Jan-July 2005 Archives

July 29, 2005

As a kind of fare well to livejournal, more scummy expat musings. (Updated with new and improved...)

A self indulgent reflexion.

First, a funny message yesterday from an overseas colleague who I saw while travelling two weeks ago brought home a rather simple lesson which may be summed up as follows: "It is always a mistake to go with a colleague of the opposite sex to a scummy bar that involves stripping." I note that I was not the author of the destination decision. Silence, only possible reply.

Also probably should not have had quite so much to drink during said visit insofar as I can only vaguely recall leaving - thank God that I did though. Very uncomfortable that.

Second, the new apartment is working out not badly. The somewhat unfortunate walls are growing on me, although I have now learned that the co-owner of said apartment has scheduled an irrevocable partnership signing date. Well, I creatively forgot about this twice, but barreling down on me now. Bloody hell, ah well most multinational joint ventures end in failure. Will this one beat the odds?

I have no idea, I can only share that in confiding this to a longtime friend, he told me that when he told his wife -who has had the misfortune of both being married to him and knowing me- she dropped the phone. That seems a bit excessive.

Otherwise, one of the things I enjoy about my new terrace is (besides its better sun facing, although have to find ways to deal with the apartment heating up � hate air conditioning, window fans are probably the best choice) that there is a highly sporting woman across the way � I mean across the street at a similar balcony level � who besides (despite wearing something of a traditional hijab) being rather fetching makes interesting noises late at night. Not that one would hear if one was not out on one�s balcony late at night, but nevertheless.

I have to ponder, is she a professional?

One of those things that should remain a mystery, for either answer is likely to take the bloom off the rose, as it were.

Nevertheless, the fetching young maiden in the head wrap (I hope I am not getting my hearing wrong, should be very disappointed if I were) I think will amuse me for months to come.

Otherwise, this new Fund negotiation seems positive so far except for their tedious insistance that I come to the United States. Have not yet succeeded in selling them on the value add for them of my continuing my scummy existance as an expat.

Finally from Central we have received yet another absurd "question / demand" regarding why in our reporting we have not been providing receipts for taxis, parking and the like. I wonder how many times I have to explain "THE MOTHERFUCKING TAXI DRIVERS ARE LARGELY FUCKING ILLITERATE, AND THERE ARE NO FUCKING METERS, AND THE BLOODY 'STREET GUARDIANS' ARE ALSO FUCKING ILLITERATE MIGRANTS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE BLOODY BLED, FOR IF THEY WERE FUCKING LITERATE THEY'D WORK A SLIGHTLY LESS AWFUL AND POORLY PAID JOB, YOU CLUELESS IDIOTIC TIME WASTING VALUE SUBTRACTING DIMWITTED GITS."

I expect this will continue until my resignation. I've set a deadline, the New Year, resigning and fucking off. Let the Titanic sink beneath the waves. Or maybe end of First Quarter, insofar as I have recently had my analysis and propositions on what business they should be focusing on validated by outside sources, and I would get some strange pleasure out of leaving them just as they were trying to ramp that up.

I note - thanks to a comment by Pantom - that I now live closer to a famous landmark, and am considering, why not the Blue Parrot? It should exist.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq: Peculiar and Misunderstanding Journals

I got this comment on my brief comment on an Iraqi brokerage (http://www.livejournal.com/users/collounsbury/360731.html), which somewhat puzzled me and certainly amused me at some level :

Continue reading "Iraq: Peculiar and Misunderstanding Journals"

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 25, 2005

Email and the like

Checking email from afar, I am touched to find that Embassy wants to know if I am still alive. I helpfully let them know that as of yet I have had the good graces to not get blown up on their watch and was not doing vac in Egypt, although suffering from the attentions of a European airport staff is almost as bad.

Also Central has suddenly sent around a note to overseas staff requesting emergency contact information in case "of need." I suppose they're counting the days until one of us gets blown to bits. Wonder if it would be entirely tactless to raise the concept of danger bonuses. Not that I need one, but why not extract a concession or two?

Finally, a note from a colleague asked me to transfer to his office as he needs people "with well developed character" around.

This last item puzzled me - "well developed character."

Hard to read that.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 23, 2005

On The Road During Bombing Week

At present stuck in a European airport whose benighted service (one can guess which one) almost approaches the horrors inflicted upon one flying international to the United States (I share for you the near universal disdain among my fellow business travellers for the chicken little over the top insanity of US airport security which since my last visit has gotten yet more idiotic. But details are for another time).

I note via this entirely inadequate wireless connexion that I see Egypt has had another bombing. Looks bloody bad. It has been an interesting week.

Regular collounsbury service resumes when back to home base, next week.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 18, 2005

Stunningly bad

I had dinner with some senior finance and US officials this evening, and discussed with them a concept that is being batted about among US Gov re a equity fund for the region. I was in love with this until this evening. As I listened I went from being voluble to silence. It is so stunningly badly conceived as to take my breath away. Among the key snippets I share is the argument from the main US Gov mover on this, that they could use the proposed fund to lobby and force political change.

Continue reading "Stunningly bad"

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The US of A

Back in the States for the first time in quite a while. Always amused by how fat people are. Tubby people everywhere. Of course ever escalating portions I note seems to be reaching Roman levels of gluttony. Connexion?

Regardless, going to be very busy packing in meetings in my rare pilgrimage to the centers of power and the like.

Everyone seems to taling about the Karl Rove and Plame issue. I find the topsy turvey politics peculiar, but unsurprising. Rather clearly they leaked a secret agent's name for sordid political score settling. Law aside, that should be punished, sordid political score settling should be within certain bounds. I'm unhappy the "Conservatives" - or as I have taken to refering to these people, Right Bolsheviks - do not see that sometimes one has to cut out from the fold for one's own good. Having Agency people involved in open political warfare is a bad, period.

Well, no matter, not my concern in the end.

Else I draw attention to this important article in The Washington Post.
In Egypt's Countryside, Farmers' Anger Seen As 'Silent Time Bomb'
Recent Revolt Over Rents and Evictions Draws Support of Mubarak Opponents
By Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 17, 2005; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601172.html

Will comment on later.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 16, 2005

Turkish Developments

On the road at the moment, I note reports of the resort bombings in Turkey, one of which is reported to have a Kurdish connexion.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 14, 2005

Various things

As I prepare to fuck off we get (as usual from on high with no preparation) an annoucement that management is restructuring central. The key take aways after reading the long PRish and yet poorly written note was my favorite MD is fucked and on her way out, and that the organisation is now entering a new, uniquely self destructive phase of running around like lunatics in panic because the iceberg ripped its guts open.

Continue reading "Various things"

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq Brokerage Comment

Well, at the request of Jerry I had a look at the brokerage site of www.isx-aman.com and company.

Interesting to be sure. My remarks are inherently superficial as I haven�t much time, but some initial thoughts.

Continue reading "Iraq Brokerage Comment"

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 13, 2005

Banks, Banks and Drooling Morons

I am pleased to announce that the general strike in the banking sector has, in the interest of protecting the opporessed wage slave comrade bankers from (gasp) working an extra half hour, succeeded. The whinging cowards that run this country have backed down in the spectre of unionised bankers in bad pinstripe suits taking to the barricades over the burning issue of wage slavery (yes, wage slavery) in the sector, as suggested by the evil plot to re-arrange working hours.

Continue reading "Banks, Banks and Drooling Morons"

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 12, 2005

Lebanon: The Lebanon II Scenario

No substantive commentary, but I draw attention to this:
Lebanon Deputy Premier Wounded in Blast

The target, a pro-Syrian politician.

I opined months back that I did not like the US supporting a maximalist approach to opposition politics because of the chances of playing into returned inter (and intra) communal violence.

The overall analysis behind this is that while, yes, a majority of Lebanese do not want a return to civil war, as in Iraq, and as in Lebanon - it is not the majority that makes these things happen. One simply needs enough hard men on either side who can make a profit in some manner, via power or money, to push it, and enough weakness on public authority side to be unable to choke the trend off.

Lebanon probably can choke the trend off, but the state is just weak enough that this can't be dismissed.

I also note the potential for a currency crisis which could help precipitate serious tensions.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 11, 2005

Bastards

Well, looks like I bet wrong on who gets the new telcom license. Thought the Egyptians would weasel their way in. Still looks like a well run tender and decision.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Various items of little import

First, having just fielded a call from the other side of the great Atlantic, I am irritated at the monolingual morons bizarre habit of making up their own names for dfis here, usually via bad translation, and then creating an acronym in English for it. I'm getting ask (as an example not the actual question) about the NEDB and blah blah, and my first reaction is "what the fuck is this person talking about, there is no NEDB bank." After some probing, I discover it is actually the BNDE. What the bloody hell was the point in translating the name and then making up your own bloody acronym off of it, that no one the fuck else uses.

Idiots.

Second, friend in town, excellent fellow, known for years. American convert to Islam, right-headed fellow how never fell into what we often refer to as "convertitus" (or being more Muslim than your average Mohammed). He's travelling around this fine country, came into town to visit his corrupt dissolute scummy expat amigo (me of course). Late. Explanation was properly amusing, but also reflects on current events. Being a conniesseur of fine mosques, he had been making rounds in the prior city, made the mistake of rapping with some bearded types (perfectly innocent by his account, which I trust given his experience) when our local Mukhaberat came round to inquire as to the cut of his jib. Four hours of detension and questioning followed for all involved. He was properly put off by the experience, but after rapping with him yesterday I pointed out the emerging network issues in re London - doubtless local authorities are under much pressure to look for strange Euro looking convert types. (Actually he's rather whitebread and preppish, none the of hippy wearing oddball "genuinely Islamic" pastiche wearing silliness one sometimes sees, nor Ikhouane-esque Wahhabite style clothing). Close call, although lacked much deep entertainment value like my last detension - what's a detension if you don't have a gun pointed at you, I say.

I should, when I get back, speak to thoughts on the North African connexions and the like.

Added, for Pratike: there is no Morocco-UK animosity. Moroccan or wider Maghrebine involvement would be entirely on the al-Qaedah thesis of Dar al-Islam at war with the Dar al-Harb / infidels, and in particular the Iraq invasion angle. You know, imperialist dogs and all that.

I should note that Moroccans I know (and I confess I know more than my share) have been universally horrified. For them, brought back rather bad memories of their Casablanca bombings.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Collounsbury Take on Frontier Investing

This was written for comments re investing in Iraq, thought I would reproduce as I rather like it on some level:

The Problems

That aside, 30 percent is a quality return, if and when you realise it. Thin illiquid markets can often show "quality returns" without being able to deliver the liquidity to realise. [In short, a market under buying pressure but little liquidity may appear to be delivering healthy returns, but when it comes sales time to realise, the same mechanics can make it impossible to sell without serious discounts, i.e. price decline - liquidity is the key, else one is trappe, many an emerging markets investor learned that in the gogo years of the emerging markets stock market boom of the mid-1990s.]

Further, electronic trading systems [noted in relationship with Iraq] have never stopped front running, playing with orders and the like. They make it a slight bit harder, but w/o oversight you have false confidence. Among the many things you need is delivery against payment with an operative guarantee system (still doesn't remove the risk as I have seen personally, but helps), and one has to be sure it is operative.

But what the fuck do I know, I've only seen it done in these markets under an electronic trading platform that was and is state of the art.

Finally on the underlying peg discussion, Frankel's theoretical proposal [in an article in the Financial Times suggesting a basked peg with roughly 1/3 Euro, 1/3 dollar, 1/3 weighted price of oil] is an interesting one as a variation on a crawling basket peg, although your online discussion takes his phrase rather far too literally in a classic case of seeking justification for a desired result. The obvious item, rather than the appreciation issue itself or false analogies to post-WW II Germany, to analyze is what a large appreciation means to the Iraqi economy. Any large, short term currency move is a shock to the real economy and few real world policy makers generally avoid such for very good reasons. In Iraq the play off is between current cost of consumption versus current income. That breaks out between consumption of domestic goods and that of tradeables - imports - although obviously some domestic goods depend on imported inputs. Immediately exporters lose the X percent of income, consumers of imports gain X percent of buying pozer, an implicit subsidy to consumption of imports and an implicit tax on domestic production that competes with imports. In short a penalty to the domestic producer economy ex-hydrocarbons.

Second of course, is the impact on real investment (in explicit contrast to speculative hot money such as yours). An X percent appreciation due to a revaluation on a peg immediately raises the cost faced by foreign currency investors for Iraqi assets, with no change in potential returns in the near term, insofar as no economic fundamentals, ex the penalty to real productive economy that is import competing (but with a boost to productive economy that has imported inputs, to the degree they are import factors and cost drivers). It is an effect a penalty to incoming money - as say for example the private equity fund I have consulted with which has USD 70 million in hard currency raised. [I of course did not touch on the disruptive effects of serious real price deflation]

Now, obviously Iraqi policy makers should be looking at these real economy choices, and not things that make hot money speculators happy. It may be that they will decide that subsidising current consumption of imports and current capital imports is more important than creating a stable real economic environment that is well-priced in regards to real assets and allows export competivity. Choosing near term "gifts" to urban consumers, who are heavier consumers of imported goods and services (running from food to white goods) than others typically in this kind of environment, and subsidising capital imports to the detriment of labour competivity is a frequent choice in these economies - certainly Egypt managed to do this ever so brilliantly over the last 30 years with a "strong pound" regime partially backed by its nat gaz and petrol exports.

I certainly hope they don't - but then to you this is merely being "negative." Contemptible speculation aside, I favour the real market and policies to grow it.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:07 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

In presenting your new payment facility

Do not, I repeat, do not call it an "Islamist payment facility" - it's "Islamic" - Islamist means something else you idiot illiterate marketing goon.

Bloody hell, these idiots will want to roll out an Qaeda Basic Islamist Finances Services Platform next.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Timely

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_07/006691.php

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Radio Silence

Nothing to do with my rebranding exercise, have to get a report out and then travel on some extremely tedious business.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 08, 2005

Last note

From a moroccan paper, in English for you all, on reactions to London:
http://www.moroccotimes.com/paper/article.asp?idr=6&id=7973

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Rebranding excercise

As a rebranding excercise, I am renaming this little blog
"Collounsbury Random Rant on MENA & Other Items"

Also, in the near future I am going to impose some .... controls and accessing some portions. I note issue of "interesting" site readership and my own aversion to spotlight has arisen.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 07, 2005

London: Bombings 7 Jul AM

This looks really unpleasant:

Explosions cause chaos across London
By Matthew Jones and Christopher Adams
Published: July 7 2005 09:48 | Last updated: July 7 2005 11:02

Multiple explosions on the London Underground and on three buses have left dozens with terrible injuries and caused services to be suspended across the city in what appears to be a co-ordinated terrorist attack.

Have to email the friends.

updated

Well, no one I know was involved.

Rather expect serious death toll in the end.

Interesting exchanges on items, talked about the IPO the head of the small cap exchange, who was glad to hear some positive news, given his offices were evacuated and he was trying to run things from off site. Promised to send couscous. Had a surreal meeting with an asset manager in town prospecting for clients (probably should have done his homework on the capital controls here before coming, but no matter. Talked about Abraaj and the like); convo turned to his London meetings next week and the awkward question of whether any of his contacts might not be available.

One rather suspects an al-Qaeda connexion here, but should not jump to conclusions.

Had the usual fights about our quarter report, which central wants to get out early - why the fuck they have to do these things in such a disorganized manner escapes me, but growing used to it. Remains a puzzle their bizarre management style, devolving shit to the field and micro-managing.

Very tired, bit drained from this London nonsense. Odd how draining these things can be. Stressful I suppose.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 06, 2005

Last item

Very good arty from FT on MENA markets:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a66c3ca8-ed8a-11d9-9ff5-00000e2511c8.html

Will try to do an Aqoul item on this.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

As an aside before pissing off

It appears I have upset the loons:
http://www.investorsiraq.com/showthread.php?p=74111

My last read of this shows that already my scepticism in regards to their dreams is attributed to some bizarre idea that "I want Iraq to fail" and a particularly entertaining digression about "freedom."

Although there was a kind and rational invitation to discuss things with them, I am afraid the frothing and irrational responses highlight the inescapable conclusion that the major motivation for most participants is a rather simplistic domestic political calculus. That is, their politics are in the drivers seat, not a cold analytical view of Iraq.

Nothing surprising in that, a bit pitiful, but what can we say?

Odd in any case that they picked up on my mocking them a week later, I had lost interest already.

It does make one become more interested in promoting a political fund for persons with more politics than analytical acumen. Structuring is of course the issue, along with (as discussed elsewhere), advertising. On the other hand, an exchange traded fund domiciled ... J or G or maybe Dubai? Can't recall if Dubai or Bahrain has the proper legislation for ETFs.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

IPO

I am a happy man, the IPO came in ten times over. Just got the call. And here I was getting paranoid that the underwriting syndicate was going to end up sucking this up. I is one content and validated bastid. I shall have to celebrate.

Update:
Even better, got the official numbers, 11.7

Excellent, excellent without a doubt.

There is indeed some liquidity to soak up.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

London

I see London had the misfortune of winning the Olypmic competition.

If I was a Parisian I'd be whooping it up right now, celebrating my good fortune that my city was spared the annoyance and needless expense of the Olympics.

If I were a Londoner, I would be quitely drowning my sorrows in a pub over the anticipated rate hikes and chaos, as well as hordes of clueless morons due to descend for the event.

I was lucky that this place dodged the bullet in its ridiculous pursuit of the World Cup.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

An aged BBC Article, but properly sums up the Live8 nonsense

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4079958.stm

No African musicians, a bunch of aging yobs and idjits. Patronisaing facile leftist anti-globo bloviating......

There it is, the fat-assed "progressives" on developing world in a nutshell.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On US Gov and Media Reform, an email

I reproduce here an email from a friend of mine in private equity and media in the Middle East, located out there. And an Arab too, not some whinging expat (ahem).

It is lightly edited to scrub certain references and the like, but I share it for its interest. I note that some US Gov types wanted to meet with media actors, including from the business side. I made the introduction. Here is my amigo's note afterward.

[The Girl with the Laugh] from [The US G Entity] came over this morning to the offices. I hope they do better with media than what they did with technology projects here. I was strongly against pouring money into NGOs and studies. I told her, if you want to make media work, facilitate a healthy environment that enables media start-ups to get healthy institutional investors on pure business considerations.

[some other irrelevant stuff]

Hope you ppt went well, and I look forward to the Bourse material/introductions

Well there it is, one Arab media investor's view of US G thinking on what I suppose is probably going to be a new effort rolled out soon on pissing away money on badly conceived attempts to change the Arab media.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Schedules

Comrades

Have to fuck off for meetings, lots of travel coming up. May be a bit silent. Advance warning on that. Not dead as of yet.

Promised, rant in regards to collapse of FTA issues and childishness of local decision makers.

By the way, I note that the readers, or some portion of them, of the "Iraq Investors Forum" [sic] have come to comment on the 28 June entry or so. You should enjoy.

Update
I forgot to mention that the Put on yours truly has been called. I found an "important" envelope this morning as I staggered out from the bed room to try to flush away the Cuban materials, that fueled a long note on the state of the local securities market, still kicking around in the system.

Contained therein: guidelines on requirements for foreigners to sell their soul and become permanently (or at least legally difficult and expensive to unwind) to the country. Something I contemplate with a mixture of bemusement and horror, but no matter. At least I am "in the money" as it were.... shouldn't have copped to the bloody augmentation, that was clearly an error. Or perhaps I shouldn't have copped to not being entirely happy with the salon.

Well, no matter, I suppose after some delaying tactics to avoid payoff (this being an unregulated market), I shall have to deliver on the contract.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 05, 2005

'Aqoul - Camel's Thorn, ongoing

Well, again a short note to indicate that I had at it, and I do believe I am going to like 'Aqoul (I by the way explain the rather arch reference in my personal intro for those of you that are curious).

This aside, on the matter of the blog, as it is a group blog, and not the main attention of most of the authors, I suspect (and please do correct me if I am wrong) that a diversity of authors will be required. The mistress of this little flight of madness, eerie, is the controller as it were - the Board of Directors. Main investor. Etc. However, for those interested in making the occasional contribution on MENA, please do drop me a line and we can arrange things. Do note, for the moment as the blog tries to find its own "voice" among differing authors everything is getting a look over - even and perhaps most especially me.

I think it wise. Regardless, drop me a line at my yahoo address for further information.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

General Strike, Bankers

Well, today we have something that has to strike any good Anglo Saxon as bordering on the surreal. A general strike declared by the bankers or rather the union that represents the bankers (this being a Code Civil country, we have unions for just about every possible profession, no matter how useless or surreal).

This on the pretext that the adoption of normal banking hours represents �slavery� � yes slavery. Indeed it is slavery to have one�s work hours changed from the highly theoretical 8 to 12:30 � 14:30 to 18:00 to the no doubt equally theoretical 8:30 to 12:30 1:15 to 5:00. A trivial change which merely reduces the Sacred and Inviolate Lunch hour, in theory, from 2 hours to 45 minutes, but lets one out earlier.

So, the Trade Unions have declared strikes to fend off this evil �Anglo Saxon� intrusion into the �social order� which represents a new form of �slavery� for the oppressed � yes oppressed! � bank wage labourers. These poor Financial Sweat Shop slaves will have a reduced opportunity to disappear for many hours during the day.

Speaking from experience, the real Sacred Lunch Pause runs from Noonish through to 15:00, as a bit of padding on either side is considered �established practice� � you know it would slavery, absolute slavery I say, to expect the poor oppressed Financial Sweat Shop labourers to say pick up their fat kids from the private schools ( a colleague informed me gravely � only her wearing the latest French fashion of rather transparent linen allowed me to not laugh as I was otherwise somewhat distracted by the Mediterranean region tendency to having frontal space � that �not everyone can afford a maid to pick up their children from school.�) and feed them the latest pastries and other plumpness inducing rot.

Now perhaps I am an evil purveyor of the vague conspiracy called �The Washington Consensus� but I think presently rebaptised, �the Neo Liberal Agenda� or some such rot, but I was unable to shake the sense of utter surrealism involved in this farcical revolt against what is in the end a fairly trivial adjustment of working hours. It does illustrate my utter contempt for the organised �labour movement� in the MENA region and its leftist twit moron allies in the West who eat up the posturing agitprop without a second thought.

Fine slogans, but in reality they represent nothing but cynical posturing.

Rather reminds me of the Academic Left�s howling when the CFA, the French backed African franc had to devalue (something like 50 percent as I recall). Much commentary was made at the time (early 1990s) about the evils of the Washington Consensus, how this was going to impoverish Africans, the evils of higher costs of pharma products, etc. Tear jerker stories.

A few points emerged from looking at this hysterical, ill-informed and largely wooley headed liberal arts student, graduate or otherwise, driven bleating.

First, it was largely driven by the largely westernised urban �intellectual� elites ( I mean that in the proper sense of current income elite) complaints, who such people (even if they pretend otherwise), largely speak to or are influenced by. This is not to accuse anyone of bad faith, quite the contrary. Being an economist or economically trained businessman, I rather prefer to leave aside morality in these conditions and look at interests.

What, then, would be the interests? An (artificially) overvalued currency is an implicit subsidy to those consuming foreign goods and services, as well as of course importers of capital. It is an implicit penalty to domestic producers of any kind (services, basic goods, whatever).

