idea on whether the abolition of slavery had any lasting adverse economic effects on British colonies, but tellingly, slavery (under different terms) lived on in other European colonies into the 20 century.
[Of course slavery survives today. Similarly, slaves are transported from capital poor countries to capital rich countries; but ironically because economic migration is illegal, desperate migrants voluntarily risk getting involved with trafficking gangs, and risk being caught up in sex slavery and other highly nefarious industries.]
Colonial independence movements, women's suffrage and African-American equality are all freedoms that had to be struggled for. Societies never grant rights and freedoms to oppressed people easily, because the oppression usually serves a important economic, political or social role within a society.
Freedom always comes with a cost.
Slavery in all its forms has had a certain evil logic which has locked in its victims and masters. No emancipation has come without a struggle.
The slave trade was abolished 200 years ago by Britain.
Through blood sweat and tears, slaves provided plentiful cheap labour in the capital rich colonies in the Americas, Africa and Asia; vertiginously growing enlightenment Europe's opulence and wealth.
What then was the logic behind the abolition of slavery? We would love to think that morality was a driving force, but in fact economics and power may have had a bigger influence. The British feared increasing slave revolts, which could have weakened its hold on its colonies altogether.
I don't have any idea on whether the abolition of slavery had any lasting adverse economic effects on British colonies, but tellingly, slavery (under different terms) lived on in other European colonies into the 20 century.
[Of course slavery survives today. Similarly, slaves are transported from capital poor countries to capital rich countries; but ironically because economic migration is illegal, desperate migrants voluntarily risk getting involved with trafficking gangs, and risk being caught up in sex slavery and other highly nefarious industries.]
Colonial independence movements, women's suffrage and African-American equality are all freedoms that had to be struggled for. Societies never grant rights and freedoms to oppressed people easily, because the oppression usually serves a important economic, political or social role within a society.
Freedom always comes with a cost.
Movement
I have one nascent, quixotic mission.
I own one belief, out of all the beliefs beings hawked around by snake oil merchants of various creeds and colours.
I believe that the freedom of movement should be a human right.
A human should be allowed to work or live wherever she chooses. Working and living peacefully should never be seen as wrong or illegal in any context.
I own one belief, out of all the beliefs beings hawked around by snake oil merchants of various creeds and colours.
I believe that the freedom of movement should be a human right.
A human should be allowed to work or live wherever she chooses. Working and living peacefully should never be seen as wrong or illegal in any context.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
"A capitalist will sell you the rope you will hang him with, if he can make profit on it." - Lenin
Click picture to see replies to quote.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Real China
2 in 3 Chinese graduates that have studied abroad never return.
That simple statistic tells you a lot about China.
How interesting it would be to collate and compare the same statistic across democratic and non-democratic countries (adjusting for GDP).
That simple statistic tells you a lot about China.
How interesting it would be to collate and compare the same statistic across democratic and non-democratic countries (adjusting for GDP).
Lent
I am not eating meat for Lent.
Almost one week down, and five to go (no one told me that Lent lasts for 6 whole weeks, next year I'll do Ramadan instead, reckon it's shorter!).
Almost one week down, and five to go (no one told me that Lent lasts for 6 whole weeks, next year I'll do Ramadan instead, reckon it's shorter!).
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Crippled Capital and Crocodile Tears
Bob Geldof once said that extreme poverty in a world so affluent is an intellectual absurdity. He is completely correct. But why does extreme poverty exist?
I read recently that the 3 wealthiest people in the world are wealthier than the 48 poorest nations with combined populations of 600m.
Shocking, eh?
Another shocking example is Uncle Scrooge McDuck (Disney Duck Tales) a millionaire with *obscene* wealth -- his vault is a huge swimming pool of gold coins if I remember rightly.
Now, ask yourself what those 3 wealthiest people do with /their/ fortunes?
Most probably they invest 99% of their wealth in companies far and wide. Even if they save part of their fortune, a large proportion of their savings (as with all savings) will be recycled and invested into ventures by their savings bank.
