People often ask me why I even bother to care. As if “I”, indeed, can really do anything largely impactful. (It appears most of them are quicker to cast doubt on you than support you. I don’t allow myself to be thwarted by their negativity.) After being asked this question several times lately- I’ve reflected back to where my awareness of impending humanitarian crises first began. The point when I recognized the presence of a world beyond my own small existence and its simultaneously occurring events. (Does that sound cheesy enough yet?)

I just finished the 4th grade and was in Phoenix, visiting my Aunt and Uncle. After playing outside for hours, the parching heat chased me indoors. I needed water! I slid open her screen door and slammed it behind myself just to hear the echo. I was the only “non- adult” in the house. My footsteps on the tile floor were the only sounds, besides the television and voices of my family members on the patio. Alone to sneak a cookie or two- what opportunity!

I glanced curiously at the television. The news was on and I watched a group of men carrying a boy from a burning building. One of his legs was completely crushed and the other bleeding. He was grabbing the arms of the NATO paramedics begging them to let him live and not to amputate his leg. I remember barely being able to read the subtitles at the bottom of the screen. The continued footage showed groups of orphaned and injured children, whom I quickly realized, were the same age as me…

I never stopped to think about this before. I always thought all other children were just like me. They had the same things as I had. They had parents as good as mine, food, a place to go to school and a bed to sleep in. (I also thought health care was free and food was too- damn, was I wrong!)

Someone called my name from the patio. I went back outside- telling my relatives that “I never wanted to watch the news again”. I was distraught and damaged. I never forgot about that boy. The footage was a Serbian attack on Bosnia. At the time- I didn’t realize how much the event I witnessed bared relation to a distant stranger. Here is why:

My family was living in West Virginia when I was about 2 years old. A young woman of about 19 years old moved into the apartment next to us. She spoke no English and was sent to the US by an arranged family marriage from Bosnia. She was doe eyed, bewildered and within months gave birth to a son- who became my best friend and first “boyfriend”. We often played together as my mother aided his young mother in learning English.

Sadly, her husband was abusive and my family eventually moved to South Carolina. She called us one day- telling my mother she was taken to a “bad house”. My mother urged her to return to her family in Bosnia. This was right before the wars and the siege of Sarajevo.

I always wondered what happened to him. He would be my age now and I have never been able to find him since. If he returned to the Balkans as his mother said they would- the crisis would have directly affected him. Maybe he was somewhere behind those cameras on that news footage or maybe he is safe and more affluent then me. At least this is what I hope…

It’s difficult to gage the exact point in your life when you realize this truth: We are not created equal. Our teachers, parents and politicians tell us that we are. This is not in any way accurate.  We indeed are victims of the cultural framework we are born into from the beginning. Our deviations from this depend on our education and exposures.

Today, I reflect on just a few months ago as I watched the amount of displaced persons in Pakistan climb from a few hundred thousand to millions in just two weeks. Jeffery Sach’s book “The End of Poverty” presents statistics revealing that 1/3 of humanity has not even reached the “bottom rung” on the ladder of economic development. Out of the 6 billion people in this world this fraction would represent roughly 2 billion, including the 45 million uprooted and displaced by war. That’s 1/3 of the world’s people without food, clean water or basic amenities, which is 1/3 TOO MANY…

“French Filmmaker Philippe Diaz, in an illuminating documentary opening in New York Friday, traces globalisation back 500 years to the Spanish and Portuguese conquests of the Americas. Diaz shows how the colonial North used the South’s resources to build its industrial base and how its continued control over resources, global trade and debt rules prevents developing countries from ending poverty.”

It won’t be coming to a theater within several hundred miles of me, but i’ll be keeping my eye out for the DVD release

“The title is a play on a book by economist Jeffrey Sachs – without the question mark – who, Diaz told IPS, ‘runs all around the world with Bono and these guys claiming that if we bring mosquito nets and fertilizers, it will end poverty.’”

“For example, Diaz is incredulous that Sachs’s book ascribes Bolivia’s economic failure to high altitude. He points out that 30 years ago, Sachs advised the Bolivian government to privatize everything, and today the country is essentially owned by foreign corporations.”

Read the rest at Inter Press Service

I think Intro to International Development is easily my favorite class this semester. I haven’t loved a class this deeply since Magic, Witchcraft and Sorcery Fall 08. I participate maybe even a little too much in Int. Development. But as nerdy as it sounds, I love economics. Jeffery Sachs’ “The End of Poverty” was the best book I read last summer and I adore “Freakonomics”.