Well, enough on this.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 04, 2005

On Intellectual Property and Clueless American Git Lawyers (updated)

As I suspect this is too collounsbury for Aqoul, plus must keep my charming side up (ah yes as an aside to lawyerly readers - or one rather - I got the note on the fund issue will reply asap):

Recently I was at a consular event with the charming and dear British club (named after the charmingly porky Churchill) in its charmingly archaic setting, where I had the occasion (I should say the misfortune were I not entertained by the opportunity) to chat with the wife (or lover or some such) of a financial sector contact, a somewhat slump shouldered blonde from the Carolinas (or something like that, I confess my Anglo heretic ancestry and hundreds of years of well founded yanqui contempt for the South leads me to regard the entire southern United States as a backwards swamp of cretins. I can only say that spending a decade as the off and on intimate companion of that rare creature, a black female American bank vice president of Southern extraction only reinforced these prejudices [not in re her, she and her husband are excellent friends of mine to this day]).

The woman turned out to be a lawyer. Pity that, but we can not hold all sins against everyone one. Worse, she turned out to have worked with both my former employer and the clumsy market destroying imbeciles of Monsanto, and she is a specialist in intellectual property. Worse yet, she worked on the bio-engineering issues that I worked on, in the more business end.

I can only say that meeting an attorney who once worked on the benighted market killing legalistic narrow minded scum managed Monsanto�s efforts in genetic engineering provoked me a bit. Worse yet, she claimed to be a �true believer� in intellectual property rights (i.e. a short sighed economically illiterate hack for the market destroying morons).

This provoked a somewhat gauche and unpleasant conversation on IP rights in the region and what I politely called the �rude American idiocy of forcing things beyond any commercial rational.� I believe, if I recall my own inopportune turn of phrase, that in response to her sally re business opportunities (for her benighted American law driven views on IP law) in pharma sector IP rights that it would be �disastrous� and �fucking bloody counterproductive� to sue local firms on pharma doubtful IP infringements (the local market is not known to be a major scofflaw, and follow Euro standards in general) since you end up automatically the bad guy or as I put, �What kind of fucking market do you build suing the impoverished for a percentage? There is no fucking market upside.�

Fucking lawyers. I ranted on (to her evident discomfort, but the bitch only speaks Southern English, not even local languages, I certainly hope she is a good fuck else she is a liability for my amigo � bastard bloody well should not be associated with idiotic market killing Rich Americans sueing impoverished locals) about how lawyers never looked at realistic cost-benefit analyses on pushing suits, above all in re �total cost� to market. Fucking Monsanto followed people like her and fucking blew up the motherfucking gen modified market through their lawyer driven strategy. IPO rights are a social convenience for promoting innovation, not a divine right, and the smart firm in socially sensitive sectors with public policy and PR issues is sensitive to this.

But this idiotic bitch wants to bring American style �super� IP law to the MENA market. I am afraid I was quite rude (despite her intimate connexion with someone I like and respect in my field) about how stupid she was.

Fucking idiot lawyers. ( I note for my readers and in particular certain who I know that this, is aimed at the � well you know who you are and what I am saying. I also despise ignorant empty lawyer bashing, but I think we can agree that this sort of idiocy we mutually despise as counterproductive.)

Now, returning to a bit more substantive reflexion. Property rights are indeed important, and intellectual property rights as well. However, there are always trade offs. Certainly the idiot mentioning in particular enforcing pharma rights rather set me off as if she knew the least thing about international property rights developments, she would know that the Big Pharma companies broke their noses stupidly going after South Africa on this kind of issue (in that instance AIDS drugs), where a softer, less litigatious approach would have served them far better. Bad PR has a cost, above in this kind of business.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Reflexions on Outsourcing - via an apartment

Let me utilise some personal whinging to illustrate why outsourcing is not easily done, nor likely to be the great threat that frightened Western commentators make it out to be. Quality of delivery and poor developing world understanding of more developed markets expectations.

In this case, it happens to be me, the Development Market, and the various people, but essentially the woman who I outsourced all preparations to. This proved not to be a disaster but to have come in well-under expectations due to a mismatch in conception about what "quality materials," "moderate goals" and similar phrases thought to be well understood.

Now the result is not atrocious, it is minimally acceptable although it is the sort of thing I shall, when persons enter, have to do some plausible deniability sort of dancing so that no one thinks that I actually had a hand in it, directly. Ex-my smug fobbing off of all the things I did not want to do. Outsourcing.

Rather more complex an operation than one thinks.

I note, by the way, as a real datapoint that while outsourced services from Europe are a huge potential market, we have seen a number of initial entrants pick up stakes for reasona effectively similar to why on the next apartment finishing round, I shall take full control.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Well, here it is: the new site - Aqoul.com

Aqoul.com is open for business.

I made a long self indulgent introduction which few will read, but no matter.

I also attacked a fellow author in a long diatribe/rebuttal. Wasted too much time on that, but his stale Lefty talk irritated me. Bloody English major type "analysis." Smart fellow, could do better.

Now, will I republish here. It's idea to keep both going. Not sure if it is a good idea or not.

Ah yes, some entries that I liked already:
On Buildings and Property Rights
http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2005/07/cairos_collapsi.php
by eerie.

On intra-GCC relations
http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2005/07/burning_bridges.php#more
by secretdubai

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Happy American Independance etc.

Well, the firm itself is celebrating the Homeland's (the word homeland is oddly ugly come to think of it) independance, but work must go on.

A quick word: I am going to be experimenting with keeping this little site and Aqoul as posting areas. It probably will be a failed experiment given my laziness in these areas (a mere hobby after all).

As such sometime in the next 4-24 hours (like the span?) I shall be posting there as well.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 01, 2005

Idiots: Marching in al-Qods

Stabbings at Jerusalem gay march
Attacker stabs marcher: Religious groups opposed the march going ahead
A religious protester has stabbed three people taking part in an annual gay pride parade in Jerusalem.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4639731.stm

I had read about this previously, and thought it stupid, so let me say that organizing a gay pride march in Jerusalem is fucking stupid.

I have nothing against such marches as such, but in the context of Jerusalem, it is idiotic.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 30, 2005

Some thoughts on Aid

Rnadomly found, I forget how, here: http://williamkaminsky.typepad.com/too_many_worlds/2005/06/anthony_cordesm_1.html

A summary of some comments by Anthony Cordesman.

This in particular caught my attention.
1) The US aid programs have to stop using "Russian standards of performance", to use Dr. Cordesman's colorful metaphor. By this he meant the following. It doesn't necesarily matter what your total expeditures are. The goal is not to spend money but to make definite, cross-the-board improvements in infrastructure and the standard of living. And, no, saying how much was spent on specific projects to that end doesn't count as a legitimate performance standard. Honest, timely evaluation of how well specific projects meet their specific goals is needed. On that note, the local success stories trumpeted in the weekly US aid reports, no matter how inspiring they are (and indeed they are given the danger in which many of those people work), do not constitute necessarily a good measure of performance either. All too often they are blips that do not fit into any systematic plan, or worse, occur in localities chosen for reasons of (often corrupt) service politics.

Well, all well and nice. However, I have a hard time thinking of a successful way to create real benchmarks. This strikes me as unrealistic wishful thinking. Who controls the performance data, are the benchmarks going to be on a reasonable time scale? If not, you just end up finding new ways to piss away money.

Given my limited exposure to development programs (and I confess I don't know or understand their internal dynamics all that well), I fail to see how "honest, timely evaluation" is to be achieved. Rather like exhortations to "good citizenship." Indeed ironic that he used the Russian reference in that context.

2) The underlying notion of the US reconstruction efforts, namely that private companies have a special insight into reforming a kleptocratic command economy that has lacked civilian infrastructure investment for 20 years, insight beyond the international organizations that have dealt with similar problems in say, the former Yugoslavia and Cambodia, was always worrisome. It has now definitely proved to be a fallacy.

Not sure I get this at all.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Consular Affaires

One frequently learns things at them, if the Consuls drink enough. I suppose that is the point.

I learned some interesting things, which when public I will reflect on.

Otherwise, I feel I should find a moment to comment on an ongoing scandal I have alluded to in the past, that of a sex tourism and porno ring in Agadir, Morocco, which has been taking on a dangerous tone. I shall try to find a polite way to comment, as the socio-economic reflexions are interesting and surprising for a country in this region.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 29, 2005

The Big News of the Day

Ladies and Gentlemen, slobbering morons and other cretins who read this lovely blog rather than doing what they should be doing, and thus help justify my cretinous behaviour: I am proud to bring to you the great news of the day. News that has set off a wave of polemics across the country (well not of the day, but relatively recent).

Continue reading "The Big News of the Day"

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thinking of emerging markets funds

Just got a prospectus for a 100 mill China Buy Out Fund. Apparently someone was under the mistaken impression that I am qualified investor....

Interesting reading.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Convenience

I would like to share how much I love how Microsoft's infinate wisdom in "tight integration" among its office suite functions ensures that whenever my Outlook freezes up (because of course of the idiotic execution of the Firm's own internal connexion) EVERYTHING freezes up. Word, Excel, blah blah.

Makes me want to throw the bloody thing across the room.

^{(And save the IT advice, it's not stuff I am allowed, officially to touch)}

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

al-Aqoul - a sort of Lounsbury on MENA w/o my self regarding and self indulgent idiocies, etc.

eerie, in a fit of madness, has launched herself on making a group blog, rather like Fist Full of Euros, work.

I note this as a point of advertising. I shall certainly take part, perhaps hiving off my more self indulgent idiocies for this ridiculous little journal, and keeping a serious tone (why, I might not even write fuck quite so often). However, me alone and others (I shall not confess on their behalf any participation) isn't worth eerie's hard IT work. A bit of a clan of self-indulgent persons with pretensions to know some small little abit about the MENA region is needed.

Thus, in my round about way, I am inviting interest. Or inviting you to think about interest. Or suggesting that one should have interest. I should note the site is not open yet.

Other than that I take this moment to expose some of my idiocy.

Last night, working late on this bloody data issue, I suddenly recall I am invited to something at the Briths Consul's club. Since there are people there I want to schmooze with, I close the laptop and make off in haste to the Consul's club down near the Corniche, irritatingly located among a maze of old 1940s era villas (the development being then outside of the city retreat). Arriving late, I am puzzled that there are no fancy cars and the like. Indeed it is all quite dark. No matter, I dash into the club and find... nobody, well hardly anyone. Just two women dining in the garden. Walking over to ask about the event I suddenly realise, bloody hell, today is Tuesday, not Wednesday. I actually slapped my forehead I confess, in a quasi theatrical fit of stupidity.

Well, no matter, I strode over to the two ladies and proudly announced to them that I was terribly sorry for disrupting their dinner, but in a fit of confusion I had come on the wrong day for an event. A fine conversation ensued, and they invited me to drinks and dinner. Thus, I rescued what might have been a total loss. However, I am not sure what knowing the Administrator of some Fund for Abandoned Women and Single Mothers and the owner of a pharmacy is going to do for me, although it was a pleasant enough dinner I suppose, and my unfortunate habit of making absurd pronouncements served me well.

Still, quite tired this am, and now facing another Consular thing, as well as a dinner with the new Commercial Attache the day after.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Why I do what I do.

Interesting point of reflexion emerged on my post on policy and funding last night. I shall extend commentary but for the moment, this post merely allows you to opine.

Well, before letting you opine, if I ever even bother, let me reproduce the comment that provoked this:
Your final paragraph is the key one.

First, all else being equal in theory developing markets ought to offer excess returns in pretty much every sector because they are not as efficient/sophisticated as developed markets. I made a sneering remark earlier about exporting best practices to Nigerian breweries. "Best practices" which ignore local political/cultural/social conditions are unworkable practices or, worse, practices that, when implemented, achieve some completely unintended effect. But you don't need to implement best practices to beat your competition in developing markets, just better practices. To do that, you must understand how and why things work they way they do in the country you're in.

The problem is that all things are not equal. Developing markets must compete for human capital just as they must compete for investment capital. The educated people who would normally be smart, agressive entrepreneurs in developing countries are either a) already part of the established rent-seeking system and, therefore, already making excess returns or b) taking advantage of better opportunities elsewhere. Why mess about with trying to crack the local system when you can make piles of cash in the developed world without having to worry about being economically or physically knee-capped?

In other words, you need the right kind of local partner to make these investments work. But the right kind of local partner often has better things to do than be your local partner. Thus, you're left to choose between various wrong kinds of local partner.

China is a good example of this. When China first opened up, it was as worthless a mess as you could ever hope to see. The best and the brightest Chinese got out of China and never went back, often starting or working for extremely innovative companies in the U.S.

But China did have a lot of highly-trained smart, agressive people who were willing and able (language skills) to game the system -- Hong Kong. They turned China into a place to do business. Now, many Chinese who left China back in the 70s and 80s have gone back or at least established strong business links there and have made piles of cash in the process.

Had you tried to convince some of these people to go back to China to start a business in, say, 1985, they would have laughed at you and quite right, too. But without their (or someone like them's) cultural/political/linguistic skills, any enterpreneurial effort would have been doomed to failure.

In conclusion, if you have the right sort of local partners with the right sort of modern business attitudes you ought to make money in almost any sector -- the more basic the better. If you don't have the right sort of local partners with the right sort of modern business attitudes, you're probably going down in flames no matter how good your idea is.

For example, few things are less sexy than distribution systems. But if you had people with the guanxi to pull it off and the modern business attitudes to run it, you could make piles of money with a Walmart-style business in almost any region in the developing world. The problem is that the folks with the guanxi are already part of the system and the folks with the modern business attitudes are in London.

I plan to comment more on this. The commentator has hit on a number of points that I absolutely agree with. Some items I would qualify, and an excellent area of discussion.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 28, 2005

Economic Development - Med Basin and Bindings Constraints, or rather The Binding Constraint

While this article is not about "my" region per se, it is evocative for everything noted here is equally true of the entire southern Med basin. Something that wet climate people do not properly appreciate and I suspect a nasty item that may not be easily surmountable or perhaps not surmountable at all.

Let me run through quickly.

Spain's worst drought just the start as deserts spread
The Financial Times
By Leslie Crawford
Published: June 27 2005 19:41 | Last updated: June 27 2005 19:41

A severe drought in Spain, the worst since records began in 1947, is playing havoc with livelihoods, sparking forest fires and threatening millions of tourists with water rationing as they head for the beaches this summer.

Worse yet, 2005 is unlikely to be a freak year. Spain is getting hotter and drier, with average temperatures rising by 1�C since 1960. The European Environment Agency estimates that average temperatures will rise by a further 4�C over the next century.

Winters are now so mild that storks have stopped their annual migration to north Africa. Scientists are witnessing desertification many estimate that up to one third of the country may be a desert within 50 years.

This is Spain recall. Now think of the pressures on the southern side of the Mediterranean, from Morocco all the way around to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Official figures show that two thirds of the country is now affected by severe drought, with areas around Valencia, Andalusia and Catalonia, where populations more than double during the summer months, among the worst hit. Farmers and town councils in these areas are already fighting over the allocation of scarce water.

Tourism, the holy grail of interim development. A good economic boost. Long term costing however is not being done. Possible to do? Hard to say.

Agricultural losses are estimated at 1.6bn ($1.9bn), with much of the olive crop in Jaen, Andalusia, the principal olive-growing area, given up for lost. Catalonia has slapped restrictions on water for irrigation and industrial use in the hope of forestalling broader rationing during the dry summer months.

�We desperately need rain before October,� says Jaume Sol�, Catalonia's regional environment minister.

Season starts in October, roughly.

The drought has been exacerbated by Spain's construction boom, which saw a record 700,000 new homes built last year about half of them on the coast.

But the frenzy of building in one of the driest regions of Europe has severely challenged the ability of town planners to provide basic services such as running water.

In the provinces of Alicante and Murcia, on the Mediterranean coast, the regional water authority has asked councils to delay water connections to new tourist developments until after the summer.

The World Wildlife Fund estimates there are 10,000 illegal wells in the Costa del Sol, many of which supply tourist developments and are accelerating the depletion of water resources.

�Spain is abusing the sustainable limits of tourism development,� says Chuck Svoboda, a former Canadian diplomat who leads Abusos Urban�sticos No, a campaign group that is fighting corruption in real estate development on the coast. But the building boom shows no sign of slowing despite the lack of water. The J�car water authority, which supplies Valencia's 4.5m residents, estimates 1m new homes will be built in Valencia over the next decade. In addition, it says town councils have approved the construction of 67 new, water-needy golf courses in the region, bringing the total to 69.

Rafael Blasco, Valencia's regional housing minister, describes golf resorts as a �new kind of agriculture�. He wants the European Union to allocate farming aid to them and dismisses talk about development being overdone.

Emphasis added.

Well, among the items here (besides corruption) that attracted by attention was the amusing assertion of golf resorts as a "new kind of agriculture" and the idea of EU farming aid monies going to such.

I find that a delightfully stupid idea, delicious really. Delicious in its scope for corruption.

Cristina Narbona, Spain's environment minister, says the drought has put the spotlight on the country's farmers, who account for four-fifths of water consumption in Spain. Ms Narbona says fewer than 10 per cent of farmers use efficient irrigation methods. �The remaining 90 per cent still resort to flooding their fields, an incredibly wasteful practice that needs to be eradicated,� Ms Narbona says.

Ms Narbona has secured a 370m budget to fight the drought with desalination plants, more water recycling and the drilling of new wells in the worst hit regions. The risible price Spaniards pay for their water 30 times lower than the European average remains a taboo subject.

Earlier this year, Spain's agriculture ministry shot down a plan drafted by Ms Narbona's department that would have imposed punitive water rates on farmers who waste water.

Tourist resorts and golf courses, with their heavy water consumption, would also have had to pay 15 times more for their water than the average Spanish household.

Without cost incentives to reduce consumption, Ms Narbona can do little more than issue new appeals to save water.

Ah the taboo topic of water pricing. One that gets the Left all in a lather when it is in the context of emerging markets/developing world. The whole "water is a human right" blather. Senseless, mindless oppositionalism (why I have contempt in general for "progressive activism"), when the reality is that personal usage water is fairly trivial as compared to "productive."

Easy, price water. Nope. Not so easy. Emotive, a bit harder to pull off than the academic solution might suggest (proper pricing requiring infrastructural improvements that may be quite vast and expensive). However, absolutely necessary.

Even then, with declining input rates - i.e. less rain - and increasing reliance on non-renewable water resources (fossil ground waters), there is a real recipe for disaster. Now, Spain will have the resources (in theory) to address. Will the Southern Med basin be able to, and in the required time frames.

An idea I have been kicking around, by the way, is in regards to reforestation (a useful form of water retention as well as interesting for carbon sequestration) as a long term investment. Massive reforestation as say a 50 year time horizon placement. Problems, many problems, but as a private placement of capital, could be very interesting, and addresses the chronic problem of little namby pamby development projects - that is they're too fucking small and weak to make a difference.

Private capital mobilsation, with some helpful upfront development capital kickers to incent the initial projects.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A last word on Muslim Brothers, Ignorant Cretins and Commentary

I remain blissfully unaware "pundita"'s response if any to my somewhat miscreantish battering of her illiterate, blundering, fact free drooling posturing in regards to the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. I intend to remain so. She is unworthy of even my contempt. One can go here, if one wishes, http://antipundita.blogspot.com/ to note any further idiocies on her part (contra Zen it's just a simple blogger site, no email stealing), I wash my hands.

However, some points of reflection.

First, her silly chicken littlish panicked posturing in regards to the Ikhouane and the like, and the rather sketchy, barely understood "facts" behind it rather demonstrate the dangers of getting informed about something one knows little about via the internet. It's fairly clear she's largely informed herself about the MENA region via websites, often of a hysterical and conspiratorial nature of the lowest quality (despite her lame excuses for the utterly vile nature of her citations, her inability to properly select something not wing-nuttish as a source merely speaks to either her lack of ability to think critically or an absence of judgment. Or both, not to pose a false binary of course).

One need not be an expert to comment intelligently on something, I rather like the clear headed, non-hysterical non-Know Nothing Bolshy Right commentaries that crop up on MENA on the Belgravia Dispatch. Clear headed critical thinking from a Right perspective, without slavish devotion to the ideo-glurge of the moment is a treasure. I hardly agree with all written, but it's an example of clear headedness and a real ability to sift through facts, data, and opinion and properly evaluate (in the sense of distinguishing dross and crap from things worthy of consideration).

The incoherent yet at the same time rather pedestrain, bourgeouis suburban frightened bunny blithering of pundita only highlights the danger of the inability to sift through information, evaluate and put in context. Certainly having experience and proper education on a subject is of great value, but the non-specialist that is attentive to his or her own ... well, lack of training and grounding, can indeed get up to speed and at least have somewhat interesting things to say.

Let me take myself, for example. I should flatter myself in opining that while I know next to nothing about Indian and East Asian politics, my awareness of that, and awareness of the traps one can fall into as a non-specialist blundering in should, were I to be so mad as to do so, I decide to start commenting on the subjects. I might even manage to be reasonably interesting, at the least I should be aware enough to sift through the axe grinding of partisans on various issues (let's say Bangledeshi - Indian politics, something I had some small intimate exposure to by accident of the wrong woman slept with).

The importance here is not pundita's politics (Zen incorrectly stated on his blog I treated her as I do Right non-specialists; I treated her as a blundering self deceiving moron who couldn't even muster the judgment to realise her assertions were absurd, distorted and derived from highly prejudiced sources - I am equally as harsh with Lefties who say idiotic things, as some commentator on eerie's journal learned when she said something moronic in re WTO rules.) but rather proper thinking, critical attention to one's sources, a view to understanding subtexts, and a judicious analysis of not only the facts but one's own actual understanding.

There we are. The contemptibly unfactual assertions and smears regarding Muslim Brotherhood Nazi connexions (silly, ahistorical, and clearly axe grinding by ultra-Zionist ideologlues), female circumcision (incoherent, irrelevant and unfactual blithering), and Islam (simply bloody confused) are not really worthy of further attention.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Understanding www.investorsiraq.com

I remain fascinated by this site. (http://www.investorsiraq.com/index.php)

Absolutely fascinated. I mean first I had no idea there really was a body of .... fools I suppose is the best way to put it, that were willing to put money into things like this.

A bunch of small time financially illiterate currency speculators. I suppose of the dot.com boom day trading mentality, I find it somewhere between attractive and pitiful their complete cluelessness as to the risks they are running. It's absolutely fascinating. Now, certainly there is a lot of posturing and so forth, but nevertheless some percentage of them have clearly actually gone and opened (long distance to be sure) Iraqi accounts to do petty ante speculation on a supposed revaluation of the Iraqi dinar (as well as get in on the ground floor of the supposed boom coming to Iraq).

I'm having a very hard time understanding how such delusions can be sustained, but they are indeed fascinating.

[Update, I urge those who like gory spectables to read the utterly confused postings on the Baghdad stock exchange. Here are people wanting to move into a highly illiquid, barely regulated emerging market and they don't even know how to understand share splits. It's fascinating. Truly fascinating.]

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:38 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Getting away from my core competencies to blither on like a fool

Via another source, I found this delightful little site on Wikipedia, http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm

Among the items I most enjoyed was, in re a discussion of Geghis Khan, this:
"However, much of the European historical record about Genghis Khan and Mongols were recorded from the viewpoint of the victims of Genghis Khan."

That's probably because most people who interacted with Genghis Khan ended up as his victims. If he left behind anything other than victims, I'm sure we would have heard from them.

