Middle East Turmoil? Will True Democracy or More Irans Emerge?

[Guest fountainhall]

the real problem in the world, that tops energy policy is the population problem. Until we tackle this problem there is no long term solution to many of the world's problems

I think most - apart from the Catholic Church and a few right-wing Jewish groups - agree completely with this. The fact is our world can not produce enough food to sustain the likely population numbers in the not too distant future. And food is not the only problem. Water, and access to continuing supplies, is now becoming a huge political issue. In this part of the world, reduced Himalayan glacial run-off due to global warming will inevitably start to have an effect on the major regional rivers. The countries though which these rivers flow (e.g. China) are already installing dams to ensure future supply and thus reducing the supply to countries further down the flow.

 

The result is we cut our oil imports and trade deficit drastically and produce homes and vehicles that pollute less (and, in the process, create a few million jobs to get all this done).

Surely another effective way for the US to cut oil imports is to tax gas for vehicle use at a much more realistic rate in order to make other forms of propellant even more cost effective. I believe gas prices are presently around $3.10 per gallon on average. In the UK they are somewhere around

[Bob]

Surely another effective way for the US to cut oil imports is to tax gas for vehicle use at a much more realistic rate in order to make other forms of propellant even more cost effective. I believe gas prices are presently around $3.10 per gallon on average. In the UK they are somewhere around £1.30 per litre. The calculation is then quite simple. With 1 US gallon = 3.785 litres, a gallon of gas in the UK is around $5 more than in the US. Much of Europe has similar pricing.

 

While I don't disagree that this would have been a better policy in the long run, the US didn't do that and certainly can't make any bold strokes in that direction in the near future as it would cause too much more eonomic havoc. Based on what I read, natural gas is already competitive with gasoline at $3.00 a gallon so all we need is the government will to force the alternative. But the right wing Republicans will use all their campaign money from the traditional oil companies to fight that tooth and nail, the national interest be damned.

[Guest voldemar]

For once, I agree with most of the Bob suggestions. Regarding the world's problems, it is high time for US to concentrate on resolving national problems: there is no overpopulation in US but the national debt is huge. Environmental problems are there but they are trumped

by budget deficits and national debt. By the way, US has 870 billion barrels of oil reserves which is more than Saudi Arabia and Canada combined. Development of national resources would also create a lot of high paid jobs which cannot be outsourced ( look what is going on in Australia and compare with the fact that most of solar panels are produced in China).

[Bob]

Brazil is the one country in the western hemisphere that ought to stand as an example for their bigger northern brothers. They elected to attempt to achieve energy independence (seeing it as both a security issue and important economic issue)and by and large achieved that in the last few years through the use of ethanol from sugar cane. And they're laughing all the way to the bank (besides providing huge benefits for future generations).

 

We (the US) can do it but neither political party has the balls or forsight to even suggest such a plan. To them, long-term planning means raising money for the next congressional election held in 2 years or less (sadly and pathetically, some of those creeps are actually raising money for the next election before they're even been sworn into office for the last one!).

[Guest]

I believe gas prices are presently around $3.10 per gallon on average. In the UK they are somewhere around

[Guest fountainhall]

there is no overpopulation in US but the national debt is huge

At $14.13 trillion - or 96.4% of GDP, it's becoming frightening. In 2000 it stood at just 56.6%. Yet, Japan's national debt is now over 200% of GDP. Who should be more scared - US citizens or Japanese citizens? I read somewhere that since more than 90% of Japan's debt is held within the country by citizens who seem happy to sit on their holdings without worrying much about the rate of return, that country is actually in a better position than the US, where 40%+ is held outside the country and therefore subject to the whims of external bond holders.

 

I suppose Japan's time bomb is its rapidly ageing population coupled with younger generations who just do not want to have kids, or have decided they can't afford them. The country seems to be quite literally dying.

[Guest voldemar]

At $14.13 trillion - or 96.4% of GDP, it's becoming frightening. In 2000 it stood at just 56.6%. Yet, Japan's national debt is now over 200% of GDP. Who should be more scared - US citizens or Japanese citizens? I read somewhere that since more than 90% of Japan's debt is held within the country by citizens who seem happy to sit on their holdings without worrying much about the rate of return, that country is actually in a better position than the US, where 40%+ is held outside the country and therefore subject to the whims of external bond holders.

 

I suppose Japan's time bomb is its rapidly ageing population coupled with younger generations who just do not want to have kids, or have decided they can't afford them. The country seems to be quite literally dying.

Your analysis is correct but there is one substantial difference between Japan and US:

Japan has substantial trade surplus, whereas US has huge trade deficit. As a result Jap.