What I’m now so sure of is that I am going into development for my graduate studies. It’s not like I didn’t see it before (my emphasis is applied anthropology) But it’s different when you’re like, “no–now I know for sure this is what I want to do.” 

I can’t understand it:

While film comes intuitively to me, I feel like I must be the worst film major ever. Theory–I’ve got that down pat. It’s second nature. But as far as working the hardware, I’m all thumbs. Last year I was convinced I wasn’t remarkably good at anything. I could match colors really well and that was about all I had going for me. Shoot. I don’t even like watching movies. I’m an embarrassment to the major, really. Meanwhile, I’m sweating it in anthro classes, trying to grasp the concepts and keep straight all the theories–not to mention memorizing the bone features of australopithecine skulls and stripes on Anasazi pottery–stuff I couldn’t care less about. And yet–I LOVE IT. I can’t get enough of anthro classes.

It’s a mystery to the whole film dept why I’m there and how I ended up directing the Biola film. Now, regardless of what happens to me in the future, I can’t deny I like what I like now and PTL that we’re not set in stone as people just yet. You may get out of film school and become a contractor. Who knows. I might get married after graduation and have triplets. The beauty of going to school is I can do both anthro and film and love it all. Some days more than others, granted–but perhaps because “Still” has so much humanity within it, the anthropologist in me rejoices. Perhaps it’s because of my experiences. Who knows. I’m not too concerned with trying to figure myself out.

With every one trying to pay down debt, we’re trapped in a vicious cycle.  If we’re all getting liposuction, eventually there’s no need for plastic surgeons.  So, it’s great that we’re on a diet and everything – suddenly concerned about our past excesses.  And it’s okay that we want to look good.  But how do we maintain that healthy weight?  How do we stop our anorexic spiral?  And what about those poor surgeons?

I know – weird analogy, but it’s what came to me.  Richard Koo, the Chief Economist at the Nomura Research Institute (part of one of Japan’s major conglomerates that includes Japan’s best known, eponymous securities firm), did a presentation last month that has been floating around the economic dens of iniquity.  There has been much talk for a while about the “balance sheet recession” that Koo describes.

With all of the talk about Japan’s lost decade, and how the current crisis has so many similarities, Koo lays out a comparison very nicely.  He even tosses in some Asian vaqueros by the names of Yin and Yang (one wears a white hat, the other a black one).

Here are Koo’s slides:

Krugman has some interesting thinking about the concept as well, although he says he has to noodle on it a bit longer.  Here’s his preliminary analysis.  Money quote:

“It [Koo's argument] also suggests a positive role for fiscal expansion — and an answer to the line that debt got us into this, so how can it get us out? What this style of modeling suggests is that over the course of the whole cycle, the problem isn’t so much excessive debt as the fact that everyone tries to increase or reduce debt at the same time. What deficit spending can do is stabilize things: you have one big player in the economy that is increasing debt when the economy is stuck in a paradox-of-thrift world, then pays that debt down when the private sector is happy to borrow.”

Anyway, Koo explains things very much as the Cowboy sees them.  You are in a vicious cycle.  You have a couple of options: fiscal and monetary.  Monetary is tapped out, so you have to do fiscal even if you don’t like it.  And on the fiscal front, spending works better than taxes.

In terms of other economic chatter, here are the Cowboy’s views:

• “Green shoots“:  Well okay, maybe, but it’s like winter in New England – we still have a long way to go before heading to the Vineyard.
• The Sachs Loophole:  Yes indeed, but preventing this kind of thing has to be part of the details.  Let’s keep focusing on ironing out the details before tossing out the whole plan.  Here are the Cowboy’s past thoughts on the plan.
• G20:  Lots of negativity out there, but the Cowboy likes being positive.  Are everyone’s expectations running just a bit too high?  At least The Economist bundles theire negativity with some interesting discussion of the IMF.

Hmmm…   Maybe the Cowboy should get some work done?  The horse has been giving him disapproving looks lately.  Now what’s the name of that nice plastic surgeon on the teevee?

There is a growing debate in the halls of Washington, whether to bailout the ailing auto-industry. Some interesting columns have come out in the mean time.

Some are for the bailout with conditions and others are saying – “hell no”. Auto industry in US is one of the largest, next to oil and gas industry. Jobs in the industrial mid-west are mostly connected with this industry. This industry is so big, that nearly 1in 10 workers in America are connected in some manner with this industry.