Brilliant.

A later comment on something called democratic peace theory rather gets it right in re Wikipedia:
This article highlights the Darwinian nature of Wikipedia. Articles are written by competing viewpoints, but the winner is the most energetic writer, not the most informed or accurate.

Bingo. However, it is popular, and sometimes an okay source for basic factual information.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

New Feature: Comment ID non-livejourn, Thoughts? ; A generalist site

Livejournal, this free piece of crap that I spit on, has a new function: Open ID. Thinking of instituting it for comments.

I am not particularly motivated to really "know" who I am getting comments from, it's just a matter of a string of anon comments gets hard to follow. I ask then you, the readers and occasional suffers from my irascable nature, your thoughts. Does it work with faux web addresses? Should I impose it for all commentators?

Also eerie, in her own private journal raised the concept of a MENA board / blog. Now many of you know that I flirted with this idea, but being fundamentally too lazy and cheap (as well as busy) to pursue, I let this die. Apparently there is some support for the concept.

Livejournal Description
What is OpenID?
What is OpenID?

From our recent news announcement on 2005-06-27:
LiveJournal now supports OpenID. You've probably noticed this option when you go and leave a comment.

If you're confused, that's understandable: OpenID is a little new, and will make more sense as an increasing number of sites on the web start to support it.

In a nutshell, OpenID lets you take your identity with you, proving to other sites on the web that you own a particular URL. LiveJournal's OpenID support lets you use your LiveJournal identity (just your URL) on other websites which take OpenID, and also lets you take your non-LiveJournal identity and use it here.

What does this mean?

-- leaving comments on other blog sites, and proving who you are
-- being able to add/trust/ban people as friends who don't have LiveJournal accounts
-- off-site LJ utilities that require you to prove your identity

It'll get more exciting as other sites start to support it. DeadJournal, since it uses the LiveJournal software, will likely be the first. As time goes on, there's rumors of upcoming support in Movable Type, WordPress, MediaWiki, Bugzilla, TypePad, TypeKey, b2, TextPattern, perl.org, and a bunch of other sites.

In a nutshell, whenever you see this little logo: , that means enter your LiveJournal URL if you want to prove to that site who you are. LiveJournal will ask you to confirm if you trust them, or you can say "trust that site forever". Never enter your password on a non-LiveJournal site. A site using OpenID doesn't need your password, and if they ask for it, they're trying to scam you.

That's it for now. More announcements as we continue to polish our OpenID support and more sites support it. DeadJournal should be this Friday, I hear.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 27, 2005

Wolf: Capital Flows

I meant to comment on this, this evening, however, I was distracted and so merely share:

Martin Wolf: Capital flow must change course
By Martin Wolf
Published: June 26 2005 20:09 | Last updated: June 26 2005 20:09
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2b30713a-e66e-11d9-b6bc-00000e2511c8.html

Yes, it's sub. Bloody well sub up, FT is worth it. Else fuck off.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Moronic Twit II (some clarifications)

This is thanks to eerie, who now owes me two hours.
Pundita, the ignorant whinging moron continues her blithering blundering about the Ikhouane and her general incoherence on the topic in general:
http://pundita.blogspot.com/2005/06/pundita-replies-to-questions-about.html

For amusement sake's only (although I suppose continuous mocking of somehow clearly do dim and ill-informed, not to mention such a bleedingly self-referential semi-literate git is perhaps moderately cruel):
1) For the reader who asked why Pundita picked on the British and left the French, Germans, etc. out of it -- because America is more an "Anglo" culture than any other. I speak very bluntly to the British, in the manner of "family talk."

2) It is so well established that Britain became the "terror capital of the world" by the 1990s that it's not necessary to provide data to support the statement. It is widely known that they had an open-door policy for every terrorist organization on the planet.

I'm not sure why I quote this other than to marvel at the talent for asserting exageration as some kind of fact.

What the fuck it has to do with the Ikhouane in Egypt and seeing where they fit in the political calculus of the day, I have no idea, but there it is. Bloody Larouchite whinging on I suppose.

BTW, what the squeeling idiot of a stereotypical Right Bolshy ignorant git of a Know Nothing pandering ideologue is refering to is the United Kingdom's fairly tolerant political asylum position in re political figures with, shall we say unsavoury connexions? Late 1980s through 1990s, something of a don't piss in our pond policy. Nothing new there, see Karl Marx. English liberalism (not American liberalism). Terror capital of the world is merely scare phrasing by people of the Chicken Little The World is Ending blah blah sort.

One should note that the following statement in re "not figuring out" is quite wrong, merely a bit of realism post 11 September regarding UK's "special friend" as it were. As a general matter the policy worked, precious little on English soil MENA radical actions. However, has some unfortunate side effects - but nothing particularly English about it. The United States practiced and practices to an extent the same thing in regards to the IRA, etc.

Real world, kiddies, real world.

Moving along from this irrelevancy, I skip over the hysterics regarding the United Kingdom etc. on the verge of collapse. Hysterics are often amusing, but in this case, this is merely ultra right Tinfoil Hattery at its self deluding pedestrian level of expression. Quite clearly the UK etc. is not in the grips of ... well some end of the world frippery I suppose.

Next, we have the public stoning thingy and we find the silly little of an ignorant Chicken Little Squeeler was raising something in Iran in regards to the Ikhouane - the connexion as one had to suspect when the initial reading occured was simply the vague "Some Muslims did Bad Thing X once somewhere and so this has to be connected to the Ikhouane because Muslim = Ikhouane in my confused benighted twittish thinking."

Of course is might be moderately uncharitable to point out that: (i) it's Iran, a Shia state, has fuck all to do with the Sunni Salafists and Egyptian politics, (ii) stoning really had fuck all to do with the original ludicrous claim that the Ikhouane were leftovers or whatever of the Nazi party in Egypt although one I suppose out of some marginal generosity can perhaps forgive an analytically impaired, hysterical dim wit for her flailing about in a rather pitiful attempt to string together an argument (or some hand waving pretension to a straw man), (iii) that the mere existance of stoning in other (non-Arab esp) countries doesn't say anything about the Egyptian Ikhouane, any more than ostensible Xians in South Africa stoning and necklacing (burning) presumed witches says something about Conservative Xians in the United States (other than stressed rural cultures seem to produce barbarities), (iv) her silly and arch presumption to know something here is rendered yet more comical by her confused blundering and inability to distinguish between countries and different sects in Islam.

In short, precisely what I thought right at the start, a quasi racist blundering about with a broad brush to smear (partly out of blind prejudice, partly out of inempt semi literate ignorance) rather than actually have an informed response to her initial idiotic assertion.

However, this blithering little Know Nothing bludering drooler of an ideological twit is not content to stop digging when her pitiful ignorance is exposed, she desires to charge ahead.

Next there is this wonderful bit of self parody (or in the alternative delightful window into the mind of someone so dimwitted as to lack the barest elements of basic analytical thought) of the confused shrieker as straw man builder:
For the male reader [ndlr: That would be yours truly] who expressed confusion about my application of the word "terrorism" to acts of public stoning and genital mutilation of female children -- I am not going to describe how these mutilations are carried out when not done in a clinical setting. My intention is to inform, not make the reader's blood boil. But the reader may trust that if someone did that to his penis when he was a boy, he would be properly terrorized for life.

Well, what can we say. I suppose it's intriguing to see a flat out admission of utter cluelessness, and the exposure of this idiotic git's clumsy confusion of political terror (what one typicaly means by terrorism in ordinary English language usage by persons who have managed some vague mastery of the language, its basic functions and even a bit of logically joined up writing - a category "pundita" rather clearly does not belong in) with simply being "terrified" or "terrorised" by an event. Obviously a rather clumsy and ill-thought out smear insofar as by this, well, what can one call it? Illogic? Anti-Logic? Negation of logic? Well, regardless, by this illogical blundering obviously drunken driving would be "terrorism" since it can "terrorize" people.

[added note]
Of course, having actually been (and not on motherfucking safaris) to such places where female and male circumcision is practiced, I can assure you, nothing happens under clinical conditions, you pampered Western fatass twit of a whinging moronic git.
[close added note to twit]

But we've really entered into the Orwellian world of newspeak (perhaps the semi-literate whinging little git should actually read some Orwell. The Elephant, his Indian works might - if we were visited by some miracle and the semi-literate git actually was able to follow and understand - actually educate her).

Of course, female circumcision done in backwoods places isn't pretty. But then neither is male circumcision. Same tools.

Of course, as pointed out previously this has fuck all to do with Islam as Islam or even the Ikhouane's political place in Egypt, or her absurdly hysterical unfactual shreiking about Nazi past.

Now, the following few paragraphs are more semi-literate illogical trash of some cesspool of confusion which I have not had enough rhum to inflict upon myself. Rather clearly the author is flailing about trying to latch onto something that will make me stop laughing derisively at her and perhaps throw a bone of pity. Sorry chicky, your blundering about remains contemptibly ill-informed and best characterised by a sort of juvenile confusion of illogic that I might normally associate with 5 year olds.

I only note in closing, because I want to fuck off and get back to real work, that the confused paragraphs asserting some bizarro world conspiracy of Muslim something or other leaders duping something or other blah blah blah about female circumcision is pure ... bunk. If not made up whole cloth, it rather appears to have been derived from some deluded reading of hysterical ultra bigotted Xian fundy sites on Islam in Africa (indeed one suspects that is the case, since it rather appears the semi-literate scrawler known as "pundita" aka drooling twit of ideoglurbe pimping whore for the Know Nothings lacks the barest or even most child-like critical thinking facilities or an ability to tell good sourcing from motherfucking looney tunes (see again Larouche and her other charming cites)).

Conspiracy mongering websites, confused ahistorical (and downright mendacious) blithering about female circumcision, all brought up in blundering attempt to prove.... well I can't really tell, other than I suppose it is some ineffectual attempt at a defence from my charge that she is at once (i) dim, (ii) tedious, (iii) a poor writer, (iv) absurdly illogical and incapable of proper analytical thought, (v) posessing the analytical skills of a small retarded child, (vi) likely a closest racist of that pedestrian polite sort that is afraid of the brown people, (vii) incapable of a properly organized argument and lacking in real entertainment value, (viii) grossly ignorant of the subject she is attempting to treat, and lacking in the natural intelligence to even begin to form an opinion, (ix) deluded as to her own reading comprehension, (x) tedious again, (xi) even more tedious for the scaberous illogic of her arguments that aren't even all that entertaining, (x) too pedestrain to be entertaining.

There you have it. I am done. eerie, don't tell me what this idiotic gimp of a self deluded semi-literate mongerer of putrid ideologue-glurge and driblling moron writes in response. I have better things to do, like laugh at the morons who are putting their dollars into unsecured Iraqi banks. Those dribbling circus freaks entertain me, this idiot merely annoys me.

[Added Thought]

On reflection the thrust of the blundering and blithering concoction of ad hoc assertions, confused smears, and general Chicken Little squeeling about the scary Muslims is "Muslims scary, people not like me very scary, must have people like me." The more potentially supportable, were it not bundled up in the vaguely racist tripe of this concoction of blithering, question might be "will they (the Ikhouane) play ball if they enter into the game."

Well, only one way to find out. Better it be in an organised sense than in Revolution. Not talking to the Shah's enemies, as Zenpundit rightly pointed out, did not change the socio-political calculus for the better.

Or to return to a point a business partern made to me that I love to cite: "Just because he speaks good English, don't be fooled." That is, just because someone has the superficial cultural habits that are familiar to you, don't think that means he's really your amigo. Self delusion is the worst sin of all in the realist world.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sucker Born Every Minute: Iraq Investors Forum, rubes to pick....

Investor's Iraq Forum
http://www.investorsiraq.com/index.php?

I daresay this is real. Pitiful and full of rubes, but .... it makes me almost salivate. Were I evil that is.

[Edit]

Okay, I have not been able to resist reading this site. It's just... wonderful in its pure idiocy. These are small timers speculating on Iraqi currency and potentially Iraqi securities with near zero knowledge of the country except the political angle and ... well just right out religious belief in the politics.

Posters expecting the Iraqi banking system to be FDIC insured. It's delightful in its naivete.

[Edit II]

I have really been sucked into reading this delightful nest of utter rubes. Someone crowing that a 2 year CD in Iraqi dinars returning 6 percent held with an unknown Iraqi bank is a "great deal." This ignorant rube has no clue what risks he's looking at, locking himself into Iraqi dinars at a set rate for two years. Illiquid placement in a highly unstable environment, denominated in a foreign currency, itself unstable and unproven. Bloody hell, one can get a USD return on a retail eurodollar CD of four percent.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Various matters: Apartments, Titanic Scenarios, Translation, US Comm in MENA, Iran and t-shirts (ed)

Well, I am pleased to announce (for the amusement of that small minority who know me somewhat in real life) that I managed to furnish my entire new apartment in a highly efficient whirlwind of strike-counter strike shopping. While I must note that certain women did some pre-sales reconnaissance, a mere afternoon of laying down my card suffice to execute all but my home office (which I am planning). A model of efficiency in buying that pleased me immensely.

Sadly, I saw the paint and colors selected by the women for the apartment. I suppose my preference for institutional white was doomed from the start, but I have to say I find the colors moderately atrocious, but not entirely unsupportable. While not truly awful, the salon is a strangely off yellow that while not offensive just isn't right. Well, no matter, something to be covered with hangings and lame excuses that I was not arround for the selection. My office to be is a bit too red, makes one think of things other than work, but what the hell. At least it has a patio door unto my terrace which I am already planning as my center for Cuban planning and the like. Rhum and grapefruit juice, although I think I should get more into red wines again. I also note in passing, and in defence of the women, that I think the dishonest scum of a contractor (no doubt no need for the adjectives) not only did at best a medoicre job of painting (lay down a fucking drop cloth you ignorant illiterate country bumpkins) but cheated on the paint, helping the yellow look so peculiar.

Now, to add local color, distracting from the unfortunate (but bearable) paint selection, that will take more time and less efficient buying, I shall leave that to local agents as I invariably find haggling over lamps and the like far too irritating, and I have a lot of fucking work to do.

Thinking of work, the stream of resignations in Central continues - in the past few days a newly hired Director quits, a Managing Director has partially resigned, a new product specialist hired away from the Big C quits (bloody smart, but that was fast), and some frustrated overseas staff resigned. I do detect a listing, but we must pretend all is well and continue to play a waltz, rearrange some deck chairs for the upper management and ignore the gringing noise from below the decks. The Captian assures me with a bit more speed we can power through this. Who am I to disbelieve the Captain? I note that I had a feeler asking me to "make a play" on the local side, I rejected absolutely out of hand. Why take responsibility for what is clearly doomed? I have my rubber ducky and my plans for paddling away fast enough not to be sucked under.

This aside, I was just reflecting on translation. Running through a translation for some items for the firm, I started thinking about the problem of translation in a business or operational context (not the business side of translation per se). It is not something much spoken of, but frankly I think it is more important than often let on.

Now perosnally I do a lot of translation, cleaning or just going at it myself, for my current and my past firms. Sure they can afford translation, proper translators and intepretors and it is a poor use of my time at some level, but frankly for technical issues (using technical in a loosey goosey sense) to get certain things right, it requires "expert" (i.e. not completely uninformed) input. I rather feel that most people do not realise just how mediocre most translators and interpretors really are, even at the top levels (and I do mean top). One depends on what are in fact rough approximations of what the other guy is saying - yet too many fail to understand that (and I note the online machine translations are even worse).

Well, regardless, a quick comment on Iran. Interesting is all I have to say. I have never followed Iran all that closely, it's outside "my world" as it were. Interesting interviews I saw on the Sats. A goodly number of interviewees seemed to suggest that the Mayor won the Presidency largely on his image of incorruptibility and simplicity. Driver, less ideology qua ideology, more a simple reaction against corruption. Will fail of course, interesting to see.

Next, I see from Zen that that contemptible semi-literate twit "pundita" (I have to say I suspect her to be a US Defence Department type or contractor, matches the semi-literate profile perfectly. Explains the CPA of course, full of these morons) has a post on "Going Native" where she manages to display even less of a glimmer of a clue than before. I suppose that is what utter and complete ignorance, in a willfully blind fashion will produce (along with a large dollop of wishful thinking and messianic transformational claptrap.). Perhaps I may later be moved to rip this apart, for the moment I merely note my contempt for such ignorant twaddle (although it does make a fine example of argument by mere assertion, and building fantastical castles in the air).

Small added thought here: I should perhaps suggest to that semi-literate navel gazing twit pundita that she might familiarize herself with Orwell (as in Orwell, George otherwise known as Eric Blair, 1903-1950) and his writing on actual colonial experience before writing transparently idiotic things about "going native" etc.

[ADDED THOUGHT]
I caught reporting on two items in relation to this sort of ignorant, self-indulgent navel gazing self deluding tripe.
(i) The international reporting on American criticisms of the legitimacy of the Iranian election. Taking for granted that the conservatives in Iran cheated to some extent, there was quite a tone of -not quite mockery but bemusement perhaps- across the Sats, Arab and Euro, in re American criticisms. Leaving aside the substance, a point to retain: blowing one's credibility raises one's transaction costs. As American street cred. is at historic lows, e.g. because of the rank hypocrisy and lies in regards to torture and the like (I understand the dabbling, but once the hand is caught in the cookie jar, the credible response is not the route that the Bush Admin -sadly predictably- took, rather clumsy denial that only seems to stick with the pre-fooled), American transaction costs for gaining traction on criticisms is at an all time high. Repeated games, mates, repeated games.
(ii) The same international reporting on the visit of a set of American senators to Gauntanamo had the same sort of reaction. I am afraid this sort of staged posturing really does little good (except I suppose among the base of the pre-fooled), and indeed gives the US an almost Soviet feel in its clumsy self indulgent self-deceiving agitprop.

Clumsy and counterproductive.
[END ADDED THOUGHT]

Finally, I note the incredibly stunning office manager has a particularly blasphemous shirt on that I am not sure I enjoy or not. Well, no, I do enjoy it, but feel guilty. Or something. It has a a print of two hands in typical Islamic prayer position (i.e. more or less like the more stylised hands of Fatima), where the hands end up, how shall I put it? Strategically supporting as it were. Very distracting. I shall have to avoid any conversations with her today.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Question re gadgets for the Gadget Wise

Without entering into the detials, I have the occasion, if I so choose, to get the following for free:
http://reviews.cnet.com/HP_iPaq_rx3715_Mobile_Media_Companion/4505-3127_7-30974568-2.html?tag=top
(also http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11960_na/11960_na.HTML)

Or I can bank the credit for some future gadget.

Since I am in the market for a new PDA, I am intrigued. But the question is, good or not. NB the multimedia stuff ex wifi surfing is of little interest to me.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 24, 2005

Well, before fucking off for drinks and work - Muslim Brotherhood and Nazis

A comment on this, sadly brought to my attention by my dear eerie:
http://pundita.blogspot.com/2005/06/muslim-brotherhood-skeleton-in.html

A few comments on this then, as the whinging little moron doesn't have any on her own bloody place.

Actually as I reflect it's hard to know where to start in that morass of semi literate rambling.

First, I suppose I am bemused by anyone who cites to Lyndon La Rouche. I suppose that pretty much sums up the quality of intellect one is facing, sadly. The confused rambling about Iranian-EU relations is pretty boring and trivially confused ideo-glurge in my view. The para on British despising their own culture by refusing to anglicize immigrants is ... unique its combination of delusion and bizarrely misinformed stereotyping. The connexion is a bit hard to grasp, really, although does amusingly suggest a somewhat addled brain on the part of the writer.

Moving right along to this gem, which eerie cited for me and which prompted this:
Collunsbury is uninformed about the present activities and intent of the brotherhood's leaders. But this aside, clearly he does not perceive as terrorism the practice of sawing off a female child's clitoris for the express purpose of robbing her of sexual pleasure in adulthood. Or the act of burying a child in the ground up to the neck, then picking up stones and hurling them at the child's head until it is pulp; this done for offenses so minor among civilized peoples they don't even amount to a prank.

Barbaric tribal practices one can understand -- they are ghastly but at least comprehensible acts rooted in humankind's primitive past. But that this primitivism should be tolerated, accorded the rank of civilized behavior in the modern era by the British culture, speaks of an evil nearly beyond comprehension. It is an evil that threatens the survival of the human race. So if you find yourself wondering how someone such as Collunsbury can shrug off terrorism as "realism," go ask the British for the answer.

Well, what can we say. First, of course, this idiotic little twit sitting the United States wants to pretend to know something of the region. That's fine, shouldn't be so comically misinformed as to make grotesquely moronic comments like the Ikhouane are remnants on the Nazi party.

This aside, on the issue of female circumcision, raised.... well the lord the bloody fuck knows why except as some kind of confused smear I suppose.

Rather obviously female circumscision is not terrorism in any sense of the word. It's certainly a repulsive practice, but terrorism does not mean - for most people with say passing mastery of the English language, a modicum of logical skills and perhaps, just for the novelty value, some glimmering of critical thinking "Some practice I don't like."

Of course, this has fuck all to do with Islam or al-Qaeda or whatever. Female circumcision is an African practice, found in southern Egypt, down through North East Africa and over into the Sahel. Muslims and non-Muslims alike practice it, and the nexus is Egypt. It's unknown in most of the Islamic and even Arab world. What can we say. An illogical vaguely racist smear by an ignorant and confused twit. (Never mind the bizarre aside regarding British culture which is both incoherent and puzzling insofar as I am unaware of a means of a "Culture" should accord anything at all - it is amusing I must say though, one has a bit of a peep into the mind of someone more than slightly addled in thinking. Rather circus freakish actually, one almost feels bad chortling at the idiot)

Of course, this again has fuck all to do with the actual question: "Do business with the Ikhouane or not" - except in the addled mind of the commentator who appears to be stumbling through a fog of ... well I suppose some congenital disorder or something like that, and apparently is unaware of simple logic (I do refer to the "fallacy of composition").

Moving down further, I frankly have no clue as to the child and stone hurling bit, nor what possible connexion this has with the Ikhouane in Egypt. I guess we have to put it down to the writer having once heard that (presumed Muslims I would guess) somewhere at some time stoned someone, and this ipso facto devolves down to all Muslims do this, and ipso facto the Ikhouane are somehow responsible. As Muslims.

In short, more racist tripe of the most confused variety, really rather garden variety idiocy.

Down further, well the next part almost made my head hurt.

It appears from that confused muddle of paragraphs that this pitiful circus freak of an addled drooling little moron has derived the comical assertion the Ikhouane are identical to the Nazi party, as supposed remanants from a queer little ultra right wing conspiracy site with such overheated chicken little shreiking stories as "One in Ten Illegal Immigrants is a Terrorist" (getting the anti-immigrant scared of the darkies angle in with the shreiking, whinging, scared to death of the Terrorist filled outside world angle - all in one unattractive repulsive bundle for greater efficiency for the Know Nothing factor).

What can I say?

Well, the first thing to say is: How very unsurprising such a ridiculous, ignorant, ludicrously misinformed, overhyped and utterly illiterate assertion came from such a source. Second, how very unsurprising that angle is being pimped by someone with such books to his name as "The Secret War Against the Jews" which purports to prove the Western democracies have been trying to undermine Israel throughout the 20th century (including Reagan....).