So on the face of it these three /are/ obscenely rich, but they don't jealously hoard their wealth like Scrooge McDuck, it's put it to work and it in turn helps employ, educate and put meals on the table for tens of thousands (maybe a magnitude or so higher!) of people.
Obviously not much of this investment capital ever reaches those 48 poorest countries on earth. Why?
Contrary to common consensus, economics is an optimistic science. One of economics' main tenets is that the ratio of investment capital to labour should tend to even out across the globe over time. This is due to simple supply and demand.
Let's assume two broad production input categories. The first is investment capital, i.e. cash. The second is labour. Both are needed in varying quantities to produce output. The output is sold and the owners of capital and labour receive compensation for their efforts.
The returns to capital should be lower in areas with an abundance of capital, due to investors having to compete harder for investment opportunities. The same is true for labour, increasing labour supply drives wages lower, as there is less capital spread among more workers.
This gives investors an incentive to go to countries with an abundance of labour and workers to go where there are high levels of capital investment. This is precisely what we see in practice, for example, corporations look to invest in China which has a very low capital per person ratio, and Chinese citizens look to emigrate to Western countries with a high ratio.
The problem is that these flows of capital and people are being suppressed, resulting in boils and lesions of inequality and poverty.
Developed countries are mainly democracies, and the electorate want to stay affluent. To that end, they don't want too many immigrants competing with them for jobs, and they definitely don't want foreigners flooding their social welfare systems. On the other side they want to avoid capital going abroad, therefore they ensure that capital stays in their country by erecting barriers to trade -- i.e. a company can't expect to produce elsewhere and sell back in the home country without punitive tariffs.
Developing countries are beset with corrupt bureaucracies and dictators. In many cases this corruption is a form of legalised thievery due to corrupt legal systems. The risk is that high proportions of investment in corrupt countries are arbitrarily stolen from the investor. Moreover, capitalists within the developing country (who often have considerable influence and ties to government) may prefer not to have an influx of foreign capital in their country and look to create barriers to investment. These countries often subtly restrict emigration, or in extreme cases not so subtly, e.g. North Korea and Maoist China.
Most economists argue that freedom of trade will bring about a more affluent, more equal world. Freeing capital flows is only one part of the story however. I believe that the importance of the other half, that of freedom of movement has been woefully underestimated.
The kernel of the problem is that the "enlightened" plebs in developed democracies and the capitalist oligarchs of the developing world have forged an air tight cartel of wealth and power, which will lock out most of today's poor from peaceful, respectable lives for the foreseeable future.
Poverty /is/ intellectually absurd, but /our/ selfishness locks us and the poor into this status quo. The challenge is to find the courage and vision which can knock us out of this horrific equilibrium.
I read recently that the 3 wealthiest people in the world are wealthier than the 48 poorest nations with combined populations of 600m.
Shocking, eh?
Another shocking example is Uncle Scrooge McDuck (Disney Duck Tales) a millionaire with *obscene* wealth -- his vault is a huge swimming pool of gold coins if I remember rightly.
Now, ask yourself what those 3 wealthiest people do with /their/ fortunes?
Most probably they invest 99% of their wealth in companies far and wide. Even if they save part of their fortune, a large proportion of their savings (as with all savings) will be recycled and invested into ventures by their savings bank.
So on the face of it these three /are/ obscenely rich, but they don't jealously hoard their wealth like Scrooge McDuck, it's put it to work and it in turn helps employ, educate and put meals on the table for tens of thousands (maybe a magnitude or so higher!) of people.
Obviously not much of this investment capital ever reaches those 48 poorest countries on earth. Why?
Contrary to common consensus, economics is an optimistic science. One of economics' main tenets is that the ratio of investment capital to labour should tend to even out across the globe over time. This is due to simple supply and demand.