Yen is very strong despite recent downgrades of their government debt by rating agencies. Many economists count not only US debt but also huge unfunded government obligations (mostly on entitlement programs). If you combine these two factors, the numbers are staggering.

I lived in Japan and from my experience, Japanese have unlimited faith in their money

and have no trouble keeping their savings in local banks (which pay no interest). And, indeed, the purchasing power of Yen did not diminish recently. On the contrary, in US many wealthy Americans lost the faith in local financial system and money flying out the country with growing speed.

In my view, US has a clear deadline set up by Chinese. It is 2020 where according Chinese authorities Shanghai should become world financial centre. Renminbi should be convertible for this to happen and the moment it happens US dollar will loose its status as world reserve currency. If transition were gradual (like between UK pound and US dollar),

it would not mean imminent crash of Dollar. But if Chinese wait for the right moment and make abrupt change, it would be absolute disaster for US.

[Guest fountainhall]

I also lived in Japan and was amazed at how much a cash society it remains. Even with interest rates at or near zero, the Japanese are happy to keep their substantial savings in cash. Still today, I have noticed that cash is much more often used than credit and debit cards.

 

Going back to the democracy discussion, isn't Japan an example of how democracy can be like a lead weight on a country? For all its post-war advances and its hugely increased wealth, western style democracy just does not work there. The country has effectively been paralysed for decades. I have several times praised the book Bangkok Found by Alex Kerr, who is not only one of the great Asiaphiles, he lived for decades in Japan and speaks fluent Japanese Another of his books, Dogs and Demons, basically lays out the reasons why a deeply corrupt political and economic system devastated Japan after decades of spectacular growth. As he says in the Preface:

 

Japan's way of doing things essentially froze in about 1965. For thirty years . . . Japanese officialdom slept like Brunnhilde on a rock, protected by the magic ring of fire that excluded foriegn influence and denied citizens a voice in government. But decades after a long sleep . . . reality came riding on a horse through the ring of fire, and he was not a welcome suitor . . . Led by bureaucracies on automatic pilot, the nation has carried certain policies to extremes that would be comical were they not also at times terrifying.

Whilst administrative reform of the bureaucracy was the mantra of the last decade of the 20th century after the house had come crashing down, all that happened in the first years of the 21st was that most effort has gone into simply renaming and enlarging ministries rather than reforming them - all at tremendous expense. As Kerr writes: "'Reform' of this nature would be called 'stagnation' in any other country."

 

So, if cultural and historical traditions, aligned with political ineptitude, an out-of-control bureaucracy and a public too willing to retreat into its tiny homes after brief expressions of political rebellion and anger, result in 'stagnation' in Japan, what hope is there for democracy and democratic values in much poorer Arab countries, whose culture and traditions have untl recently been based exclusively on tribal loyalty rather than loyalty to a state?

[Guest voldemar]

 

So, if cultural and historical traditions, aligned with political ineptitude, an out-of-control bureaucracy and a public too willing to retreat into its tiny homes after brief expressions of political rebellion and anger, result in 'stagnation' in Japan, what hope is there for democracy and democratic values in much poorer Arab countries, whose culture and traditions have untl recently been based exclusively on tribal loyalty rather than loyalty to a state?

It is a good question. I am not an expert on Middle East but here is my 2 cents.

The key question to ask does one believe that Saudi Arabia can be a Democracy in Western sense of the word within next 100 years. My personal answer is no. Earlier I suggested

that Egypt cannot be democratic due to economic reasons. Saudi Arabia is a wealthy country and this argument would not work. Several years ago there was a poll over there which suggested that in case of free elections Osama Ben Laden could win. It may no longer be true at the moment but it does not matter. The strain of Islam (wahabi) which dominates the place is simply incompatible with Western values. The place is an ideological center of Sunni branch of the religion which is in the process of rapid expansion and it is now recognized by people like Cameron and Merkel (who reconsider their concept of multi-culturalism) and countries like Switzerland which banned (as a result of referendum) construction of new mosques. In other words, one can talk about clash of civilizations rather than their convergence.

I have a different take on Shiate branch of Islam. Recently I participated in research conference in Chiang Mai. It is hardly was of any interest from research viewpoint but gave a rare opportunity to meet colleagues from Malaysia, Pakistan and Iran among other places.

In particular, I had several long conversations with my colleagues from Iran.

From my student years, I know that Iranians are very intelligent people with whom I could talk about everything except for Palestinian-Israel conflict. Thus, I took this opportunity...

Do not forget that Persian culture is one of the oldest and most sophisticated in the world. The idea that at some point they should be nuked because of whatever is totally unacceptable for me. Nor do I believe that "people's rebellion" will sweep away ayatollas because regime has a substantial support especially among poor...