I hardly feel it necessary to even go beyond that. I think... well I think we fairly clearly see that we have nice little American ultra right looney toon amusingly blithering on in her native habitate, oblivious to the real world except for those funny shadows it makes on her little bubble. Queer, moderately amusing in short doses, the native American ultra right looney tune, however does seem prone to muddled thinking and much blundering.

Regardless, this has now delayed my consumption of delightful Cuban products by a good hour, which is far, far, far too long.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Odd

I got a call from some USG type in the den of iniquity asking for my input on some oddball USG initiative of regional financial relation.

I guess I shall beaver away this weekend on a memo for him for free. The question arises, where the fuck did he get my bloody cell phone number from though? I suppose some disolute friend of mine exiled back to the land of plenty. Lord knows he must have been drunk, but still, titilated by the idea I could have some vague influence on policy and the waste of a handful of trivial millions, I shall indulge. Besides, kick start me on work I need to get done anyway.

In a vaguely related connexion, I noted this:
US foreign investment jumps to $252bn
By Christopher Swann in Washington
Published: June 23 2005 17:07 | Last updated: June 23 2005 17:00
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7f43df94-e3ff-11d9-a754-00000e2511c8.html

Some interesting paragraphs:
Although US companies were aggressive buyers of foreign assets, there was no sign that the US was becoming less popular as an investment destination. Direct investment into the US climbed from $67bn to $107bn in 2004.

Mark Zandi, chief strategist at Economy.com, a consultant group, said the data showed US companies were spending record cash hoards mainly on Asian investments. “US companies are attracted to Asia partly because the currencies remain competitive, but also as low cost bases for production destination and as growing markets in their own right,” he said. “Europe is almost a mirror image of this.”

Inward investment into Germany and France, the largest economies on continental Europe, fell sharply last year. In France, inward investment almost halved from $43bn to $24bn. In Germany, foreign investors actually withdrew $39bn, having invested $27bn in 2003.

Wealthy countries overall stepped up investment in developing economies with overall OECD outflows climbing from $593bn to $668bn in 2004.

In particular, it seems like a good time to be having a pinky involved in emerging market flows. Might not be good for the investors, but fuck it, caveat emptor.

I also note this:
White House steps up defence of Iraq policy
By Caroline Daniel and Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: June 23 2005 20:38 | Last updated: June 24 2005 00:21

Won't even bother with a link, the usual story. The Bush Administration will roll out a new, yet more unrealistic round of useless and self deceiving happy talk that will dupe the gullible and the Pre Fooled for a bit, while doing nothing of substance. Same story since 2003.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

France, never missing an occasion to apply the lessons of the early 20th century

France bets all on picking winners
By Peggy Hollinger
Published: June 23 2005 18:45 | Last updated: June 23 2005 18:45
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ee034f20-e40c-11d9-a754-00000e2511c8.html

Perhaps I am being too harsh, but my frustration with the Hexagone's silly economic policies continues.

While most other countries have let market forces decide where skills and expertise lie, the French state is taking the initiative by asking the regions to compete for the accolade. More surprisingly in a country where governments have traditionally provided strong support for lagging regions, the policy appears to divert more resources towards those that can already show clear advantages.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

In other matters

I have, I am afraid, polluted Zenpundit's generally genteel space here: http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2005/06/semi-strong-for-democracy-odd-sort-of.html as a contemptible moron irritated me with idiotic comments on the Ikhouane and other drooling ideologue glurge.

I should say I rather was in accord with Zen's realism and overall thinking. In short, reality is that the nice namby pamby liberals (in the classic sense or even in the American sense) are not the real opposition in any of the MENA countries, and if one wants to avoid Iran II, one should work with reality, not wishful thinking. Neutering the Ikhouane? I dunno about neutering as he puts it, but I have known enough real live Ikhouane to be of the firm conviction that a majority among them can be peeled away from al-Qaedah type nihilism into a more realistic engagement with the world - if they think they really get to play in the game. Total exclusion merely means that al-Qaedah sounds right. So there you are. Deal with reality or play wishful thinking and imagine some fantasy world of liberal center-right oppositions magically with real support magically appearing. They are not.

A further thought, on Rice's comments about not talking to the Ikhouane. If it's real policy it's stupid, short sighted wishful thinking as policy. If it's "No way are we going to admit such but of course in back channels because we are rational realists that understand the world is what it is, and not what we wish it were, we are going to build relationships - but of course we can't say this in public because the Know Nothing Morons, the Cry Bloody Murder Left Perfectionists Against Any Reasonable Progress and other assorted fools will whinge on and blow up the game" - well then I say, good move.

Finally, I was asked recently in comments if it continues to get harder to do business as part of an American firm and all that. I've given this some thought and have to say frankly more immediate issues for me overwhelm my ability to tease out current evolution. And I personally am too 'native' (as well as, ahem, roguishly charming or other such nonsense) to get this.

I do note this Pew Global survey that strikes me as about right: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247
Seems to me the United States is indeed on a sort of side crawl trend. I also note that the clear collapse in positive image in the past four years should be considered a real issue. International policy and positioning should never be a mere popularity play, but on the other hand, such a deep collapse of image is a real danger "to the brand" as we say. The United States would be well served to stop indulging in self serving Know Nothing self pandering and look to taking more effective action to boost its image among reasonable audiences. I note as I have in the past that I have heard and continue to hear normally quite pro American, indeed liberal (again in the international sense) business types increasingly anti-American sentiment. This is your core audience overseas. If you're losing these kind of people, something is going wrong, and should not be dismissed as reflexive Lefty anti-Americanism (which of course is a congenital disease about which one can do little other than mock them).

However, I remain certain that the Know Nothing types that have taken over the American Right will continue to celebrate own goals as actual scoring against the other team. Their equally congenital confusion and stupidity merely serves to illustrate that moronic ideological posturing is not merely for the Left.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Al Jazeerah - Durbin-Rice etc.

The Father of Ardvaarks opined and asked a question here regarding broadcasts re this Durbin issue:
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/06/aljazeera_broad.html

I am not bothering to opine on what is largely a US domestic political spat of little interest to me (other than confirming the Know Nothing Ignoramuses continue to sputter on about al-Jazeerah), however since I (i) live in the region, (ii) am a regular al-Arabiyah and al-Jazeerah watcher (broadcasts) let me lend a hand since he seems to be getting much negative commentary.

I can attest that I do not recall hearing anything about Durbin on al-Arabiyah or al-Jazeerah during the time period in question. While of course I do not watch either constantly, I should say that I consume enough that had it been a featured item of great impact I probably should have seen it. Thus, while the remarks may have been broadcast (and so what), they were not high profile. Rice's visit etc was rather more so.

There you go. This of course is irrelevant to the ideological squeeling between the two sets of partisans on the other side of the Atlantic, but what can one say?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Oprah Affaire

I just read about this in the Washington Post. My only comment is these bloody people whinging on in the States have simply never dealt with French stores before. Closing hours are holy.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 23, 2005

Labor laws and the like

A brief moment before I fuck off.

I really have to find the time to comment on an utterly amusing article in the local finance journal about the "Controversy" regarding the new minimum wage and the like here. It is a textbook example of how not to do economic policy. In its simplest form, and most amusing form, no one can figure out exactely what the minimum should be. Sound strange? Well, yes, but recall we're under Code Civil here, and better, we look to France for utterly cockamamie ideas on how to do economic policy. So, what one does to boost (a small chortle is due here) living standards is pass two laws, one mandating (this is the first one) the minimum wage rise 10 percent. The other mandating the work week be reduced 20 percent, and further that "no reducation in compensation is legal" with this reduction in work hours. Then you leave it to the benighted morons in the "Labor Movement" (aka rent seeking corrupt scum) to "protect" the "social solidarity movement" (aka try to impose the highest costs possible so you can skim off more dues) to concoct a "reading" of the law that would have the minimum wage rise above the ten percent rise, because clearly if the work week is reduced and people are being paid less because they're working less hours, then this is an implied reduction in salary.

Protecting workers rights and all that.

Solidarity, Reg

(ten local centimes to those who get my signature line on these issues)

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Random Media Observations in the Maghreb

First, taking a break from amassing data and fiddling around with what I know to be an utterly doomed project as we flail about (well my local Director) in the desperate death throes of a firm that has just realized it has slit its own throat and somehow believes running around desperately squeeling like a piglet is an appropriate action. _{(The throat slitting being derived from a disastrous meeting with a Really Big Decision Maker - thank god I was not there - in which said RBDM decided he wants to crush us like bugs. As the RBDM is simply an influential person here, this is an indirect rather than a direct thing, but me fine local BSD had a meeting that was so bad with RBDM that an outside attendee said he told his intern -there taking notes- that it was a classic example of what never to do in meetings with RBDMs. Hey, I say, at least we're setting standards. Negative standards, but standards never the less)}

Second, I am bemused by the latest intra-Maghrebine spat - they arise quite regularly as while the Arab Maghreb is a brotherly union, sadly the familial relations are on par of those of family expelled from public housing for bad benaviour, and 'brotherly cooperation' may be translated into "ludicrously self defeating back stabbing while one piously postures about one's familial feelings for one's much hated cousins, etc. and one proudly blames all failures of family cooperation on the nefarious idiocy of everyone else in the family, as well as the odd outsiders who must be leading one's simple minded relations into error. France and US of A being convenient."

As usual this is about the Western Sahara, and the childish idiocy about that wasteland of flat stone desert whose only vague interest is a fuck load of phosphate deposits (well one has to grant the off shore fishing and the mirage of the off shore oil). The Algerians are still trying to fuck with the Moroccans, the Moroccans the inverse. It's really quite pointless.

Now, I add, in advance, that I entirely support Moroccan rule over the Western Sahara - but sadly for merely pragmatic grounds (although I confess I find the Moroccan pretensions to historical rule over the territory about as convincing as anyone else's, and the whole idiocy of little colonial confettis having a real existance [see Eritrea] strikes me as absurd posturing by corrupt elites with power on the mind).

Pragmatic grounds may be simply stated as the following, regardless of legitimacy of claims, one has to look at the reality.

The reality is that Western Sahara is a fucking wasteland. It's largely not even interesting desert. It's just bloody desert. Now, this little chunk of desert has a few choices, which may be broken down into the primary binary of (a) Impoverished and impossibly corrupt pseudo independent client state, or (b) Impoverished, potentially not so corrupt part of some other state.

Taking (a) as the prime case, what do you have? You've got Western Sahara as the corrupt client of Algeria (although the corrupt elite would likely play with the Moroccans as well). Probably subventions from the Algerian Vampire State would keep the elite in Laayoune (al Ayoune) alive and well. Saharouine would still have to migrate north for work, but would need passports for either Morocco or Algeria. Another corrupt little colonial remnant as state.

Taking (b) as the prime case, we get it as either part of Morocco or Mauretania or Algeria. At least being part of a bigger state gives more work opps, in theory at least, for the pop, and potentially a better chance of attracting investment. Now, of the three neighbors, who would you choose?

Me, I'd go with Morocco. Morocco ain't a paradise, but bloody hell, at least it's not Mauretania which is a nasty waste of real estate that should itself have been part of something else. Algeria? Well, let's say that being part of Algeria seems about as intelligent as joining up with Iraq. Ongoing civil conflict, vampiric elite self-funding through a corrupt hydrocarbon export lifeline..... Morocco has at least the signs of developing towards reasonable normality. Better deal overall.

Now, sadly, this probably means more Moroccan affirmative action for the backwards ass tribals from the Sahara, where they can be .... say put at the head of an employers assocation and then say incredibly stupid things. Not that Sahraouine are congenitally dumb people, it's quite simply that all that hot black rock tends to addle the brain.

This aside, this latest spat has generated a lot of heated press on the Sahara and the like. I have to say that while the Moroccan press on domestic issues ex-Sahara is getting to be pretty good, why sometimes even really genuinely informative, when we get back on the Saharan issue we rewind writing and so forth habits 50 years. Pure wooden and really dumb propaganda. Stunningly clumsy. Sadly, and oddly, a lot of locals lap it up. Sahara is more or less genuinely popular as in issue (it's ours!!! woohoo, some more fucking sand and idiots on camels. Who we tell dumb polack style jokes about (with some merit it has to be said)).

It is disappointing to see a press that is getting okay in terms of critical coverage, utterly regress on for. policy issues - even more disappointing is the sensation that the regression is not from actual censorship but pure lack of critical thinking and an excess of nationalistic zeal.

One the other hand, being anti-Algerian government is so very easy.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:50 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Feedback

I continue to be rather busy, but a request to the readers:

Visit this site and tell me what you think: www.empea.net (Emerging Markets Private Equity Assoc.)

I note for the sake of full disclosure that I know most of the people behind this. Wanted to see what readers thought.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 22, 2005

I should write about the labor law

However, I am far too fascinated by the local scandal regarding a Belgian run porno ring. It's gotten so big even the business press is reporting on it.

At least it gives me the opportunity to use the line, "Well at least I am no Belgian." To much local amusement. However a bit of an ugly side to this, beside the abuse of the girls involved by the Belgian scum, going to give the Islamists ammunition.

Otherwise, interesting convo I had at another biz din about the comments of a certain Nadia Yassine about M6 and the monarchy. Although the locals were all of the quite liberal bent (libertarian if you will) not one defended her.

Added thought. Although the attendees were all liberals, business people, and largely pro American, the level of anger expressed in re Iraq was something that took me aback. I don't talk much about it myself, indeed it's not much of a subject, but since we had an American at the table (a real one in from the US of A, not a highly suspect Arabic speaking expat that no one trusts) they went to town. Disturbing.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 21, 2005

Roguish Charm?

Among the things I learned from a business dinner last night was that I have, and I quote, "a certain roguish charm." This was both surprising and a bit aback taking. Being paranoid, I believe there is something behind this statement.

That aside, dined with the Conference organizer, afraid I may have been too colorful in denouncing the local American chamber of commerce as a bunch of bumbling if well meaning imbeciles with no connexions, even if true. Very weak bunch.

However, among the issues that semi-amused me was the horror of the conference organisers to learn that even among the business elite here, not everyone has a credit card, and further to that, they can't bloody well use it for online payments because such is not authorised here, never mind getting access to dollars required is also a pain as there's not free convertability.

Bloody hell, it wasn't so long ago such things were a pain and difficult in the US of A, you gits. Don't expect the developing world is right behind on these things, and bloody well think about alternative facilities!

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 20, 2005

Rotted.

It appears my mum has gone and had a bloody heart attack. This is damned inconvenient and moderately upsetting. Hopefully merely a spell or too much of one of her drugs, else I am going to have to fly back, the idea of which repels me. Wonder if I can get away with flowers?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Various: Market Frenzy, Dumb Entrepeneurs and Ministers, Iraq

Afraid continue to be rather engaged. Limited time overall, but a few random obs.
(i) Bit of a frenzy in the market here, rumour has it we're going to see a repegging soon. I think they're 25 percent wrong. Not 'soon' but soon. Happen to know the central bankers who are doing the modeling. Very likely to happen. Timing in one year horizon or so is my guess. Sadly my central bankers don't drink, so I can only guess based on their work load.

Else, I am sitting pretty in terms of the currency moves. Quite content about that, although it was mere dumb luck. Of course, on short term currency moves, dumb luck has a lot to do with it. Thankfully for my current consumption pressures, Euro continues to flounder as the EU helpfully provides me with support via its bumbling budget negotiations. I say, "Keep it up mates, keep it up for another two months." That should get me through my distressingly large expenditures on furnishing my house, etc. Bloody expensive. Thank god for the Euro melt down, I would truly be climbing the walls otherwise - now I am almost sanguine in the face of these ridiculous expenditures despite the great liklihood I shall be a free agent come year end. Normally I would be hoarding cash, of course. Women. Bloody women.

(ii) The latest consumption stats were published. Two thoughts there. One, they date to 2000. Really now kiddies, five fucking years to publish your bloody stats? 2 years, okay. Five is absurd. Other than that, they do bring home for me that I easily spend more on a dinner out than the average country dweller spends on his family in a month. It's a sobering thought.

This region needs growth, growth and growth.

(iii) Writing (for free, my heart is so big. Well not really.) a due diligence memo on someone's potential investment in the region. Interesting to do. Spoke with the entrepreneur in whose project the mates are thinking of putting money in. Some thoughts come to mind on this:
(a) When someone "close" to the people thinking of putting money into your project (which is quite simply teetering on the brink of insolvency due to your personal poor cash management) raises questions about your expansion plans (and in particular in terms of priority), don't snub said person with
(b) Vision is great. Profitability is even better. Guess which one means you survive another year.
(c) When you're a foreigner and an entrepreneur in someone else's country, do not, and I repeat this, do not speak badly of and disparage the business sense the newly appointed Minister of the sector in which you are working. This all the more so if said Minister is otherwise (1) widely well regarded for his work since appointment among the locals, (2) from the financial sector (private) and very, very well connected, (3) among the people who turned you down for financing, with the wise advise that you should have an experienced partner. This makes you, not the Minister look bad, raises questions as to your judgement, and frankly is utterly daft as regardless of your foreigness, you can be crushed.
(d) Bad mouthing your key financier, the guys who injected the equity that made your project, is quite dumb. It's more than dumb, it represents a total failure of business sense. Literally no one else was going to roll the dice, so shut the fuck up and at least give them the courtesy of a listen. I know these mates, they may not be better than sliced bread, but given what I see of your skills, you bloody well should reflect on what they're telling you.
(e) Get a financial manager, don't be "surprised" when certain bank payments come due.
[added]
(f) Do not whinge on about business in the region being about connexions and who you know. First, you're in the motherfucking Middle East, get fucking used to it. Second, business everywhere is about connexions and who you know to some degree, and frankly your habit of complaining about everyone to everyone is the issue that is causing you local market problems, you whinging git. In other words, it's more you than them.

All in all, a good project run by someone with more "vision" than realism. If they want to grow this, they have to squeeze out the "visionary" into a "vision" role and get a real manager.

ADDED (or rather restored the accidental deletion)
(iv) Iraq. Odd the mood swings I read on this. Now its all pessimism again. I was amused by the silly optimism that sprang up after elections, and then again in the Spring. It should be fairly obvious this is entirely fucked - I suppose the True Believers among the Know Nothing wing of the right have to dupe themselves (I was reading the Belgravian Dispatch and comments on one of the posts there which included (or was it the link, no matter) idiotic whinging wishful thinking about both Iraq and Vietnam. Bloody morons. Bloody simple minded self decieving unrealistic drooling morons. I suppose this is what Tallyrand meant when he said "And about all, not too much zeal."). Otherwise, I have not much to say about Iraq that I did not say in the last round, it's already in the Logic of Lebanon, no way out until the sides beat the crap out of each other and get sick of it.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 15, 2005

Closing

As I am clearly more peppy today, some closing thoughts before I fuck off to celebrate my little docy that just may rescue this utterly fucked operation from our latest blunder. For a bit of time. Not much.

First, I read on the FT news ticker that despite the hysterical bleating of the theocratic lunatics that have taken over the US Republican Party, that bloody human veg Terry Schiavo was in fact quite brain dead. I am intensely pleased, being happy when these God Bothering illiterates get a stick in their eye.

Second, I note that my evil credit card company is now charging me a surcharge on foreign currency transactions. Since all I ever do are foreign currency transactions, I am deeply displeased. However, it does allow me to track my expenditures and categorize them deliciously. I am wondering if it's disturbing that after 'cutting back' of late, I still spend USD 1000 a month on alcohol. Allowing for the surcharge and all that, I still am transfering goodly sums to Cuba. I like that, since I hope that we can preserve at least one basket case tropical socialist paradise for cheap vacationing in the world. Of course Americans can't visit it, which makes me far more altruistic than is my nature, but what can I say? I am contributing to the betterment of my Canadian friends. Filthy snow birds.

Third, I was pondering what happens if the plug is really pulled in November. I expect it will be, or sometime afterwards if there is a trickle of a budget. Even if I am absolutely brilliant in executing a few more little operations here and there (and let me congratulate myself again for last week. Even the Big Fucking Fat Idiot who hates me as much as I hate him sent a congrat email and which will likely provoke my direct boss into yet more annoying behaviour), we're basically fucked. I probably, given another few people in NY (like the little rats that they are) resigned (Cowards I say!) will get 'invited' back to NY. Bloody cowards should stay on board. Sorry about that, back to the vaque point, such as it was. Yes, back to New York. I would have to resign as (i) I have no interest in going back to New York, (ii) I am bored by the US, (iii) my alcohol bill would clearly escalate to bankrupting portions, and it would no longer have the delicious thrill of subsidizing a basket case communist dictotorship for the betterment of sex tourists from Europe and Canada, (iv) I'm still bored with New York, (v) since 11 Sep 01 the bleating on about terrorism in the US annoys me - and yes my dears, I understand it, I was there after all, (vi) I would no longer have a maid, (vii) no more late night drunken exchanges in a strange mixture of European and Arabic dialects. On the other hand, I might get my bonus, which I am entirely sure I will get screwed out of otherwise.

Fourth, wondering about becoming all entreprenurial and trying to start my own business. This would require far less alcohol consumption, which is a minus on one hand, a plus on another. It would also require real capital. Given certain past issues which require me to transfer capital to the United States to pay for the error of my ways and the like, this is a bit of a binding constraint. I suppose I could dupe someone.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Here and Back Again

Here and Back Again

Well, quite a week. Looks like despite closing a great little deal, we’ve gone and shot ourselves in the head. Pity that, no surprise there, although I suppose one has to press on. Although it is tempting to go into the bloody details, afraid there is no way to do so. Pity it would be amusing in a sort of amusing manner.

Looking to rescue something from this fiasco of an effort (not the deal, it was great – although probably a wasted effort now ) I took one of the participants down south on a bit of a mini-vac to rap about potential for joining his firm. Looks like there is potential if they go ahead with regional expansion, which they are seriously considering.

Leaving aside the various travails of my bizarre obsession with sticking in the Middle East and making a career out of dissolute expatism, the trip was amusing on many levels.

First, my investor / potential future employer was amusingly enthusiastic about everything. Of course he was always thinking FTA angles and export business, but he also had that naïve and almost boyish enthusiasm that was at once charming and annoying. As well as a bit dangerous. Now, since my job on this trip was to (i) solidify his impression that I am the guy to get on board if he goes with a regional expansion, and (ii) be charming, I had to hold back on biting comments. He’s also a great guy who I would love to work for if and when they make the jump into these markets, so biting the naively enthusiastic hand that might feed one would be really stupid

This being said, let me share some items that at once amused and annoyed me (although on balance we had a great time and it was a pleasurable business-pleasure outing):

(I) Do not talk to every random person who says hi or looks friendly. This is not Kansas (Or Connecticut). The drunk fellow with poor teeth may seem entertaining, but at midnight with our driver a bit lost, I am not personally in the mood to get harangued about the evils of Israel (why Israel? Who the bloody fuck knows. Drunkards are like that), it’s a portion of Arabic I am well practiced in and no longer amuses me. Besides, when the drunk guy kisses me, it’s vaguely disgusting. Only our total isolation and the need to get you back into the car saved me from being stupid. I also do not find getting kissed at midnight by drunkards who smell bad to be amusing, although investor and our female friend were amused. Grin and bear it for posterity though.