Let's assume two broad production input categories. The first is investment capital, i.e. cash. The second is labour. Both are needed in varying quantities to produce output. The output is sold and the owners of capital and labour receive compensation for their efforts.
The returns to capital should be lower in areas with an abundance of capital, due to investors having to compete harder for investment opportunities. The same is true for labour, increasing labour supply drives wages lower, as there is less capital spread among more workers.
This gives investors an incentive to go to countries with an abundance of labour and workers to go where there are high levels of capital investment. This is precisely what we see in practice, for example, corporations look to invest in China which has a very low capital per person ratio, and Chinese citizens look to emigrate to Western countries with a high ratio.
The problem is that these flows of capital and people are being suppressed, resulting in boils and lesions of inequality and poverty.
Developed countries are mainly democracies, and the electorate want to stay affluent. To that end, they don't want too many immigrants competing with them for jobs, and they definitely don't want foreigners flooding their social welfare systems. On the other side they want to avoid capital going abroad, therefore they ensure that capital stays in their country by erecting barriers to trade -- i.e. a company can't expect to produce elsewhere and sell back in the home country without punitive tariffs.
Developing countries are beset with corrupt bureaucracies and dictators. In many cases this corruption is a form of legalised thievery due to corrupt legal systems. The risk is that high proportions of investment in corrupt countries are arbitrarily stolen from the investor. Moreover, capitalists within the developing country (who often have considerable influence and ties to government) may prefer not to have an influx of foreign capital in their country and look to create barriers to investment. These countries often subtly restrict emigration, or in extreme cases not so subtly, e.g. North Korea and Maoist China.
Most economists argue that freedom of trade will bring about a more affluent, more equal world. Freeing capital flows is only one part of the story however. I believe that the importance of the other half, that of freedom of movement has been woefully underestimated.
The kernel of the problem is that the "enlightened" plebs in developed democracies and the capitalist oligarchs of the developing world have forged an air tight cartel of wealth and power, which will lock out most of today's poor from peaceful, respectable lives for the foreseeable future.
Poverty /is/ intellectually absurd, but /our/ selfishness locks us and the poor into this status quo. The challenge is to find the courage and vision which can knock us out of this horrific equilibrium.
Labour Monopsony
[A "monopoly" of supply is called a monopsony.]
This article argues that labour market deregulation is bad for workers. Many unions (the world over) also make similar points.
When listening to these arguments one point should be kept in mind. There is a dichotomy between a nation's workers and its total workforce. In Indonesia just over half the workforce is unemployed or underemployed.
A more deregulated, properly working labour market would give a majority of the Indonesian workforce the opportunity to work hard and earn a decent living for their families.
One of the salient obstacles is that labour unions (who represent those in steady jobs) are better organised and have louder voices than the less fortunate majority.
The labour union's stance is perfectly understandable as their members are the ones with steady jobs, however their points are often disingenuous and one should keep in mind the broader picture.
This article argues that labour market deregulation is bad for workers. Many unions (the world over) also make similar points.
When listening to these arguments one point should be kept in mind. There is a dichotomy between a nation's workers and its total workforce. In Indonesia just over half the workforce is unemployed or underemployed.
A more deregulated, properly working labour market would give a majority of the Indonesian workforce the opportunity to work hard and earn a decent living for their families.
One of the salient obstacles is that labour unions (who represent those in steady jobs) are better organised and have louder voices than the less fortunate majority.
The labour union's stance is perfectly understandable as their members are the ones with steady jobs, however their points are often disingenuous and one should keep in mind the broader picture.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Monopoly of Violence
All nation states are founded upon one core idea: the monopoly of violence.
The state strives to monoplise the use of violence within its jurisdiction.
Problems arise when a state loses that monopoly.
Examples of oligopolies of violence:
Iraq
Aceh
Bosnia
.
.
.
The state strives to monoplise the use of violence within its jurisdiction.
Problems arise when a state loses that monopoly.
Examples of oligopolies of violence:
Iraq
Aceh
Bosnia
.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)