The – “hell no” case:

American cars are gas guzzlers. The market space for fuel efficient cars is taken by the Asian cars, such as Honda and Toyota. The Honda’s and Toyota’s are cheaper, low maintenance , consume about 1 gallon for every 15-20 miles. So the question arises- why is Detroit making gas guzzlers ? Simple answer- that’s all they know, Probably? The management and the Unions are locked in battles , the designs have not changed over time to adapt with the new times. Why help them , when we know they are going to fail down the road? When will bailing out industries stop. Who is next, Chinese panda express?

The “No” case arguments by Brooks, Megan McArdle and Krauthammer are the best.

The yes Case: These times are not ordinary. The economy is very fragile, more like on thin ice. The economy might not able to width stand the shock of this magnitude and could lead to dire consequences not just in the US but abroad as well. But should we just give the big 3 automakers 25billion? No. We could certainly impose conditions. But conditions have to be imposed both on the Unions and the management.

The yes case is articulated best by Robert J. Samuelson and Sachs.

I am for the Yes case.

Earlier this summer, I attended a conference on Capitol Hill about poverty in Africa (as many of you know – this is my “specialty”). Although I didn’t hear anything terribly ”new” on the situation in Africa, I was struck by the pessimism of the speakers. Bascially, Africa is what it is – we can study it, hope for the best, but the actual likelihood of change – well, that’s slim to none.

I have also encountered the overly optimistic view on African poverty. Jeffery Sachs (notable economist from Harvard), claims that just by giving more and more money to Africa, we can SOLVE poverty! Solve… like it’s a linear algebra problem that has one right answer.

Perhaps I just enjoy playing the devil’s advocate, but to both positions I say – Not so! I understand the reality of the situation in Africa – death, disease, hunger, lack of infrastructure, stability, corruption everywhere – it’s a rough place. I also understand the desire to have a solution (especially one that you can present to the public in order to raise funding). However, I have noticed a disproportionate lack of people in the middle, people who feel as I do, that while the situation is dire and the problems are plentiful, there are certain actions that we can take to encourage growth, better medicine transfers, more productive agriculture, etc.

To the optimists, I would be a pessimist. To the pessimists – an optimist. I have been called out on both sides numerous times. There are always the people who look sideways at you and say something sly like “You know you’re not actually going to make any sort of perceptible difference right? I mean – sure if you want to hole yourself up in an office and study Africans forever, go ahead… but you’re work/life is pretty much pointless.” And then there are those who, with eyes shining in admiration say something like “OH!  That’s such good work. You can do sooo much over there, can’t wait to see it! You know… I gave a check to that one AIDS relief fund just the other week! Let me go find their address… I bet you can work with them!” For once, I just like someone to say…. “Wow that’s a huge area with a ton of problems. I was reading about this one project that did have some success though. I bet you’ll be able to have some small-scale effect – maybe that will spill over.”

Perhaps this is just my soapbox, but I wonder why people all over the spectrum of education (from people who know nothing about economics in Africa, to those who are professors of such) take such tight views on whether or not we can be successful. Why are we even talking about what we can do? Shouldn’t we be focusing on what they – the Africans – can do? I think that if our perspectives are correctly aligned, and we focus on the right people doing the things that need to be done, a tempered position of knowledgable optimism is the right view to take. I’m not advocating naivety, but rather the simple realization that the situation in Africa is, for the most part, out of the hands of the US. Yes, those of us working in the field can do something… something to help the people of Africa to help themselves.

 ”Following a course of treatment there is usually an impairment of memory, varying from a slight tendency to forget names to a severe confusional state. The memory defect diminishes gradually over several months. Electroconvulsive therapy, like insulin shock, declined in use after the tranquilizing drugs were introduced.” (E. Britannica)

“Only paranoid survive” (Andrew. S. Grove)

Not taking it as psychopathology, but reasonable doubt is needed.  I am back to news. Can’t avoid them even if i would like to. (Next step could be isolation, i guess.) And they make me sad. More food crises, Iran trains Al-Qaeda-intervention needed, South Korean workers died in air trike in Syria!!! working on nuclear plant. O, yes, i do believe…

And some more evidence from independent media how official media is orchestrated and how crises are tool for achieving goals…no matter if there is solid ground for crisis or not. Difference between normal crisis and invented one is that natural is developing gradually while invented one appears out of the blue.  (It’s nomal brain acctivity to be shocked while something unpredictable appears all of the sudden). And it’s always named  as a crises of century. And people have to be aware and participate into solving it. And all big media call people on duty.

How perverted. Crises, invented by elite and in purpose to keep them alive, is put into the responsibility of good citizen behaviour. And, yea, good citizen is the one, who listens the government guidelines. When nation is in crises, all anarchy and liberalism is act against humanity.