(II) As a general matter, either in casual or business conversation, it is probably helpful not to assume that the entire developing world is as wired as yourself. Nor that the latest, coolest media-internet trend is well known here. Nor does asking “Do you know about X” sound good on the third round. It helps you’re a genuinely charming and ebullient sort, but it does give a sensation of something between cluelessness and condescation. Now I personally know you’re sharp, and it is enthusiasm talking, but context and all that. I might add that it’s a bit odd to be asking locals if they are getting their music off of i-pod when you’re in a country with serious capital controls and where less than 1 percent even have credit cards or similar facilities, let alone the ability to undertake international transactions. E-commerce may be getting hip again, but quite frankly, in these markets, it’s a good decade away for all but the most wealthy and advanced. It’s further just bizarre to ask this question (do you learn about your music from i-tunes) of a simple small music shop owner in the medina. Worse yet, asking me to translate it. As if i-tunes even has Maghrebine music on it.

(III) Please do not tip taxi drivers and the like with large bills. I know that a 100 tip is nothing to you, but that 100 is like 100 USD to… well an American taxi driver. Okay, you’re loaded and don’t mind spending money like this when you’re in a good mood (and I am glad to hear the praise about my skills in all that), but bloody hell it sets up the whole foreigners are rich suckers thing. Then I have to get into shoving matches with taxi drivers because it annoys me to pay over the meter. The same goes for shops. This sort of behaviour raises me costs. I don’t like it.

(IV) Please don’t bloody take photos like a wild Japanese tourist. Also don’t ask me to ask people about this. I find it vaguely embarrassing. Also when the guys tell me no, don’t look insulted. Still, one has to admit, enthusiasm is a good thing, and I almost felt like I should find some new enthusiasm for something other than Cuban products.

All this being said, a fine effort this was. Hopefully I can play this, good guy to work for and I like the start up environment.

We shall see. After all, I have developed a record in the past year of being able to kill companies merely by talking to them (w/o even the dubious excuse of actually having done something to contribute). Really quite amazing.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Media in the Maghreb: Study (for the Aardvarks, etc)

Of interest, a small study or rather resume of the same that I got my hands on. No, it's not online, but here is a resume. The data is from Sigma Conseil, a regional consulting firm.

The study was completed in april 2005 for the Arab Maghreb.

National TV stations in the Maghreb are doing reasonably well in audience terms. Tunisia and Algeria achieved daily audience levels of roughly 50 percent (of total viewership), while the quasi private 2M in Morocco hit 46 percent, against 21 percent for the prime state channel.

Arabsats did not score as well as might have been expected, but had significant share, although in Algeria the French channels were stronger, e.g. 22 percent for TF1, 16 percent for M6 (whereas the French channels had low single digits in Morocco and Tunisia).

al Jazeerah registered strong viewership, with a 10 percent rough score in Tunisia and Morocco. LBC (aka LebSlut Broadcasting Channel) held a decent 15 percent in Tunisia, 9 percent in Morocco. Egyptian channels lost major share position, with clear falling popularity.

When I get a chance I will try to get the full report.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq: The Lebanon Scenario bis

I long while back I opined that Iraq had entered into a "Lebanese logic" or perhaps more plainly, into the logic of civil war. I've stayed away from Iraqi things of late as I had not much to add beyond that.

Now an interesting report out of The Washington Post simply leads me to underline my earlier analysis (which I shall not try to link to because livejournal has such a shitty search function I never bloody find anything) that there was and is no way out of Iraq going through a bloody civil war.

But aside, the article and some links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401828_pf.html
(If this is not a classic of ethnic civil war, I don't know what is)

Drezner
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002118.html

and then in Fist Full of Euros
http://fistfulofeuros.net/archives/001546.php

Now, I reproduce my comment I made there:

I am afraid gentlemen that you're reading this wrong.

First, Edward is wrong on "sustainable" Iraqi nationalism. Arab Shias and Sunnis both have shared and continue to share a common Arab centered nationalism - except of course in re who should be in charge. Iraq itself is not in play in the intra-Arab game, it's who controls Iraq. The only ethnic group in Iraq that actively puts Iraq as an entity in play is the Kurds (the largely Shia Turcomans being too small have not opted for seperatism).

The scenario is not then an imminent break up of Iraq but civil war pure and simple, with four zones. (i) Kurdistan in the north, with a long fractured frontier; (ii) Baghdad central, multi-ethnic and ending up like Beruit, a killing zone, (iii) Sunni majority West-Central, homeland of the Sunni jihadis and others; (iv) the south starting some 60-100 k south of Baghdad down to Umm al-Qasr, safely majority Shia but subject to intra-Shia conflict.

The Iraqi Arabs are not going to accept de jure seperation, de facto may come from civil war.

End comment

I might expand to say I as I have in the past that what I foresee is something along the lines of the Lebanese civil war. The multi-ethnic disputed center disolving into mayhem, the "ethnic cores" becoming somewhat violent but largely stable "safe areas" for each group.

From my own perspective, doing some side consulting (very tangential) for some .... "frontier investors" who are running a fund in Iraq (and well, yes gents you can make money, to the tune of a 75 percent IRR, with ~100 m USD up - I don't ask too many questions though), it strikes me that you could see Kurdistan and the Shia south becoming de facto relatively stable states which might even get investment of this 'frontier' type. The center, Baghdad, will be like Beruit in the late 70s and early 80s though.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Further thoughts.

Still fire fighting. Will explain about this eventually. In all his wisdom the Captain decided to turn the ship right head on into the iceberg. I suppose in the end we're sunk anyway, but I would have preferred not to have it be in a smash up. Working diligently to make sure my slimey self gets out with my usual rose odor.

Otherwise, some interesting reflexions on development to share I hope when I get some time. Meanwhile, for those who are interested in such things, the US is sponsoring a major investment conference in Marrekech this fall: http://www.opic.gov/PressReleases/2005/5-26.htm

Not new news, but given new info on local side attendance that I've had, I do encourage the serious among you to look into this. I may or may not attend given other issues. BTW, do not call up those numbers asking about me. (i) I will hear about it, (ii) it will blow my cool, (iii) I shall be very cross.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Snow, Snow, Snow.

Snow hits out at EU antipathy to business
By Tobias Buck and George Parker in Brussels
Published: June 14 2005 22:09 | Last updated: June 15 2005 00:04
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8cefecea-dd02-11d9-b590-00000e2511c8.html

While I am sympathetic to his attack on the modish new fad among the French in re attacking "ultraliberalism" (i.e. proper free market economics that may undermine the French elite), what the bloody fuck was the point of this? No US official preaching in Bruxelles is going to change minds. Quite the opposite really.

This was.... really pointless and counterproductive. And dumb. Yes, sometimes telling the truth is dumb, but there it is.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 13, 2005

Alive not dead

Problems to be dealth with, however. Big fuck up.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 09, 2005

Bangingly bad

Developments that is. Have to firefight, largely fucked.

BTW, for Pratike - Liberals, Saad Zaghloul, not Said. Creepy tomb that, I may add.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 08, 2005

Chilling

Speaking with my two wise men last night over dinner, we started talking Hedge Funds and Madness. Happens one of them was just doing some stuff with JP Morgan on credit derivatives. Mentioned he JP has net (again) net expore around 900 billion on this. We had a somewhat chilling conversation about the implied counterparty risk given what is likely to be an inevitable hedge fund crisis in the future.

Of course my wise man has been through the Peso crisis, etc. etc. so....

(Very amusing stories he recounted I may add about a trader he knew on that who got caught on the wrong end and decided, I quote "to go out all guns blazing since he was fucked anyway."

[added note]

Well it looks like game over. Note from central, rude bastards, no commitments beyond November. More later. I am pissed off, slimey scumbags.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 05, 2005

Practical Comments on World Bank MENA Development, Part II

Continuing on, due to the bloody annoying limits livejournal placed (and hopefully purged of the fucked coding):

Jumping ahead to the subject near and dear to my heart, “Improving the Investment Climate for Private Sector Development”

Let me quote the key observation that makes me prefer a focus on cleaning up regulation and reducing the vampire state’s grasp in the region (behind the reduction of tariffs):
“While a number of countries in the region have low tariffs, recent research suggests that openness to trade tends to have little impact on growth in economies that are excessively regulated. The impact of tariff liberalization will be constrained if the regulatory environment dissuades investment.”

Well, all I can see is that it is about bloody time the point was made. Assumptions, my dears, assumptions. In short, reactivity. Not, however, just a matter of regulation (i.e. governmental action), but also entrenched habits – the non-tariffs barriers are created

Now further:

“The formal private sector remains underdeveloped in MENA, still emerging from the culture of decades of state-led growth and industrialization. On average, the private sector accounts for less than 50 percent of GDP in the region. Private sector activity is concentrated in a small number of large firms that have benefited from protective policies, along with a number of microenterprises that account for much of employment but have little access to formal finance, markets, or government support programs.”

Emphasis added

The underlined section is particularly important to understand. Even in the private sector, the effect of the Great Families with the competition strangling cross holdings is particularly pernicious. Further, I note that in my experience, the US and European efforts to reach the small players are almost invariably co-opted by the clever families that set up fake “small-medium sized enterprises” to capture aid, and succeed because the development agencies have a penchant for dealing with “entrepreneurs” that speak English or French well, automatically excluding of course the real ‘new players.’

Here again, this is tied to regulation that while ostensibly aimed at “protection” does nothing really of the sort. Well, does nothing of the sort in the sense meant, it usually does a fine job of protecting a clique of those who capture the rents – the old club and the occasional entrant. It then operates to exclude new entrants, entrepreneurs.

Let me jump forward to page 56:

“While there are large differences in the levels of national regulation, the region as a whole suffers from overly complex, time consuming, and costly business regulations and licensing requirements, impeding the entry of more private sector businesses. These costs to businesses especially deter the development of the small business sector, which cannot afford to hire intermediaries to deal with the complexity of administrative procedures.”

Precisely what I was getting at above – regulation that serves no purpose but to protect established interests, all covered up in nice rhetoric about “social partners” and other typically French formulations of brilliant dishonesty sure to suck in the gullible illiterate anti-Globo left.

“Several areas of government regulation stand out as particularly burdensome for the region. The minimum capital required to start a business is exceedingly high in the MENA region, almost five times as high as the world average and well above any other region of the world (Figure 3.5). The minimum capital requirement is a measure of the amount that an entrepreneur needs to deposit in a bank account to obtain a company registration number. In Jordan , Saudi Arabia , Syria , and Yemen , this amount averages more than ten times the country’s average income per capita (with Syria requiring 50 times the average income per capita). Such high minimum capital requirements all but block entry into the business sector.”

I covered this in my earlier note on this document, but let me return to how completely insane and utterly useless (except of course to keep the club doors closed).

“These high costs are all the more burdensome considering the underdeveloped state of the banking and financial sectors. While the economies in the GCC, Jordan , and Lebanon have fairly sophisticated financial sectors, with high bank and non-bank financial sector development and generally good regulation and banking supervision, much of the region’s private sector still has limited access to market finance. Banks dominate the financial system, but in general they play a limited role in financial intermediation. Much of the banking sector remains primarily in government hands and is inextricably linked to state-owned enterprises (SOEs), subject to government intervention in its lending and credit allocation policies to SOEs. This intervention has led to a crowding out of the private sector where it is permitted to operate, especially in Algeria , Libya , Syria and Yemen . Lending remains predominantly short-term and trade-related, with relatively little being directed to either long-term investments or to households.”

I note that the state domination of the banking sector is not really true for Tunisia and the Maghreb, however while the private sector operates the banking sector, there is crowding out as both countries shift governmental debt issuance to the domestic market. Not the banks fault, however, good business to take deposits at zero interest and buy government paper at 5-11 percent. Beautiful spread.

I have ranted on here before about the issue of understanding of short and long term credits in the market – the issue of lending being primarily short term is in my opinion not simply a “development” or regulatory issue, but an issue of local risk tastes.

I also note household lending is expanding in Jordan and Morocco at a fairly rapid pace. Whether that is a ‘good’ thing I am not sure. Certainly I have the sense that it is largely consumptive and not productive (although allowance has to be made for small real estate acquisition and first time major white goods which certainly can be thought of as productive in the sense of boosting household efficiency).

Moving ahead to Section 3.4.2 “Developments in structural reform for private sector development” a few observations on their observations:

“Outside of the Gulf, two countries that have been especially successful in implementing business regulation reform are Morocco and Tunisia . As part of continuing industrial modernization efforts under the Mise à niveau program, new measures to create a more favorable investment climate and encourage private sector growth have yielded some strong results in both countries. By cutting the number of procedures for starting a business from 11 to 5, Morocco moved from the bottom half of economies worldwide to the top 10 percent between 2003 and 2004. Its privatization progress has been strong, with more than 40 companies wholly or partially privatized in the oil refining, road transport, telecommunications, and banking sectors. The largest of these is the privatization of Maroc Telecom. Morocco has made efficient use of public private contracts in several sectors, and it is continuing to liberalize, most recently in the audiovisual communications sector and air transport sectors. Liberalization in the former sector may reinforce the process of democratization, while the latter may stimulate tourism activities and help secure the target of attracting 10 million tourists by 2010. Other achievements include strengthening of property rights and the passage of a new Labor Code by the Moroccan Parliament in 2003, after years of discussion. Serious improvements in the business environment were also made in Tunisia , and recent developments include important reform in the legal framework for asset recovery and bankruptcy.”

Some precisions, on the improvements in Morocco , sadly too many are headline improvements whose execution is lacking. Above all in terms of process. In theory, e.g. there are 5 processes, in reality more due to “add ons” – certain operations in theory suppressed but Administration manages to reimpose. I also note the new Labor code is a complete mess and desperately needs revisions – too much copy paste from France with no realistic chance of working in Morocco (let alone in France where their labor code is strangling).

Regardless, the improvements are real enough, and if they could improve their factor costs – labor and energy – the economy might really see some opportunities to take off. Clearly expanded private power production and a more flexible labor code with provisions realistically applicable in country would both help immensely.

Moving to this:

“Elsewhere, however, progress in improving the business environment has been more uneven. Although Jordan has maintained steady progress with its privatization program (completing some 60 privatization transactions by mid-2004 and netting proceeds of $1,214 million), its overall progress in various areas of business regulatory reform has been mixed. It has managed to significantly reduce the time and procedures associated with starting a business, and it has reduced the regulation for firing workers, in both areas ranking above the 50^th percentile in terms of improving its worldwide standing. But it has failed to move forward in other areas of the business environment, including improving access to credit and contract enforcement, relative to worldwide progress.”

Here again I find the analysis too headline focused and too development idiocy. Access to credit? There is plenty of liquidity in Jordan , it’s less regulatory (although the interminable credit bureau tender letting process if ever finished will help) issues than private sector practices.

“Egypt’s structural reform program stalled between 2000 and 2003, and it has made little progress in improving the business environment to date. Recently, the reform momentum has regained strength, beginning in 2003 with the decision to float the pound. The announcement of deeper and more comprehensive reforms in 2004, including the long-waited reforms in the banking sector, is a welcome development.”

Well, I suppose it almost redundant for me to mention how deeply sceptical I remain in regards to Egyptian reforms reality. Potemkin village posturing in my opinion.

I note, for example in re the “float” of the pound the comedy of a step forward - two steps back that the Egyptians effected when they “floated” the pound and then imposed a series of non-transparent administrative controls to ration access to hard currency.

Typical Egyptian government scheming, rather similar to their operations at present in contesting the political opposition.

Moving on to page 60 I found myself annoyed with their discussion of access to finance by the private sector. Firstly because the strong regional variations make it hard to generalize, but largely because I am simply generally annoyed when I read development people’s writing about access to finance as I usually feel (perhaps incorrectly) they’re thinking in very non-market terms, and not about access to finance in business driven terms.

The following section focused on relative world progress versus MENA progress I found fundamentally uninteresting. A policy person’s discussion, I suppose interesting to those types but I saw little practical here.

Another item regarding measurement, playing off of an item on page 64:

“It is worth noting that in two-thirds of the MENA countries with labor force growth rates exceeding 3 percent a year (not including the GCC), the overall business environment is ranked below average, relative to the world (Algeria, Syria, Yemen, and Egypt

A few countries may offer some guidance to others in the region. Regarding procedures to start a business and contract enforcement, Morocco and Tunisia appear to have substantially more favorable conditions than the average for developing countries as a whole. This suggests that there is much that other countries in the region could learn from these two countries when reforming their own business rules and regulations.”

The first paragraph is a very, very important observation. Leave aside Yemen , who the fuck cares about shitty little Yemen . Problem is Algeria , Syria and Egypt . Big, important and potential disasters (well Egypt is a slow motion disaster already).

Now, in regards to the issue of measurement and characterization, I have to say that in my experience Morocco feels tougher than Jordan in terms of actually doing business. That might be because of the ‘wasta’ or connexions rather than general standards, but hard to know.

Indeed that raises an interesting issue regarding business culture. Gut feel on how easy it is to work may be more important than abstract measures that don’t capture experienced business.

I have no idea how to write about such, however there an intangible which World Bank reports can not capture: “East of Doing Business” in cultural terms or cultural practice.

I don’t mean some namby pamby sense, but how well real practices jell. Why do I ‘feel’ it is easier to strike a deal in the Sham rather than the Maghreb ? Although (i) by the data the environment is easier than the Machreq, (ii) culturally I personally like the Maghreb more than the Machreq and specifically more than the Sham. I note were it merely my personal idiosyncrasy in expressing this, I would merely put this down to my personal tastes and keep my mouth shut. However, I have heard similar opinions from both Arabs (Maghrebine and Machreqi) and Westerners.

Clearly then it is not merely my personal failing or tastes, even as I note the Maghreb is more welcoming on a social level than the Machreq. Frankly, this is a question for which I have no particular answer nor clearly thought through analysis. I have heard various explanations, some tying business practices to English influence in the East, or in the inverse French influence in the Maghreb (French practices being so notoriously rigid).

While I see some merit in that, I rather remain unconvinced the colonial influence is the determinant. Perhaps I shall one day figure out a way to writ something intelligent about this. For the moment I merely note this impressionistic observation and suggest that when economic policy papers are written they routinely miss something that the businessman on the scene senses.

The box on the next page, 65, is interesting, but I would suggest they would do better with research on actual execution. Nevertheless, the overview on Tunisia and Morocco (and I draw attention back to the media liberalization ongoing in Morocco where papers are actually – excluding the party papers – interesting to read and risk giving you actual information, all because of the fairly strong private presence) identify important issues with real importance for the private sector.

Finally, the final section, Enhancing Governance, some short observations. Certainly it is no surprise that by the index on administration quality MENA falls short even of its own income level peer group standards. “MENA countries have, individually and on average, lower levels of quality of administration in the public sector than would be expected for their incomes.”

Public accountability even by developing world standards is shit.

I however do not see this as something that will change by pushing political reform first. I’d rather see liberalization and a follow-up type of political development, as Morocco has been doing (and Jordan might if it were differently placed) and Tunisia certainly should start doing insofar as it is clear that the Ben Ali regime needs some sunlight thrown on it to head off certain developments.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Reflections on MENA Region WB Economic Developments and Prospects from a practical point of view

There, I think this is better

After spending Saturday recovering from my Friday excesses, a fine if somewhat cloudy weekend spent with issues related to my recent acquisition of real property – thankfully largely outsourced to its main motivator who was very fetchingly dressed for her oversight duties with the contractors making the changes desired. Rather boring details in my experience, move door here, etc. In any case, my inputs were fairly useless.

Luckily I managed to be so entirely useless I was able to escape to a nice fashionable café to work, and observe the new spring fashions the local chicas have opted for. Quite challenging, one has to confess to the concept of public morality, or even the typical stereotypes of the region.

Between sketching my comments I was happy to enjoy the clique of chicas who passed so many times, all wearing the eastern style head scarf (hijab) but also some very fashionable and form fitting mixture of the abaya and slinky pants, along with some quite interesting footwear. Rather dominatrix style.

More common though was the somewhat Leb Slut fashion that the world got to see in full splendour during the Lebanese “intefada” aka “Cedar Revolution” among the gullible nit wits who got all excited about ‘An Arab Spring’ based on an ignorant, superficial reading of events.

Of course one has to be marginally tolerant given the same commentators only a few months before imagined all the region to be like Afghanistan so the Leb Slut Protestors in the knee high leather boots naturally turned their heads. They did not have my receptionists over the past several years with the too tight and rather full shirts to teach them that not everyone wears a burqa here.

This aside, rather than solely wasting my day watching the young things go by in their barely appropriate outfits, I thought I might turn my attention to the World Bank report.

Following on my prior comment a kind of in depth commentary on the World Bank “2005 Economic Developments and Prospects: Oil Booms and Revenue Management” something of a commentary, by page and section, from the ‘practical’ point of view as someone ‘in the market’ – with the positives and the negatives that implies.

Some comments then, by section and page, which represent my reflections on reading this – I note from my sense of issues on the ground and not from the policy perspective that World Bank must take.
Starting with the “Overview” (pages v-xi), a few comments

First, one item to retain from the entire document is the fairly stark differences between the three groupings they propose – labor rich and non-oil producing, labor rich and oil exporters and finally the labor importing oil exporters in my terms – and the relatively conservative response to the recent boom in oil prices. In the key phrase from page vii:
“During the current boom, roughly 25 percent of the additional export revenue has been spent. This compares with nearly 60 percent during the 1973 boom.”

Rather substantial difference that, implying a large amount of capital available. As the report notes later, several of the governments are aggressively paying down debts, although there is a boost in government consumption, but more on that later.

A moment then to comment on WB’s “fundamental and interrelated realignments” for structural reforms
“(1) from closed to more open economies, to create more competitive industries, benefit from international best practice, and gain access to new technology; (2) from public sector dominated to private sector led economies, providing the basis for improved efficiency and expansion of employment; and (3) from oil dominated to more diversified economies, to reduce the region’s dependence on volatile sources of growth, maintain fiscal stability, and preserve important social expenditures. Achieving this realignment requires interrelated policy actions on several fronts, including improved governance, particularly with regard to strengthening inclusiveness and accountability, as well as enhancing the inclusion of female labor in the private sector to increase the flexibility of the labor force and make better use of the region’s talents.”

A brief comment on these generally inoffensive statements. I remain rather unmoved by the fashionable obsession with female participation in the labor force as a “key” aspect of development. That is not to say I am personally in opposition to women’s participation, indeed I often state that given my druthers, I would staff a firm entirely with women here – not for the Leb Slut Fashion angle, although that could be a side angle – but rather simply due to the fact that the women here work harder and better. (And I recall an amusing conversation I overhead in the elevator on my way up to my office one afternoon with one low level worker bee type telling another that women should be banned from work force because they work too hard –i.e. in the sense of being nudges– and make men look bad Same fellow asserted unemployment would fall if women were banned since more men would be hired to replace women) In that context, women’s participation is a good thing, and I am happy for it.

However, I regard the frequent assertions that women’s rate of participation is a “key” aspect of development. Certainly Europe managed to develop during its industrial age with legal and other restrictions against women not so different from those found in the modern MENA region, suggesting the faddish underpinnings of the assertions women are key. Faddishness is not per se a problem, my concern here is that making women’s participation a fetish one can easily waste effort tackling head on an issue likely better tackled obliquely.

Finally on this point, I can only but agree
“Although each area of structural reform is important in its own right, the lack of progress in governance reform, and in particular public sector accountability reform, is of concern because of what it implies for the success of a broader economic reform effort. International experience with structural reform suggests that where reforms have been successful, there have been strong coalitions for change. But the ability for coalitions to press for reforms depends on access to information to formulate choices, the ability to mobilize, and the ability to contest policies that are poor, all areas of governance in which the region ranks poorly worldwide and demonstrates limited progress.”