Nevertheless, a little war (financed this time by Sunni sheiks who are very willing)

could, in fact, lead to regime change and establishing Western type of Democracy. This ideas could find a fertile ground in certain urban areas of Teheran, Isfahan or Shiraz...

Do not forget that we need a little war to finish this nasty depression, anyway...

That is, of course, very cynical scenario which may never materialize but that was my conclusion from a conversation with two Iranian professors...

[Guest]

Your analysis is correct but there is one substantial difference between Japan and US:

Japan has substantial trade surplus, whereas US has huge trade deficit. As a result Jap.

Yen is very strong despite recent downgrades of their government debt by rating agencies.

 

I agree. That's one very strong difference. Japan might have a quite hopeless GOVERNMENT but the rest of the economy has amassed considerable wealth. Give me a big balance of trade surplus with slow growth over borrow & spend with a trade deficit any day.

Also, it's easy to keep your money in the bank when inflation is near zero. In the UK, we have around 4% inflation.

[Guest fountainhall]

On a slight tangent, I read in today's South China Morning Post that Hong Kong's total cash reserves now stand at HK$1.3 trillion - that's US$166 billion, enough to give every family in the territory a cash bonus of US$64,000! The government's reason for building up such a cash pile is to save for a rainy day! But as the Post writer points out, Hong Kong's worst ever year was at the end of the Asian economic recession in 2001/2 when the fiscal deficit was US$8 billion. The IMF suggested in a study 3 years ago that the reserves should ideally be at 30% to 50% of GDP. The present level is 71%.

 

Hong Kong is not a fully democracy society. It has democratic institutions but the government is a mix of directly elected and - to all intents and purposes - appointed representatives. It is certainly not one-man-one-vote. Yet, without full democracy, maximum tax rates of between 15% and 17%, and no natural resources except its people, it has one of the most competitive and most free economies in the world. It is also pretty much free of corruption. Could it be a model for Middle East nations as they emerge from dictatorships? Even though they do not have China on their doorstep, most of them have natural resources.

[Guest]

The people of Hong Kong deserve the wealth they have amassed through their own hard work.

The three Asian countries with the highest living standards are Singapore, Hong Kong & Taiwan (on PPP basis). That's what you get with hard working Chinese people and low taxes.

Cultural differences will ensure the people of the middle east will neither achieve nor deserve the same.

[Guest fountainhall]

The people of Hong Kong deserve the wealth they have amassed through their own hard work.

The three Asian countries with the highest living standards are Singapore, Hong Kong & Taiwan (on PPP basis). That's what you get with hard working Chinese people and low taxes.

The Chinese as a people certainly work hard. But I think it is more than just that. The vast majority of the peoples in all three countries were essentially economic migrants. In Hong Kong, most of the population are first or second generation immigrants who fled there after it became obvious that Mao would win over Chiang Kai-Shek in the late 1940s, when Mao reneged on his promises to the Shanghainese businessmen in 1951, or in one of the many waves of immigration thereafter, until the door was effectively shut in 1980. Initially, few had many possessions. They had no choice but to work hard to provide food on the table, a roof over their heads and money for their children's eduction.

 

The same is true of many of the expatriates who came to Hong Kong - to make a better life for themselves. Interestingly, for many decades, poor people in Hong Kong did not envy the rich Their view was that if one poor guy can become rich, we all can. Hong Kong's richest man started life making plastic flowers.

 

The scenario in Taiwan is only slightly different. Chiang brought his followers to Formosa in the expectation that it was a temporary move and that they would soon return to the mainland. Nixon's rapprochement with China effectively killed that notion. Once Chiang died a few years later and his son took over, the Kuomintang knew they had no choice but to make a go of living in Taiwan.

 

Singapore is another different scenario, but it was transformed from virtually a swamp into a thriving city state, mostly by hard work, but also by another factor common in Hong Kong - effective leadership, and eventually a rooting out of corruption.

 

From this distance, it's really hard to see where the Arab states can find that drive to succeed, effective leadership and an end to corruption. And so I will have to agree with z909's conclusion.

[Guest fountainhall]

Small article in the Bangkok Post this morning about the loyalty some people are still showing towards one of the great murderers of the 20th century

[Guest fountainhall]

Hong Kong's total cash reserves now stand at HK$1.3 trillion - that's US$166 billion, enough to give every family in the territory a cash bonus of US$64,000!

Slightly embarrassed by the size of its surplus, the HK government has recently decided to give every permanent resident a small cash bonus of US$760. This applies also to those who live overseas