How better to stop the high growth of Chinese economy, which is evident treat to American economy , than with Tibetan riots and high rise prices. Internal affairs and hungry people slow down economical growth for sure. 33 countries, defined by UN, are facing hunger problem right now. They’ve been advised to liberalise the market  by UN, WTO or IMT. Liberalisation in dictionary of neoconservatives. Even more perverted.

After all this liberalisation, 3rd countries have 11$ billion minus in food export  balance, while they had 6$ billions plus in 1960s. Liberalization of the market in exchange for big loans and to wide open export for American farmers, heavily subsidised by US government. 3rd countries in vicious circle. Less food, more import, high interest rate on loans…By just moving needle in price of food or interest rate, those countries are on verge to survive. What is happening just now. And media are just great tool of bandmasters (see article bellow).

Living in post- communistic country i know how shock theory has been applied in economical terms (Jeffery Sachs), as psychologist i saw the effect on people applied on. In both cases, i am against. It’s manipulation on most primal level of human being. I exclude severe psychopathology cos i don’t know enough about results of treatments there.

Pentagon Propaganda: So Much Worse Than We Thought 

“Clarke and her senior aide, Brent T. Krueger, eventually signed up more than 75 retired military officers who penned newspaper op/ed columns and appeared on television and radio news shows as military analysts. The Pentagon held weekly meetings with the military analysts, which continued as of April 20, 2008, when the New York Timesran Barstow’s story. The program proved so successful that it was expanded to issues besides the Iraq War. “Other branches of the administration also began to make use of the analysts. Mr. Gonzales, then the attorney general, met with them soon after news leaked that the government was wiretapping terrorism suspects in the United States without warrants, Pentagon records show. When David H. Petraeus was appointed the commanding general in Iraq in January 2007, one of his early acts was to meet with the analysts.”

What Causes Shock?

There are multiple causes of shock and symptoms depending on which type of shock you are dealing with. Causes of Psychological Shock

Jeffrey D. Sachs is the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. He is also Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. From 2002 to 2006, he was Director of the UN Millennium Project and Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millennium Development Goals, the internationally agreed goals to reduce extreme poverty, disease, and hunger by the year 2015. Sachs is also President and Co-Founder of Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization aimed at ending extreme global poverty.

He is widely considered to be the leading international economic advisor of his generation. For more than 20 years Professor Sachs has been in the forefront of the challenges of economic development, poverty alleviation, and enlightened globalization, promoting policies to help all parts of the world to benefit from expanding economic opportunities and wellbeing. He is also one of the leading voices for combining economic development with environmental sustainability, and as Director of the Earth Institute leads large-scale efforts to promote the mitigation of human-induced climate change.

Jeffery Sachs Interview on Charlie Rose

http://www.JustLikeMyChild.org The Just Like My Child Foundation works to provide healthcare, malaria prevention and treatment, HIV/AIDS ARV treatment, education through scholarships and building schools

John Quiggin posted on the opportunity cost of the Iraq war recently which stimulated a fair bit of discussion.

Among the comments was one from Stewart Kelly who mused over why spending US$100bn on a war seemingly presents no problem yet there is far less enthusiasm for expenditure that might help a country to develop and attain reasonable living standards. It has often occurred to me that if the US devoted the equivalent of the military budget to foreign aid they might not have nearly as many enemies around the world and the terrorist threat may never raise its ugly head. A favourite article of mine on this subject appeared in The Economist last October entitled Weapons of mass salvation by Jeffrey Sachs. It is well worth a read. The opening paragraph reads as follows:
If George Bush spent more time and money on mobilising Weapons of Mass Salvation (WMS) in addition to combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), we might actually get somewhere in making this planet a safer and more hospitable home. WMD can kill millions and their spread to dangerous hands needs to be opposed resolutely. WMS, in contrast, are the arsenal of life-saving vaccines, medicines and health interventions, emergency food aid and farming technologies that could avert literally millions of deaths each year in the wars against epidemic disease, drought and famine. Yet while the Bush administration is prepared to spend $100 billion to rid Iraq of WMD, it has been unwilling to spend more than 0.2% of that sum ($200m) this year on the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Sachs continues: If we were to send teams of “UN development inspectors” into the United States, the results would not be pretty. First, they would discover a nearly total disconnect between global commitments and domestic politics … Second, they would find complete disarray with regard to the organisation, budgeting, and staffing necessary to fulfil the commitments. White House and State Department foreign-policy experts are overwhelmingly directed towards military and diplomatic issues, not development issues. Senior development specialists in the Treasury can be counted on one hand. America’s government is not even aware of the gap between its commitments and action, because almost nobody in authority understands the actions that would be needed to meet the commitments.