Emphasis added. In particular access to information is a bloody pain, and not only something that makes realizing investments, as well as proper business planning difficult, but also of course contesting poor policies. The relative flourishing of the press in Morocco – quite extraordinary as compared to the rest of the region – and in particular in my opinion important because of the attention being paid to the issue of private sector development, and economic policy – is both unusual (one need only follow the turgid idiocy that is published in Jordanian and Egyptian papers) and extremely valuable. Nevertheless, ridiculous secretiveness rather typical of the region characterizes governmental treatment of data. Absurdly, for example, a recent McKinsey study of the economy taken for the account of the government remains a state secret – largely because certain key actors feel their “pet” areas of activity were not properly treated. Inane response.

Nevertheless, it strikes me that the key area where outside actors might be able to assist in terms of information is not pressing on direct “political-political” issues such as “democracy” qua “democracy” and specific political actions, but rather push for information transparency. This is hard to appose, and if focused on technocratic issues, harder to spin. Not impossible of course, certainly one can look to how the French have invented a clever double language in opposing liberalization internal to the European market (to use a non-regional example) as ‘social dumping’ and another interesting phrase I heard while following the Euro Constitution debacle, fiscal dumping. Double language to politicize and put in question already decided principles.

But leaving aside my bashing of French politics, let me jump ahead to the chapter one on “Recent Economic Outcomes in MENA” and reflect first on table 1.1: “MENA growth performance (1990-2004). A good breakout of the differences within the region and a caution on the overview throughout the remainder of the document on the groups the document names “Resource Poor – Labor Abundant” (RPLA) and I called earlier “labor rich and non-oil producing” versus “Resource Rich Labor Rich” (RRLA) or what I would call “labor rich and oil exporting” versus finally “Resource Rich Labor Importing” (RRLI) or what I would call the labor importing oil exporters.
Taking a look at their RPLA group:
Egypt,
Jordan,
Morocco,
Tunisia,
Lebanon,
Djibouti
- I have to say adding in Djibouti is a bit nonsensical. Djibouti is… well a silly little enclave that really does not belong to the MENA region, far less than Sudan for example, which doesn’t even figure here. Leaving aside this small compliant the primary item I would like to highlight (and this will go for each group) there is one 800 lb gorilla that naturally skews the group.

Egypt, purely by the size of its economy and its population – combined with its status as ‘the bad student.’ Throughout the document the references to this group are skewed by the weight of Egypt. In general a coherent and comparable group except that Egypt’s specificities as an outlier and its enormous weight naturally skew observations.

Looking at RRLA:
Algeria,
Iran,
Syria, and
Yemen

My first thought is “ Yemen?”
Yemen? Well, okay. I guess. It is a net exporter, although just barely, and certainly on a per capita basis it is a bit of a stretch to think of Yemen as ‘resource rich’ (oil exporter makes more sense here).

Regardless of this carping, here at least the group weighting is more or less equal. Iran and Algeria strike me as comparable peers, in terms of large population oil / hydrocarbon product exporters. Of all the groups here the generalizations make the most sense.

Looking at RRLI: this is in essence the Gulf. The only problem here – the economies really do have pretty similar structures and this is the most coherent group – is that KSA skews things, being so much larger than the rest.
Now, this is not criticism per se of the WB report or its observations, merely contextual notation for considering the report’s “group” observations, i.e. that two countries in particular by the giant size relative to their peer group skew things. Taking a look for example at the group characterization on that same table, the RPLA numbers – population, labor force, GDP per active worker are largely Egypt. Of the population e.g. taking the 90-2000 average, Egypt makes up 70 percent of that figure.

Obviously that tends to make Egypt’s real problems the group’s problem, which while not unreasonable somewhat skews things.

The following page (5) also attracted my attention:
“Though oil exporters have been the drivers behind MENA’s growth acceleration, the pace of growth among resource poor labor abundant economies (RPLA) in the region has also improved, having benefited from a recovery in agriculture, stronger growth in worker remittances and tourism, and a modest fillip to intra-regional trade. While performance has been partially hampered by weakness in European export markets, growth among the RPLA economies climbed slightly averaging 4.1 percent a year over 2003-2004, up from an average 3.6 percent growth over 2000-2002.
Jordan has been a net economic beneficiary of developments in neighboring
Iraq. Increases in transit trade and the establishment of local reconstruction and diplomatic operational headquarters there have underpinned economic activity to a 5.5 percent gain during 2004. Lebanon, as well, which experienced depressed economic activity prior to the war in Iraq, saw a recovery in growth over 2004 to 3.8 percent. Egypt has enjoyed increased tourism revenues and Suez Canal transit fees, which among other factors served to raise growth by a full point to 4.3 percent in 2004. Morocco and Tunisia, linked more tightly to Europe through trade in textiles, other light manufactures and tourism, have been harder hit by sluggish economic conditions in that market, resulting in the waning GDP growth during 2004.”

Emphasis added.

In re worker remittances, a small problem with them, because of poor systems for directing savings or enabling entrepreneurial activities (business start ups), these go far too much for boosting consumption at the expense of investment, with a penchant for supporting imported consumption.

On Jordan: there is a very good case for Jordan, if it addresses the problems at Aqaba port and continues to invest in its transport infrastructure (and liberalizes an abusively clannish “union” of transporters – again a hint of what looks good on paper ‘a union to protect the interest of drivers’ in reality is abused by clannism and allows practices such as that of refrigeration truck drivers disconnecting the refrig unit to make a gain at the expense of the business hiring him, something one can not punish because of the union, one has to eat the losses in the name of ‘workers’ protections.), a very good business as entrepot for Iraq. The port at Aqaba and if developed with Syria transshipments to Lebanon, Amman can be a real logistics center.

In re Egypt’s performance: keep in mind the Suez canal fees. Nearly pure rents, those fees, insofar as little added value service is added. The boost from these fees is purely from external factors and has really fuck all to do with internal reforms in Egypt. Rents, the game of Mubarek.

“Despite the historically strong MENA regional growth, on a per capita basis, economic growth over the last two years lags the strong growth experienced in other developing regions, a reflection of both the firming of GDP growth rates across developing regions and the MENA region’s high population growth. A number of positive factors have driven a broad acceleration in per capita growth across developing country regions worldwide during the first half of the 2000s. A rise in south-south trade, the realization of gains from past advances in economic reforms, buoyant domestic and foreign investment activity, and a supportive external environment have all contributed to global economic gains for developing nations.”

First, on high population growth, keep in mind that the Maghreb has seen a near collapse in population growth rate to slightly above European levels – implying really that while in the near term they will see a demographic bulge adding young workers, in the medium term there will be a real platform. This is far less the case in the East, where growth rates remains very high – thus the MENA region “high population growth rate” which is really “the Mashreq’s” high rate. Egypt in particular is alarming. I like to cite the figure, roughly a million new Egyptians a year with all that implies.

On the intra-regional trade, here I would like to highlight one of the most annoying issues I have faced in the region, the frustrating degree to which clear win-win regional level cooperative projects are fucked over by myopic screw-my-neighbor-for-the-sheer-pleasure-of-it policies. That is, decisions that can’t even be justified by the bad excuse of corruption or narrow interest, but pure idiotic power plays.

The best example I have in mind is a project I had some small part several years ago, which throws into light such idiocy, in this case Moroccan-Algerian-Tunisian rivalries. First, on the context, here we have an economic unit (the Maghreb) that actually makes quite a bit of sense and could be extremely interesting as a field of investment for its own growth dynamic and also in relationship to Europe (especially if the EU can get its act together). Algeria
with its massive hydrocarbon potential, above all in relationship to newly developing natural gas facilities and swaths of its Sahara that have yet to be fully explored for nat gas deposits, is a clear potential industrial power house, and source of capital. Tunisia and Morocco excellent platforms for light industrial and services oriented development – in short near-outsourcing for Europe and the Algerian monster. Rivalry is understandable to be sure, but the petty cut-off-my-nose-to spite-my-neighbor is less so, or as a Moroccan compatriot in private equity said to me (in discussing a deal torpedoed by his own parent financial house), “We don’t have to look far to explain our under-development.”

Regardless, the deal in question which I had a tiny part in was a regional power development project for export on to Spain and Italy with generation based off of a massive generation facility co-located with a natural gas processing facility in Algeria. Really actually pretty decently conceived. And in the context of transiting to Spain via Morocco and the Gibralter narrows, excellent idea, entirely commercially viable. But no, no, no. Rather than going ahead with a plan eminently financable in the private sector and completely commercially viable, the Algerians decided to propose instead undersea direct lines from their site to Spain and Italy – undersea power cables hundreds of km long boosting the costs astronomically (not to mention seriously impacting efficiency, etc as I understood the engineers, although frankly I am not an electrical engineer to treat such issues). Sheer madness, utter and sheer madness. The sole excuse was the supposed political risk that the Moroccans and Tunisians might shut off the lines. In reality, it was all about fucking over the Moroccans and Tunisians. Really, the “political” risk there was clearly far less than internal political risk in Algeria (and remains the case).

A beautiful project, fucked for no better reason than the Algerian generals who run the show have a completely childish, rentier view of economics and are more interested in fucking with their neighbors than making a bigger pie for all. One might say that some of them might have been seeing option for nice fat envelopes off of the direct sea development, which is not excludable, but a big percentage of zero remains zero. Dead letter.

Anyone having done business can of course recount such stories – MENA is not Mars of course, however the degree to which short sighted idiocy continues to trump reasonable developments here is utterly maddening. Cooperation remains poorly developed, on a comparative basis.

The next section, 1.2.2 “Labor Market Developments” also has some particular interest.

First, the graph “Figure 1.2 Unemployment in MENA 2000 and 2004” bears some reflection.

[graph omitted]

Tunisia and Morocco look like decent performers here, in terms of growth per labor. Algeria ’s reduction in unemployment is largely state driven and probably not ‘real’ in sustainable terms

Egypt ’s unemployment rate strikes me as utterly khayali. I have zero faith in those numbers.

Moving on, page 7 has some interesting items. First, keep in mind this: “Region wide, more than 12 million jobs were created over the last four years12, a 37 percent increase over the average yearly job creation over the 1990s.”

Not bad, not bad. However, the next note is discouraging. “Despite this good news, the degree to which the current reduction in unemployment is permanent is questionable. A large number of temporary jobs have been created under Algeria ’s Economic Recovery Program. More generally, the region exhibits artificially high employment creation relative to the recent growth upturn (with the elasticity of employment growth with respect to output growth averaging almost 0.9, well above international averages for longer time horizons). Over a sustained period, this level of employment creation relative to growth is not likely. Though the employment/output relationship varies from country to country, the elevated pace of employment creation in the region, relative to its output growth, suggests that the strong unemployment decline has been achieved, for at least a few countries, only temporarily.”

Artificial boosting. Regardless, looking at “Figure 1.3: Employment Growth versus Output Growth” I note again our middle performers Morocco , Tunisia and Jordan are well within the reasonable and sustainable.

The next paragraph also needs some comment:

“Furthermore, based on the World Bank’s analysis of the employment situation in the MENA region in 2003, the number of new jobs that need to be created over the next 20 years to keep pace with labor force entrants and absorb the current unemployed implies real economic growth rates averaging 6 to 7 percent a year for a sustained period of time. In the last year alone, growth has moderated to 5.2 percent, suggesting that the fundamental problem facing the region in terms of job creation remains unchanged with the recent surge in growth.”

Emphasis added.

This is a real problem, however an item that somewhat moderates the starkness of the problem is that it is skewed a bit by the weight of KSA and Egypt, with very high population growth rates and anemic private sectors.

The following section, 1.2.3 Sources of Higher Growth is important. I have little direct comment, but will quote two items I consider important.

“The factors underpinning growth in the region have also changed substantially since the 1990s, with growth over the last two years fueled increasingly by government consumption and investment. Prior to the recent run-up in oil prices, during the 1990s, the MENA region found support for 3.6 percent annual GDP growth from a more balanced set of factors. Domestic demand accounted for 79 percent of growth, led by personal consumption spending, which was the key driving force for growth (providing 1.6 points of overall growth, or some 43 percent). Government spending and domestic investment together provided another 1.3 percentage points to overall growth (or 36 percent of overall growth), reflecting cyclical influences stemming from the oil markets, as well as domestic conditions. Net exports, meanwhile, accounted for about 21 percent of growth, contributing 0.8 percentage points to overall growth (Table 1.3). “

The breakout from the super-regional level does show that the big oil exporters are the main villains here.

Over the section on export growth, this is fairly clear, the only item to retain is the structural difference between the Maghreb, where all flows are essentially European oriented and driven, while those of Jordan and Egypt are as attached to the Gulf as not.

The chart and discussion on exchange rate (as well as the discussion of the Dutch disease issue) strike me as highly discussable, however without deciding to play economist and digging into data I merely note I have reservations which require profound analysis to do justice to.

Now, on page 13 I draw attention to this in re Egypt: “Particularly strong gains in Egypt were partly the result of the upturn in tourism receipts (up 19 percent since 2002), but also came from Suez Canal receipts (up 44 percent), which have soared with rising oil prices as it becomes a more cost-effective transit route for exporters than circumnavigating Africa.”

In my opinion Egyptian performance remains rent driven.

Skipping ahead, over the Capital Flows and Iraq sections to intra-regional ties, I note (page 23) the following (“This has greatly buffered the sharp declines in tourists from Europe, which fell nearly 10 percentage points, from 38 percent of total tourists into the region in 1999 to 29 percent in 2002, and from the US, from which arrivals fell from a far lower initial share of 3.7 percent of total tourists in 1999 to 2.5 percent in 2002.”) is a bit inexact insofar as arrivals for the Maghreb have performed well, this is true only for the Middle East.

Moving ahead, to page 38, I note an item of interest:

“This shift began in the 1980s and has continued through recent years. Also, beginning in the early 1990s, the expatriate labor force originating in the Levant, in Egypt, and to a degree, among the Maghreb countries, has given way to increased GCC importation of labor from South Asia and Southeast Asia. At present, the bulk of worker remittance receipts for the labor abundant countries in MENA now originate in Western Europe, where employment and wages have been stymied by a lack of economic growth over the last years.”

The shift to non-Arab origin labor of course was a strategic political choice, in essence the rentiers of the Gulf began to get worried that their fellow Arabs pan-Arabism might well imply that the princes and rentier families might come under pressure to share more of their rents, and stop treating their imported brethren like sub-human scum. Better then, for political purposes, to import Asians, either sub-Continentals or others, as the likelihood of believing they should be part of the club is/was lower. It’s worked fairly well, in a limited sense at least, although sadly the native population of the Gulf remains near useless spoiled idiots. On the next page there is some comment on the various programs to move more locals into private employment in the Gulf – as far as I understand (nota bene one has to count a bit of resentment here) from fellow Arabs, in general Khalijis – being largely hired for their nationality – operate at best at 50 percent of efficiency of their expatriate Arab confreres. Even taking into account the jealousy – resentment factor, I have to say that seems about right.

I note further, in relationship to this comment:

“Traditionally, oil rents have been used to consolidate the role of the state—they have enabled centralization and preservation of the state’s position. Now, at least notionally, all of the MENA oil exporters are in transition from large state-led economies to more private sector oriented economies in an effort to achieve greater efficiencies to improve economic welfare.”

Very notionally, in my opinion.

Next, some comments on Chapter 3: Structural Reform for Long-Term Growth.

A few key quotes:

“Although MENA economies have improved their market orientation, in general they have not kept pace with worldwide progress. Reform has tended to be piecemeal and lacking in coherence. In general, the MENA countries have made substantial progress on reducing tariffs on trade, but tariff barriers in many MENA countries remain amongst the highest in the world.”

“Despite the fact that the region ranks at the bottom in terms of public accountability and has the longest reform path to travel, virtually no country improved its worldwide rank in this area, and virtually every county showed a marked deterioration relative to the progress occurring worldwide.”

First, in terms of practical application, I am not particularly moved by the WB’s measure of relative movement. While I can see some utility in the concept in regards to having a sense of potential future progress, by my own gut I don’t find this particular measure convincing. I’d prefer they stick with the absolute comparisons, at least from the perspective of practical usage, although I suppose the political or policy user might find more utility, however dubious I regard their comparative – too much of the material noted is mere ‘headline reform’ (or sucker the Development Suckers reform) e.g. the Egyptian pound float, that doesn’t properly measure real implementation and thus for the practical investor or operator, doesn’t really reflect operation economic reality.

Moving ahead to the discussion of outward orientation, page 45 has interesting data to reflect on

“…the entire MENA region, with a population close to 320 million, has fewer non-oil exports than Finland or Hungary , countries with populations of 5 and 10 million respectively43. The per capita volume of exports of the resource poor countries in the region is small relative to that of other countries. In Egypt , exports amount to just over $100 per capita. Morocco exports are about $260 per person. This compares with exports of over $570 per capita in Turkey , $1200 in Poland and more than $3400 in Hungary . There remains tremendous opportunity for growth. But at the same time, the costs of inaction and falling further behind are likely to rise as countries such as China , Russia and Ukraine provide more intense competition in the narrow product areas in which MENA non-oil exports are concentrated.”

Stark numbers to be sure, but to retain from Figures 3.1: non-oil exports as a proportion of GDP 90-03

[graph omitted]

Only Morocco and Tunisia approach the average of lower and middle income economies. Jordan clearly has fallen behind – but one has to admit it’s not as if they’ve been well-positioned.

Jumping ahead to page 47

“Only a handful of diversified exporters, such as Jordan , Morocco and Tunisia , have developed non-oil export niches (with a high proportion of total exports in sectors with revealed comparative advantage, on par with the successful exporters in other regions). Oil exporters, by and large, have not found these alternative export niches, with non-oil exports scattered among product groups in which the economies do not demonstrate strong comparative advantage. A few exceptions exist, notably Bahrain and, to some extent, the UAE.

The region’s low level of integration is also reflected in the ratio of net FDI inflows to GDP (Figures 3.2a and b), which averages only a third of the average level achieved worldwide, this despite moderate increases over the last few years (noted in chapter 1). This weak exposure to foreign investment denies the region of potential efficiency gains from advanced management skills and technology.”

I note the aggregate data is a bit deceptive, as the FDI flows for Tunisia and Morocco again are right around those of East Asia and Latin American averages (my two little Maghrebine favorites emerge as interesting outliers throughout this story, don’t they?), although Lebanon and Jordan don’t do badly either. Qatar , I note, is boosted by one single project – the truly and incredibly massive RasGas natural gas project. I am fairly certain it would be right down with Kuwait otherwise. Not where Egypt is as well.

An important note to consider as well:

“Among them, protection remains high relative to countries elsewhere in the world. In addition, non-tariff barrier (NTB) coverage is still widespread. While the Gulf economies and Lebanon are relatively open, the majority of countries maintain protective import structures, primarily through tariffs. In addition, behind-the border constraints to trade are considerable. Transport, logistics, and communication costs are high, raising the cost of trade. Exchange rate management has also played a role in discouraging non-oil exports, with currency overvaluation hurting competitiveness. Finally, the overall business climate has played a role in hindering investment in potential export-oriented industries (discussed in section 3.4). “

Emphasis added:

I entirely agree, from an experienced environment point of view, the non-transparent non-tariff barriers, as well as what they term the behind the border constraints are deeply important. In particular the behind the border – poor transport and logistics infrastructure are particularly hurtful for the small start up operator and something that can have immense value add if administrative idiocies are removed and public investment directed to internal transport-logistics improvements. I place this, in personal opinion, well ahead of the tariffs issue if necessary.

You can lower tariffs to zero, but if you have brakes such as a broken port (e.g. my past comments regarding the utterly absurd practices at the local port here, all geared for the convenience of the clique of ‘workers’ in the formal section of the port services economy – leaving those in the informal entirely unprotected – solidarity Reg – and imposing disproportionate costs on the small would be exporter), that imposes crippling barriers on the new operator.

Returning a moment to the issue of implementation and real changes. (page 48) “Following the swearing in of a new cabinet in July 2004, Egypt reduced the number of tariff bands, annulled import fees and surcharges incompatible with the GATT, and instituted strong tariff rate cuts on most imports, resulting in a decline in average tariffs from 21 percent to 9.1 percent between 2000 and 2004.” I remain deeply cynical about how these changes will actually be implemented. As you have witnessed in the political sector, Mubarek’s government has a real flair for announcements that give with one hand, and implementation that takes back with the other.

Continued in part ii, bloody size restrictions.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Development Cuban Rhum Idiots Diplos and Recovery

(Updated to purge bad coding, added bonus, you get a pretence of customer service from me)

None of them terribly related, but what can I say? I have contempt for my own coherence.

That aside, I shall not be wearing a clown suit for the rest of my time in this country (an expression apparently amusing I add, but more on that later). Friday having been spent in hammering away at the backstabbing idiots at what damage they might do to themselves (none of us give a flying fuck about the organization, an appeals on such grounds would have been laughable), to make sure that they knew, whether they liked it or not, our interests were aligned.

Compromises were arranged, and this upcoming week I am busy with them seeing if we can not make something happen.

However, after working late into Friday night, past the last mournful call to prayer, I rang up one of my Diplo friends, one of the few American diplos who is not boring, boring and yet more boring to entice him into spending good United States Dollars of official salary on suspect Cuban products in equally suspect settings.

I am pleased to tell my American readership that some of your hard earned tax dollars flowed off to Cuba based on my efforts. I was in luck, as it happened my diplo friend needed some drinks based on idiocies emanating from the Land of The Free (or perhaps more accurately, the Land of the Knowledge Free in this context). He was also suitably amused at my expression regarding wearing a clown suit.

So off we went to my club to drown our frustrations (or in my case bring myself down from my quivering rage – when one’ left hand starts shaking from too much stimies, not good). Supposedly to be joined by our delightfully corrupt French compatriot and our “Friedman Source” amigo.

Neither showed, but my club was it’s usual plush red place with the well-heeled out and about for an evening of wine and music (of some vaguely Lebanese sort, annoying rotted Machreqi pop which I despise, but no matter).

After inducing my American diplo friend to contribute to the Cuban economy on our mutual behalf, and some ranting on my part in regards to the previously mentioned attempted but aborted fuck-over, we turned our talk to his annoyances, as well as the fact the hostess pays too much attention to me. Of course on the later, if he’d just get his mind around the real relational economy here, it would be very clear and hardly worth mentioning. Highly attractive passport spending decent amounts of hard currency supporting Cuba on a regular basis, of course she’s interested. 3^rd World Solidarity Reg.

This aside, while waiting for our delightfully corrupt French compatriot to show up, we had an interesting discussion on how much his colleagues rely on Mr. “Friedman Source” for their information about politics and economy. It was, one must confess, a bit amusing to hear – given Mr. FS is well-connected, but he’s also one point of view and while I like his take on many things, I also think he’s bloody unrealistic (but then to be a classic liberal in the Arab world is something of a bloody unrealistic thing to be if one thinks one’s ideas are actually going to be implemented). Regardless, the very things I mentioned recently in regards to the strange risk-aversion and life-in-the-castle syndrome among the American diplos was very much confirmed as my friend ranted on about their mechanical parroting on one source’s observations in cable after cable back to the Land of the Free of Knowledge (about MENA) and HQ of the gullible gits.

As an aside, this weekend’s FT had a delightful review of Friedman’s atrociously stupid ‘The World is Flat’ by our dear Martin Wolf. Diverting for a moment, I rather enjoyed Wolf’s sour comment, after quoting a few lines from it, “These sentences are, states the blurb, the product of a ‘world-class writer.’ Can such a concertina crash of mixed metaphors be world-class writing?” Wolf adds, “World-class writing [evidently] can be self-indulgent, prolix and glib.” I particularly enjoyed Wolf’s conclusion: “It is easy to laugh [at Friedman]. The language and enthusiasm are often absurd. The metaphor of flatness is misguided….. Yet the book’s energy will force sceptics to recognise that a world in which the cost of communications is falling towards zero and billions of people are trying to participate in the market economy is unprecedented.” Wolf goes on to throw Friedman some bones – out of pity one has to expect, Wolf’s own writing on the issue is indeed world-class and far better than Friedman’s simple minded…. enthusiasms.

Returning to the issue of American diplo isolation I was disappointed to hear that in my friend’s increasingly despairing view there were not any real counterweights to the increasing isolation of his colleagues. Quite the contrary, policy is apparently running to greater isolation and greater reliance on third hand knowledge. This can not be good.

On this issue he turned to some recent policy developments he was apparently incensed about. Largely, as I shall note, because it marginalised his emerging little fiefdom here, but what can we say? Interests. Well, this is unfair, his interests in this case I think are fairly aligned with what state interests should be.

However, for this conversation we decided to fuck off to a highly sketchy destination to cheer him up while he ranted. Or in the alternative, give us an opportunity to observe the burgeoning and highly liberalised late night service economy in operation. I luckily kept his mind on such high issues as policy, although the fine example of local late night service workers who stationed herself with her knee-high zip up boots, micro shorts and impressive white bustier did make this a bit challenging.

No, my diplo amigo is sufficiently incensed to ignore the boots and the bustier (or perhaps frightened by the same, as he’s also indignant that one of his colleagues is cheating on his wife with the wife of another colleague about which I did try to pretend to be in some vague way upset) for two of his key projects are being shot down by Washington. Here I am as well indignant, and manage to ignore our boots and bustier neighbour to delve into the details.

As it happens with the return of Liz Cheney (the woodpecker nosed daughter of Dick) has marked a change in heart in the Bush Administration in regards to MENA policy. While previously change via economic reform and growth (near and dear to my heart and wallet) were “in” the naïve enthusiasm for the “Arab Spring,” as the worthless ignorant functionaries and prattling slimy political appointee ignoramuses put it, has convinced Liz the Woodpecker that Political Change is the hot thing, and Economic Change is not. Disillusioned now with the sensation that perhaps all that posturing and prattle about the entrepreneurial nature of the Arabs was a wee bit off base and their ‘just add water instant economic growth and entrepreneurship’ policies might not produce instant change, the new instant change concept is Political Change. Why there’s an Arab Spring sprouting!!!! Oh yes, and Women. Preferably “Women and Political Change.” Woodpecker thinks she’s going to transform the region now, ride in and “save” women in MENA with little show projects “training” women parliamentarians, reformists and other such weak-minded useless nonsense. (Evidently not noting she is personally despised in the region for her family connexions and the real opposition doesn’t want anything to do with her projects.)

That means his little emerging empire of economic reform projects are about to get frozen or defunded or otherwise not grow in a manner to boost his career. It also means my scheming on some business along these lines is utterly wasted, which irritates the hell out of me. Gullible government money being problematic as it is also myopic and the policy makers have the attention span of small mentally retarded Chihuahuas.

Leaving aside my own plans to milk the Leviathan for some little scheme I was hatching (long shot, but…), the idea the one thing the US Administration was vaguely getting right (focus on economic growth) is being abandoned in favour of a ridiculous faddish enthusiasm for so-called political change through equally ridiculous “political training” projects and idiotic “women’s empowerment” mumbo jumbo rather chaps.

This means that the bird brained myopic gits are going to get back into the useless whanking on about fucking political change and not only waste their money on projects which I shall not be able to make any money off of them, but will not even have the slightest real impact. At least the trade and economic reform projects have some marginal impact. This idiotic women’s empowerment idiocy is pure Western whankery at its worst, and the concept of US financing political reform in foreign countries, let alone in the MENA region is laughable on its face.

All this quite spoiled even the slightest inclination to waste some time learning about the pricing of late night services or how the market was developing of late with the strong tourism arrivals. For the sake of knowledge of course, and we both left depressed at the thought of the lost opportunities and the fact that the idiotic Woodpecker’s newest obsession is apparently promoting MENA “Women entrepreneurs” selected via the ignorant blundering as her interventions in Jordan. The names cited were of the usual suspects… once again the savvy local elite operators with zero relationship to real entrepreneurial behaviour or reform managed to get the USG to pay for ‘training’ and junkets.

I’d prefer, as I have said in the past, more transparent bribery rather than devaluing the concept of promoting entrepreneurs or women entrepreneurs with this sort of transparent crockery – although here I am assuming the US diplos doing the selecting were in fact being cleverly corrupt in throwing the elite some bribes, rather than merely being hoodwinked. This is an assumption made simply to make myself feel better, as I rather suspect the contrary.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 03, 2005

Madre de Puta

I just got the most horrible phone call I have ever had in my entire professional career. Two of my peeps, competent peeps are scheduled to come into town. I have fucking killed myself to put them in front of the right people for deals.

They call and say they might have to cancel. No way are they getting away with this, the back stabbing motherfuckers. If this happens, I might as well wear a motherfucking clown suit every day for the rest of the time I am in this fucking country.

Phone calls, motherfucking phone calls. And on a fucking Friday. They're going to fucking pay for this, the fucking morons.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Italian minister moots return of the lira

Italian minister moots return of the lira
By Tony Barber in Rome
Published: June 3 2005 11:49 | Last updated: June 3 2005 11:49
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0f0888a8-d41c-11d9-9db0-00000e2511c8.html

What can one say to this, but bloody hell.

I do note that the Euro critics in Italy quoted in the article are a bunch of hypocritical gits.

Pantom, for you, I say, don't bloody cheer. It's the opening act. Actually getting rid of some deadwood like Italy might do wonders.

_{By the way, as I sit here tinkering pointlessly with some data for my peeps, I wonder, does it make any sense at all to weight PER by capitalisation?}

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Why We Don't Get More FDI (Update, Reason II; Update Reason III)

Well, that would be the absurd lies told combined with how much of a pain in the ass it is to get information that resembles real information.

Lies, like bribery, I am fine with if they are well-constructed, and have some relationship with fundamentals. In which case we call it "smart marketing."

Lies that are pure fabulations merely reduce credibility, for their obviousness and stupidness.

Such as making the claim "When [Insert Name Here] comes here they are so impressed they immediately want to invest in [Insert other name here]." Now, anyone doing their due diligence will shortly or even at that time know this is false. Why say it? Sort of a cheap used car salesman strategy. Seems clever, really isn't.

Now, the other irritating issue is the control of information. I want some public information. If I get it, it does into a project proposal that could land these worthless jokers some nice pot of foreign money for their worthless backwards little filthy town. I've done me homework, I made the connexions, and blah blah. Okay, I find the fucker with the information. Explain the deal. I need his information. Simple. But he lives in Filth Town, and I am not there, but here. Now, I know he comes here for business, regularly, why not meet up here? Easier for me, and I am bringing money to the table. No, I have to go out to filth town to bloody take some tea with him, see the hovels of people waiting to be employed, blah blah blah, listen to his transparent lies and MAYBE get something resembling information. I only want resemblance. Not bloody likely to get it.

So, I am betting I leave this afternoon to waste my time in some bloody worthless waste of human flesh stinking hole to get nothing but tea and some lies that are not even particularly worthwhile.

UPDATE:
An actual conversation with the Bourse.

"Hello, I am calling on behalf of a foreign investor, I want information on [some data on volumes data on-line] at your website. Can I speak with your Communications department?"
"You're calling from where?"
"[Location]"
"For whom?"
"A foreign investor who doesn't want to be identified, I really don't see what the relevance is, I just want to check on something on your public site with your communications deparment."
"Please hold"
Wait, Wait.
"Hello, can you call back later, say around 15:00?"
"Sure, but now the money's going to another exchange. Good work on attacting money."

Update II
Actual Conversation II. Some modifications to protect the guilty.
This with "A Very Large Arab Bank and Regional Player" Headquarters. (Headquarters, again HEADQUARTERS)
(in loose colloquial translation of course)
Lounsbury: "Hello, I would like to have Mrs. Hamaqa, in your risk capital department - or investment capital department" [AKA I'd like to speak to Mrs. LooneyTunes in your private equity department; Mrs. LooneyTunes is the Director]

Receptionst: "Right away, [polite nonsense]"

Mrs. Hamaqa: "Hello, This is Mrs. Hamaga" (bedou accent)

Lounsbury: "Good Day, Mrs. Hamaqa, I am Lounsbury of [Incompetent Idiots, Inc.], I'd like to speak to you [About An Important Subject in Re Private Placements], Mr. Zelzela referred me." (Mr. Zelzela -Mr. Earthquake to you- is a Big Swinging D)

Mrs. Hamaqa: "I'm Sorry, I am the wrong Mrs. Hamaqa, I am in [completely irrelevant cost center type department]." Hangs up.

Lounsbury. Motherfucking rude assholes. Okay, here we go again. [Ring up the bloody worthless receptionist again, many tries, get through]

Lounsbury: "Good Day, I would like to speak with your risk capital department - or investment capital department."

Receptionist: "Yes Sir, [cheery airheaded Leb Slut nonsense]"

[Long motherfucking time on hold.]

[Answer]

Lounsbury: "Good Day, is this Mrs. Hamaqa of the Risk Capital Department? I am Lounsbury of [Incompetent Idiots, Inc.], I'd like to speak to you [About An Important Subject in Re Private Placements], Mr. Zelzela referred me."

Some Unidentified Confused Person: "No Sir, this is Risk Management. You want what?"

Lounsbury: [Suppresed cursuing] "Ahem, I am looking for your investment capital department, you know direct investments?"

SUCP: "Direct Investments?" [As if the person had never considered the concept before.]

Lounsbury: "Yeeeees. Direct investments. As in companies, directly investing in companies. Equities?"

SUCP: "Oh, our investment banking division?"

Lounsbury: "Well.... close enough." [Actually no, but indeed close enough]

[On hold for a long fucking time]

Another Unidentified Clueless Git: "Hello?"

Lounsbury: "Good Day, is this the investment banking division?"

AUCG: "No Sir, this is Capital Markets."

Lounsbury. "Right. Of course. What else would it be. Sorry about this, could you connect me with Investment Banking? Or better the Investment Capital Department?"

AUCG: "Certainly" [Puts down phone]

[Waiting, waiting, waiting]

Yet Another Clueless Git: "Hello?"

Lounsbury: "Good Day, your colleague was going to transfer me to investment banking."

YACG: "Ah Yes Sir."

[On hold]
[Disconnected]

Lounsbury: Bloody clueless morons. [Redial]

Receptionist: "Blah blah blah"

Lounsbury: "Good Day. Please wait a moment, I have been sent to the wrong office several times now. I would like to be connected with the Department of Investment Capital or Risk Capital. That means direct investing, like investment banking."

Receptionist: "Blah Blah Blah." Chirpy Twittery.

Transfer

Original Clueless Git: "Department of Risk Management"

Repeat Entire Process 5 times.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 02, 2005

More low value added musings (edit: regarding local market numbers) (pointless update re evil regs)

As I respond to a request for some information, I muse at the funny data I have from the local Bourse.

For example, what chance is there that the essentially bankrupt "We Have Pissed Through 4 billion in State Capital Injections" Bank (WHPT-4-SCI Bank, Piss Bank for short) merits, based on public information a 147 percent rise in its share value in the past five months, for an impressive 28 times earnings valuation?

I would hate to think there are insiders who know that perhaps, well, it's going to get another injection? Oh perish the thought. That could never happen.

Piss Bank, well, it may be a perrenial loser with no less than a third of former management on show trial, but the State is going to keep this shambling zombie alive. And going to give it hard earned (well borrowed) tax payer (if anyone actually paid taxes) dollars (or the near local equivalent).

_{(I add I categorically deny having any information of my own that would support the same. When I say I categorically deny that information, I mean, well.... perhaps I may have something along those lines, but how would I know if it's worth betting on?)}

Another example. The perennial money loser "Suck At Consumer Financing at Least by Our Published Accounts" Ltd. (SACFLOPA). although it consistently makes year in, year out literally no money, local wisdom has is valued at 42.3 times earnings.

Well, is wisdom wrong or are the published numbers comically fabricated?

You be the judge.

However, most impressive is our local maker of self-exploding gas tanks. Although of suspicious quality, the products, and disdainful of even pretending to distribute dividends, the market wisdom values our scrappy little producer of customer anihilating bon-bons a 90 times earnings valuation.

At least they allow that they make money of some sort in their published accounts.

Added thought:

You know, I just don't know what to think about an insurance company in a young market that is paying out 99 percent of net profits (as published). Taking into account regulation here, I have to believe their published numbers approach having some relationship with reality.

(Further thought: I note that the insurance company in question has been at this payout level for a while)

UPDATE II
I learned today that the Pharmacists Union (aka anti-competitive insensitive lying scum) managed to change the new bill on the sector regulation to ban the "evils" of "unbridled" and "disloyal" competition that allowing pharmacies to colocate with private hospitals represent. It is far superior for the health of the nation to force the hospitalized or the newly released to go elsewhere to fill the scripts.

They also managed to insert a clause requiring any new market entrants to secure the double accord of the municipal governor and the local Anti Competitive Insensitive Lying Pharma Scum union.

Galloping ahead we are.

However, it does appear that pharma producers may still be freed of the bizarre regulation forcing them to cede 51 percent of their capital to and only to the licensed pharmacists (of which 27.1 percent must be native born).

Regulation.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 01, 2005

Wolf: On Europe

At the risk of sliding into Euro weblabberdom, more on the EU.

Martin Wolf: Forget the hymns and fix the economy
By Martin Wolf
Published: May 31 2005 20:09 | Last updated: May 31 2005 20:09
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/db90b07c-d1ff-11d9-8c82-00000e2511c8.html
(yes it's bloody subscription, plump for it or fuck off.)

Martin Wolf has some fine choice comments as always, I highlight my favorites.
An earthquake has hit Europe. The move towards ever closer union turns out not to be inevitable. This is a source of both pleasure and pain: pleasure over the humbling of arrogance and pain at the triumph of reaction.

Indeed.

Before the vote, Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's prime minister and current president of the European Council, declared that France and the Netherlands should re-run their referendums, if necessary, in order to obtain the "right answer". Mr Juncker is all too representative of the contemporary European elite, which does not merely deserve, but needs, the kicking the French have given it.

Emphasis added. My position all along.

Who could better deliver that rebuff than the French? "Bureaucracy tempered by revolution" is, after all, not an entirely unfair characterisation of the country's politics down the ages. The voters, it appears, had a host of enemies: an incomprehensible document; their elite; Jacques Chirac, their president; Anglo-Saxon "ultra-liberalism"; globalisation; low-wage workers from eastern Europe; the enlargement of the European Union; prospective Turkish membership; economic change; high unemployment; immigrants; and foreigners. When the French look at contemporary Europe, they no longer see themselves in the mirror and when they look at their economy, they no longer see anybody in control.

Fair read.

If one asks why this rage was poured onto Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's hapless "tidying up" exercise, the answer seems to be: "why not?". Confronted by this indigestible mass, any normal person would wish to cast it on the fire. What, however, does this rejection mean for the future? I suggest five probabilities.

Gratitious, but perfect.

The probabilities by the way are:
First, the treaty is dead. I presume the Dutch will vote No. If the British cannot be threatened with isolation, they will also reject it. It is impossible to overturn the verdicts of the disgruntled citizens of two of the six founding members and two of the three most powerful countries in Europe.

Second, further movement towards deeper integration among all members of the EU is off the agenda. The Europe we have today is as much as - quite possibly more than - all will share.

Chart

Third, enlargement beyond Bulgaria and Romania has become unlikely. There will be referendums on Turkish entry. In current circumstances, these would be lost.

Fourth, France has set its face not just against the European project but against the modern world. That is going to make it far more difficult to pursue liberalisation, domestically, within Europe and globally. For that outcome, the French elite bear heavy responsibility. Their ceaseless indulgence in infantile anti-market rhetoric has had its consequence.

Last but not least, there is a chance of some unravelling of the European project, which has relied on a version of the bicycle theory: if it does not go forward, it risks toppling over. The belief that it must go forward is now dead. It is possible that some achievements, including the single market, will go backwards.

Finally I highlight Wolf's conclusion

Why is the right response to the rejection of the treaty this apparently narrow focus on economics? My answer is simple. Ordinary people want security and prosperity. What has gone so wrong in contemporary France is the belief that the best way to obtain more of the latter is to legislate more of the former. Europe must try to go round this obstacle by allowing the logic of the market itself to work through internal competition among the different policy regimes. But the ECB can also help by doing whatever it can to secure adequate nominal demand in the eurozone as a whole.

Another round of grand gestures of unity would be futile. Europe has suffered from a surfeit of such gestures. For better or worse, the treaty is dead. Equally clearly, much trouble now lies ahead. But Europe should at least try to deliver durable prosperity to its people in today's challenging world. That will not be easy. But it is essential. Without it, the European project may yet founder.

Now, what are the chances such clear thinking may penetrate Bruxelles by some queer chance?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

New Month, Entirely Abusive Pretend Customer Service Post

As is my abusive tradition, a generic post for the readers to remind me of topics I have dodged, ask me questions about myself which I will evade as I like, or otherwise make note of something.

As a new feature, I invite readers to speculate wildly about myself as an alternative to me being evasive.

Yes, tell me what you believe you know about me. (that select club who have really met me in real life, including the one person who knows where I work(ed), etc. shall keep their traps shut)

Otherwise, I am bemused by a nice little missive from Central inviting me to attend a corporate meeting on our new retirement plan. Next week. At Central. Right, I'm going to fly in for some robotic presentation on the new, yet cheaper and stupider retirement plan you have hatched. Requests my RSVP.

What is truly odd and perhaps a bit boggling is that the send of said missive specifically included a select group of the overseas staff by individual email - i.e. this is not explainable via mailing list.

I am not sure if this is mockery, stupidity, cluelessness, some vile dig or simply madness. Or some combination of the set. Being of a twisted nature, I expect it is some combination of vile dig, mockery and a bit of madness.

Adding that this line rather proves me theory:
"As an [Massively Incompetent Inc.] employee, you will need to take certain steps to be enrolled in this program. It is important that you be aware of the information that will be discussed at this meeting."

UPDATE:
Bloody hell, the EU Crapstition might do only moderately badly in the Land of Dikes. Idiot namby pamby yes voting Dutch fools.

I am however contented that we are having here in this fine country a heated discussion about the controversial "continual hours" versus "holy lunch hours" issue, which is keeping the dim wits in Parliament quite busy. Lord knows what a distinctly troublesome issue it is, this matter of national policy - and summer hours.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 31, 2005

Time to fuck off - but a contrast on Euro versus American Diplos

And take the woman out to dinner. Somewhere moderately scummy, but nevertheless intriguing. Then pack her off on a train and out of my hair for the rest of the week.

In the meantime, I am positively aglow with the news coming out of Europe. The French and the Bruxelles crowd in disarray, blundering about like the benighted fools they are.

However, let me take this opportunity, however, to praise the Eurocrats.

First, their diplomatic service in terms of staffing is far more interesting and competent than the American staffing. You might protest that the Americans get more done, and I say, yes. That is true, but that is merely by sheer force of effort - and the fact that EU is like a three headed horse. (Not three horses, sadly, but a three-headed horse) Sure, up top policy making is a bungled jumbled mess, but their on the ground sorts have real panache.

In contrast, your average American diplo type that I meet is (i) boring, (ii) boring, (iii) boring, (iv) rather more boring, (v) painfully ill-informed and almost sure to know next to nothing about his country of posting, (vi) boring, (vii) unable to buy me alcohol because of some bizarre puritanical expense account system, (viii) boring, (ix) gullible in a tedious sort of way due to points v and vii, (x) likely to be a mormon (redundant to points i-iv, vi, vii, viii and ix), (xi) lives in near total lockdown because the US is such a weirdly risk averse country when it comes to seeing its civil servants get whacked, (xii) well-nigh useless for information, (xiii) tediously middle-class functionary sort.

This does not stop me from feeding off of them, but frankly, most American diplos might as well be in fucking Idaho for all the work they really get done.

Not their fault really. US Gov has a bizarre approach to staffing risk (which despite serial failures in terms of spying and the like continues) where the bland and riskless are sucked in (Mormons, insufferable boring people), and anyone with the slightest panache is passed over or squeezed out.

Or so it seems. Now, ex the Diplo service and the Agency, very good we might say. But your Agency and Diplo types should be... well able to at least blend into the Expat world, if nothing else.

Add to this an entirely bizarre and benighted system of staffing which as far as I can make out requires -yes requires- that Diplo Officers not spend consecutive assignements in a region (let alone a country) and has such short assignments (2-3 years) as to positively ensure they learn nothing.

One can understand to be sure the fear of going local, but this clearly goes to far.

I contrast this with the Euro Diplos I know. Largely scoundrals - rather likable for that - potentially quite corrupt - again something that warms my heart a bit, largely through the Cuban products thusly consumed - and usually in place for a good while such that they have proper networks.

Now, very seriously, in a region where networks are everything, this is a non-trivial advantage.

True enough, I have seen enough signs of EU money being pissed away in somewhat less than transparent fashions, but at least some portion was spent on me, and surely one can have something of a combination of a bit of scoundraliness (to create a word) with otherwise straight dealing.

(I note that FT has this nasty and positively delicious op ed: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/62fafcc0-d138-11d9-9c1d-00000e2511c8.html)

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Returning to low value commentary

Am a bit preoccupied at the moment, both work crises and a chica that has chosen to visit me at an awkward moment. Luckily the other one is busy with apartments. Messy, very messy.

Nevertheless, I was amused today in that she dropped by the office and observed that once I insisted on carrying a heavy bag for her, which was "quite out of your character" - I must agree it is - and "probably only because my mum was around." That may be true as well. Marketing. Marketing, and of course occasional product placement.

Otherwise, I was happy to learn that I can still be described as "fit" despite having a diet heavily weighted towards Cuban products. Of course, this might have been mere flattery.

Leaving this aside, the typical editorials appeared in the press today bemoaning the loss of France (ahem, I mean the EU) as a counterweight to the Big Cookie Monster. Very tiresome. More amusing was the absolutely bizarre reflexions on what EU failure meant for regional integration in the Med Basin. By some truly outre logic, one particular editorial writer seems to have come to the conclusion that if the EU is not providing a good example of integration, then southern Med integration will stall. Apparently the cravenly decision makers, in this editorialists' eyes, merely act by copying what the French are doing.

Sadly, having sat in on a meeting which consisted of a few of the same comparing their own org chart to that of a French counterpart and bickering over why they had slightly different reporting relationships (not by content mind you, I mean the bickering, merely over the boxes), one has the awful sensation that in the Maghreb this may very well be true.

Rather more risky, however, is a resurgence of French protectionism and more of the duplicitious, fundamentally dishonest anti-Globo Leftist moron posturing and pandering about "delocalisations" (outsourcing) of sclerotic French services hither and thither or the equally dishonest (although rhetorically brilliant) pissing about "fiscal" and "social" "dumping." A briliant set of phrases - really like "fair trade" and other quasi-Orwellian oxymoronisms to disguise the French fear of competition.

Sadly, among the items on the local agenda is an interminable debate about the stunningly stupid new labor law and the exact terms on which the work week (a la France) is being reduced, and if under the new law, it is not in fact required for salaried employees to actually get salary increases to compensate them for some supposed loss (as embodied through a ridiculously complex formula about minimum salaries and an equally nasty little provision about it being illegal for any employee to suffer any diminuation in salary tied to the diminuation of the legal work week).

This, of course, is all supposed to "create jobs." Obviously working so brilliantly in France, and of course the unions deny that there is any relationship between massive evasion of the labor codes frankly surreal terms and the lack of employment growth. Nope, zero, none, nada.

Regardless, in closing, I was deeply amused by Hemlocke's little missive on the EU (http://www.geocities.com/hkhemlock/rooster/diary-28may05.html), as well as his ranting about the structure of services. Insofar as I have to write a "lettre de motivation" to "justify" a simple fucking request for price quotes on acquiring some cheap fucking IT equipment (no, simply ringing up the under employed lazy fuck of a sales agent is simply not done), I concur.

Someday, France may enter the 20th century.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

De Villepin

Interesting. Very interesting.

What has been more amusing (although only in a sour way) has been the French Left's shrieking on about "social dumping" and "fiscal dumping" within Europe.

It's rather clear France has yet to shed its overweening Napoleonic desire to impose itself on Europe.

Meanwhile, here the event has been met with bemusement. I suppose the real issue the worry this may unsettle the markets over the next several months. It surely will, of course, but I doubt serious flow disruptions.

Have to see what happens when the Dutch add to the No and whether the ham-fisted fools in Bruxelles understand they can't simply berate the electorates.

In the meantime, Italian bonds are looking weaker. Italy is in for a bad time.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 30, 2005

Odd.

Quite a bit of heavy military air traffic over the neighborhood. Very unusual that (which is to say, never before seen). Well, hope no one has gone and done something unpleasant or silly.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Well, not just no, a crushing no.

No reason to recap, plenty of places for that, but a massive turnout and a good crushing ten percent margin, despite universal political elite support is fairly convincing.

Sadly the leftist nitwits are spinning this as an anti-liberal thing, which in some part it was, but want to ride the "social Europe" (read sclerotic dysfunctional economic model) into the sunset. Sunset in this case being a terminally declining Europe.

Regardless, the train has stopped and there is now a chance that reflection rather than blind full speed aheadness will have a moment. For the Europeans whinging on about Europe being set back ten years, I say this "Europe was just spared a nasty derailment."

A pause for digestion in a long term project is not, let me repeat, not a disaster, it is wisdom.

Prattling on about no plan b and rerunning referendums until the right result is had is disaster.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 27, 2005

Egyptian Liberals - Arab Liberals

In his fine blog Pratike asks:
http://www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/drupal/?q=taxonomy/term/61
"So here's a case where the public sector is obviously far too large and powerful; the NDP is kind of like a nationwide political machine that dispenses patronage in exchange for power. And yet there's little discernable "small government" movement in the country. Why don't more folks make the connection?"

Because there is zero political tradition of the same is the easy answer. Political liberalism in its classic sense is virtually non-existant in the Arab world. I'm seeing some glimmerings in the Maghreb (where it has to be a hardy plant to fight off the French influence) and a bit in Jordan, but the popular reflex is to look to a nanny state model.

Let me share an anectdote from when I lived in Cairo.

One evening coming from a party in Zamaalek and heading off to Maadi where I lived, I struck up a conversation with the taxi driver, a garralous older sort. I was curious as to his background as he spoke excellent and refined Arabic - we spoke in high register dialect / low register modern standard - and after the usual banter, hit upon business. He in fact was an industrial engineer. Chemical engineer in fact. Trained in Egypt, of the 1960s generation (i.e. flowering of the Nasserist period). Now I was puzzled, since he indicated he had a fine job as an engineer as Revolution Whatever Plant, and here he was driving taxi as well in the evening. Recall while I followed the two day weekend, his job did not. He indicated he needed the extra money for his family - although he had a fine and well placed job in state industry. Well, that really puzzled me - my sensation was he was the competent type, in fact the idea went through my head I knew people in the private sector that might want an experience chemical engineer who clearly seemed to be hard working (two jobs, bloody hell) family man of some deep education. So I asked him right out, why was he working in the public sector - noting I was a man of the private sector (usually enough to get younger people with no qualifications at all to inquire after a job, even as a driver).

Oh no. Not the least bit interesting to him, not at all. Too uncertain. Too insecure. No, my neat as a pin, apparently hard working driver-industrial chemical engineer prefered the saftey of the government job, its apparent permanent security, its saftey and dirt pay which obliged him to drive cab at night to make ends meet to the private sector. Nevermind such an engineer might make ten times his public sector pay (or so, of course I am not sure my read of him was right).

Not in any way atypical, this conversation, although we did get more profoundly into things than normal. This was, hmmm, six years ago now?

The same thing is seen in the Maghreb. University graduates going on strike to protest in hopes of getting government jobs.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Demos - local anti Gauntanomo and the Euro (updated)

I am pleased that the authorities have contacted me to ask me to try not to get beaten up during this weekend's exciting anti-Gauntanomo demostrations, organized by our friendly neo-Islamist parties.

It is always a pleasure to know my personal well being is on their minds, as well as their usual paranoia that the expatriates might get a stubbed toe.

It is also encouraging, actually, that the authorities are allowing this to go forward, let everyone blow off a little steam and express their right and proper disgust with the whole affaire.

Of course, all other sorts of silliness will be mixed in as well, but no matter.

However, I for one will skip the fun for some of my usual decadence and scumminess, have to log it in before the wave of Khaliji scum take over the seamy side of things and unbalance supply and demand.

I also note I am insufferably pleased with myself that the timing of my transfer of capital for my new found ownership of real property -with that magnificent terrace just designed for maxizing the pleasure one can derive from consuming cuban products- will come right after the Dutch and French votes. I can take pleasure in a problem maximization of my dollar to local currency conversion such that even the insufferable haircut from the evil Bureau of Exchange Controls (rent seeking scum) will be barely noticeable as EuroZone goes through tumult and chaos to my greater profit.

Why it makes me so happy I could almost dance a little salsa, if my bloody toes were fully healed. Only the speculative report attaching blindness to viagra usage approaches making me this happy.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Chagrin.

I was annoyed earlier when one of our diminishing pool of suckers (I mean clients of course, the joy in Arabic is one of the words means both) asked us to provide them with a synopsis of the technical document in their lingo, one that we handed over to them in English about 2 months ago. I had thought, the cheap lazy fucks are making tons of money off of the interest rate spreads, they can afford to translate the bloody thing.

Having spent the morning on the thing, I am now left with a sense of doom. It's not really the Bank's fault. Frankly our man wrote a set of incomprehensible trash. There's really only two choices, make up a synopsis that is anything but, or get screwed.

At least they were apparently fooled by the jargon into thinking there was content or that the document might actually make sense.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Egypt

Well, I have neglected to say anything about Egypt. Rather busy actually, have not even had the time to entertain with a tale of regulation, concerts and scantily clad muhajabat that I wish to share.

Certainly Abu Aardvark had some fine notes, and since I generally loathe and despise Egypt (remaining literally scarred for life after working there - the spider finger and all that) I am not particularly moved overall.

Regardless a note, the interventions of Madame Bush and US Gov to date have been puerile. Rather clearly Mubarek has correctly calculated that aside from some "we don't approve of you too visibly beating up the opposition, above all on TV" language, he can readily use the stability argument to power on through.

Well, no surprise there. None at all.

Does put all the breathless "Democratic Spring" in the Middle East whanking in perspective.

But I am sure my old pal Mr. Stone would have interesting spin on that.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 26, 2005

How Not To Set Up A Super State: the EU bis

Référendum: une "stupidité de dire qu'on va demander aux Français de recommencer" pour Henri Emmanuelli
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/050526/5/4fp1i.html
"J'ai envie de leur dire mais 'Pour qui vous prenez-vous? Savez-vous ce qu'est le suffrage universel et allez-vous admettre une bonne fois pour toutes que la souveraineté appartient au peuple et pas aux technostructures libérales associées à l'Europe des actionnaires?", a poursuivi le député des Landes"

For the non-francophone, a quick translation:
"I'd like to say to them [Luxembourg's PM and the head of the EU Commission], "Who do you take yourselves for? Do you know what universal sufferage is, and will you admit in good faith for once that sovereignty is held by the people and not by the liberal [read free market oriented] technostructures associated with a Europe made up of partners?"

While I can't really sympathize with his stupid Leftist anti-liberal rhetoric (and it is highly ironic for the French elite to posture about sovereignty residing with the people and not the technocrats), but , well this is really a home run.

Most recent posturing by the EU eurocrats, the pro-Yes elites has the stink of contempt for a real democratic process. No plan B, Take It or Leave It, You're retrograde scum if you vote it down.

Nothing really positive.

The constitution, I predict now, is going down in flames. As it long deserved.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 25, 2005

Reality TV: Middle East Broadcasting Style

An interesting item I got today:

MBC TV is offering you the chance to start your dream business in a new reality show
'The Investors' is a reality based TV Show built around family business. MBC is offering 2 relatives the opportunity to compete against other families for their chance to win up to $500,000 of Initial investment in their dream project.

To qualify, the two family members must:
Be between 21, and 40 years old
Have a business plan and preliminary study
Have a proven track record of achievement in either business, marketing, PR, sales or an area related to the business plan
Be ready to relocate for 9 weeks from the end of June
Do you think your family has got what it takes to win?
Email us:

The CV of both family members
Photo of each family member
The business plan or preliminary study
Email address: investors@mbc.ae
For more information call +971 4391 9782
Deadline for all applications is June 10th 2005

Most interesting is the structure.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Management Issues

Beautiful column that I missed but wish to draw attention to:

Dumbing up of management thinking
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a98a6ed6-cad6-11d9-9abe-00000e2511c8.html
"As we never know what we are supposed to be eating or drinking, the only sensible course of action is to take no notice. If you don’t eat or drink excessively, if you aren’t entirely sedentary and (most importantly) if you are reasonably happy, then you should probably leave well alone. The same is true for management issues. The only sensible course of action is to ignore all the research and do whatever seems like a good idea anyway."

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

EU - Euro and dangers. Wolf, FT

A timely and interesting article from my favorite bar none commentator, Martin Wolf.

My excuse for commenting on EU is quite simply the sitting here on the other side of the Med from the EU, we have to be deeply concerned about what that sick giant of an economy is going to do.

Martin Wolf: Italy's predicament exposes eurozone
By Martin Wolf
Published: May 24 2005 20:24 | Last updated: May 24 2005 20:24
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/21f25198-cc82-11d9-bb87-00000e2511c8.html

Let us think the unthinkable: could the eurozone disintegrate? The answer is yes. Disappearance of the zone as a whole seems hugely unlikely, so long as the commitment to the European project survives. But the exit of one (or more) members, a sovereign default or both is not at all inconceivable.

Warms Pantom's heart perhaps, but looking into his argument I think Wolf's thinking is close to mine.

Yet those all-powerful watchdogs, the bond markets, apparently disagree. Interest rate spreads within the eurozone are tiny (see chart). Investors apparently consider the debt of the eurozone governments as close to perfect substitutes. This is astonishing: after all, ratios of government debt to gross domestic product at the end of last year varied from Luxembourg's 5 per cent and Ireland's 29 per cent to Italy's 105 per cent and Greece's 112 per cent (on the Maastricht treaty definition). Investors must not only believe that the currency union is impregnable but that each sovereign borrower is as good as the other. The latter belief assumes that all the fiscal authorities will behave in an equally responsible manner or that there is an implicit bail-out. These assumptions are highly implausible.

Absolutely agreed. Thinking Greece and Italy have anything approaching responsible government is madness.

A number of economists argue that the European Central Bank is distorting the market by treating all eurozone sovereign liabilities as equally riskless. Even if the ECB does this only at the short end, the knowledge that it does so will affect the entire yield curve. The solution, suggest Willem Buiter of the London School of Economics and Ann Sibert of Birkbeck, in an unpublished note, is for the ECB to accept government debt as collateral only at market-determined discounts.

But can you imagine the political howling in the EU if they did so?

Now, getting on to his Italy discussion, I'd like to highlight something for thought. Italy's underlying economic problems are very.... similar I would say to the problems of the southern Med.

Whether this idea would make a big difference to prices in the market is unknowable. What is knowable, however, is that it makes little sense for anyone to treat the debt of all eurozone members as equivalent. Because of its size and status as a founder member of the European Union, Italy's predicament is the most significant. It is also highly revealing. What has happened since entry, as I noted last week ("A more dynamic eurozone is a necessity", May 17 2005), is the precise opposite of what was needed: declining productivity performance, deteriorating competitiveness, faltering growth and weakening fiscal discipline.

In its latest survey of Italy, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development remarks: "It is somewhat ironic that Emu membership, by allowing sharply lower interest and exchange rates may, in effect, have relaxed the perceived need for structural adjustments on both supply and fiscal sides." It may be ironic, but it is also human - and potentially calamitous.

The scissors cutting Italy's economic lifeline have two blades: productivity and fiscal fragility.

Chart

Start with the productivity blade. Since 1995, Italy's output per hour has deteriorated by about 5 per cent against the eurozone average. This is the result of a decline in total factor productivity rather than of a (highly desirable) substitution of labour for capital (see chart). As a result, external competitiveness and potential growth have both slowed: relative to Germany, Italy's real effective exchange rate has appreciated by almost one-fifth since 1999; and potential rate of growth is now estimated at only 1.3 per cent a year.

Now consider the fiscal blade. In its most recent Economic Outlook, the OECD notes that the cyclically adjusted primary fiscal balance (the balance before interest payments) has collapsed from a surplus of 5 per cent of gross domestic product in 1998 to a forecast surplus of only 1 per cent this year (see chart). The OECD also forecasts the general government fiscal deficit, before the customary special measures, at 4.5 per cent this year and 5.1 per cent in 2006.

In order to regain lost external competitiveness, Italy must have substantially lower inflation in the costs of tradeable goods and services than elsewhere in the eurozone. Given the dreadful productivity performance, that would demand next to no increase in nominal wages over an extended period, which would also mean relatively high real interest rates. This combination would ensure even lower actual growth than Italy's already low potential rate. But that would further undermine the fiscal position. Unfortunately, efforts to shift the fiscal position back to balance would weaken the economy still more, since there are no monetary or exchange-rate offsets to such fiscal tightening.

Chart

If you think you have seen a case a bit like this, you are right: it is called Argentina. Bernard Connolly, a notorious opponent of the monetary union, even argues that the debt ratio will explode upwards, given the low inflation Italy needs and the declining potential rate of growth that Italy also has. Together, these will generate very low growth in nominal GDP (which is the denominator in the debt ratio).* He also believes that Italy has a structural primary fiscal deficit of 1 per cent of GDP. Under his assumptions, the debt ratio would rise towards 170 per cent of GDP over 20 years even if there were no rise in interest rate spreads. A fiscal (and financial crisis) would loom.

I will leave the rest for readers to ferret out, but an article well worth the read.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Arab Media, al-Jazeerah, a pithy comment

"Al-Haj Ali shows the Arab state in all of its red-faced fury... looking like a buffoon in the face of a reasonable, articulate critic... that's what al-Jazeera lets Arab viewers see."

From Abu Aardvark. In my experience this is precisely correct.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 24, 2005

Junk, Junk, Baby.

Like Ice, Ice.

Or shall we say, Fitch, one more pebble on the scree of the credit mountain. Rolling?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Nancy Ajram The Moroccan link for the Aardvarks

End of the day, the electronic version has gone up, I share then this:
http://www.leconomiste.com/upload/pdf_une/pdf_une_kiosque5.pdf

PDF, so you can get the front pager.

and this:
http://www.leconomiste.com/article.html?a=63114

Where you can learn that our Islamist friends were all wet, what the Wali was really thinking was in these terms:
"Ce n’était certainement pas une bonne idée d’organiser ce concert sur la place Jamaâ El Fna et ce fut le discours des autorités au lendemain de cet évènement."

One has to confess, if one knows Jama l-Fnaa, that a free mega concert by Nancy could be a bit of a dicey proposition.

What most intrigued me is that the ongoing legal war between Maroc Telecom and Meditel did not escalate to a complaint by MT in re Meditel use of Nancy. Now that would make for interesting hearing at the HCAM.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

For the Abu Aardvark Fans

Those following the Nancy Ajram saga, I note that today's Moroccan business daily has a full page spread on Nancy entitled (trans.): "The Nancy Ajram Phenomena."

This will be online tomorrow.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Hedging.

A short, random comment merely to calm myself before I go and meet some infuriating potential clients who I loathe. However, as I continue to pointlessly bail water out of this Titanic of a company, must try for the clients. On that thought, I am presently angling for business with one of the basket case State Banks, who I am counting on to be just gullible and ignorant enough to sign on.

Returning then to the ostensible subject, on hedging.

This comes in response to a comment a few days, or perhaps weeks, no matter, back, in response to my whinging on about my dollar exposure in a Euro dominated environment.

The response was why I didn't just hedge. (For the uninitiated, hedging is a financial operation involving buying or selling financial contracts giving the right or obligation to acquire (or sell) a specific asset at some time (sometimes specific, sometimes w/in a range) time in the future at a specific price.)

Essentially insurance (in theory) against price movements. Well, on the buyer's side, on the seller it is likely speculation.

The answer really is in the problem of hedging on real operations. First, of course there is the issue of cost. There is a price for buying a future or an options contract. That little wedge has to be figured into whether it makes sense to hedge.

The question becomes at what level does one hedge and for how long out? And of course what is the gain versus the cost.

Let me take a regional MENA actor's example that may illustrate why "hedging" is not as smart as it may appear at times. I won't identify either firm or amounts, as the operation was fairly well known in informed circles and I shouldn't wish to blow either my cool or anyone else's.

So, in brief, Big Ass Physical Product Producter (BAPPP), a private actor, decided that it should start hedging the dollar value of its Main Product, and that out to a year. It projected its production out for the year, hedged 100 percent of production in London, and locked in a fairly favorable price, and then locked in that price in their desired currency. Sold physical product forward, and hedged the resulting currency flow into their target currency. Bingo.

Super you say? Well. No. First, they hedged 100 percent of forcast production, then they hedged the resulting cash flow more or less 100 percent. Problem, of course, is this left zero room for error.

Error happened. As it turned out some "production difficulties" occured which resulted in a non-trivial short fall and a non-trivial difference between required delivery and what they had. Worse, prices were good, so they had to buy on the spot market to fill in, plus the currency moved the wrong way.

Double or triple whammy.

Made a big ass hole in their balance sheet, very upsetting to shareholders - esp as the shareholders are regional and not too taken in with these new fangled Western devices.

Well, that was none too clear but I have to fuck off. Beat me up later for my sketchy descrip.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bloody hell

I open one of the local rags today and find an arty on something I've done, but with some completely ... disastrous spin. I fucking hate journos. I really do, slimey semi-literate scum that they are (with exceptions of course). Then I get a call from Embassy, my amigo. It appears that the spin on my ... well, it's upset people.

Fuck em. Useless assholes have no fucking clue what's going on in country or in region, sit on their useless asses sending moronic reports to home. Probably won't get invited to any more events though. Trying to decide if I care. There is the free alcohol, which is to be regretted, but the French are far better. Maybe I can take 14 July off.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 23, 2005

Here's to the Non Vote

The polls out of Europe have me in a fairly cheery mood (although this damned throbbing pain in my side is distinctly annoying and making me snappish).

First, Non looks good in France, although the blunders in charge of Oui might just pull it out (and of course we know in that pseudo-democracy in France that if the French political elite don't like the results, they will rerun it, but with more scare tactics).

Second, the Dutch No looks assured. Very happy on that account. We can take the United Kingdom's sensibleness on this as a done deal.

It rather looks like the sneering "There is no Plan B" of the rude and corrupt fools in Bruxelles is backfiring.

However, I would like to point you to a fine arty in The Guardian which despite it's Leftish leanings, gets things right quite often.

Hard to swallow eurofizz is a failing brand
Larry Elliott
Monday May 23, 2005
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1490023,00.html

Some key paragraphss:
One sign of success, certainly, is that more countries want to join. Nevertheless, it is considered bad form to state the blindingly obvious; that Europe exhibits more signs of failure than of success.

Indeed, as I linked to an FT article last week or before, there are dangerous signs that even the basics, the common market, are not working well. Bloody hell if the French are excercising their primative mercantile instincts against fellow EU members in the core single market heart of the EU, and worse yet, the bumbling Italians as well who so badly need some foreign expertise that it's positively painful, how the bloody fuck does anyone think the fucking politics are going to bloody work. It's painful magical thinking on the part of the Eurocrats and Muddled Neo Napoleonic Dreamers in Paris that if they just throttle the EU train up to max speed, the bent rails will just slide on by.

Stop and fix the fucking rails you stupid gits. Get the basics right, then move on.

As an aside, I note I care about this especially since an EU derailment (which I think is what that mess of a contitution is, it locks them in on the wrong track) is killer for my region's economic growth potential.

Moving on:
First, there is the constitution itself. Nobody is quite sure whether the new blueprint is an Anglo-Saxon Trojan horse or a device to enshrine high taxes and inflexibility across the continent. The lack of clarity suggests a dearth of vision and a surfeit of fudge.

Bingo.

Bingo.

Bingo.

Actually I rather opt for the later since one can be sure the clauses that would serve as a Trojan Horse for a proper liberal economy and the like will be bogged down in inflexible interpretations and various maneuvers (rather like the present), and those that expand inflexibility and the like in the name of fake "solidarity" (i.e. lock in our privs now and fuck the newcomers) are sure to expand.

Second, there is a reality gap between what people want, hope and expect Europe to deliver and what it is actually delivering. The acid test of social democracy is unemployment, because if you are out of work you are far more likely to be poor and marginalised. In the 1960s, unemployment in France and Germany was around 2% - half the US's.

Indeed. One has to think about this when the French Left (and much of the deluded neo-imperialist center right) ramble on about Solidarity. Faux solidarity to lock in elite (whether labor elite or political elite) privs, and fuck the immigrants and the native born non-white underclasses.

Today in the eurozone's two biggest economies it is above 10%, while America's unemployment rate is little changed. High and persistent levels of joblessness have proved fertile breeding grounds for the extreme right: fascism is now more evident in Europe than at any time since the second world war.

And anti-'native born' reaction among the immigrants or those of non-white euro origin.

As for the argument that Europe will be a cuddlier, gentler superpower, that doesn't appear to be the message from the one area where Brussels does punch at the same weight as Washington - trade. Despite all the pro-development rhetoric, Europe has the same self-interested, mercantilist view of the world as does the US.

Indeed, the EU Euro-Med agreements are stunning bits of hypocrisy, full of fine language about solidarity and other such typically French universalist rotted posturing without real follow through, but also full up with discriminatory access and non-tariff barriers on those "sensitive" areas where, surprise, surprise the EU (esp... France and Italy) are most vulnerable to genuine competition from the southern Med.

Posturing hypocrites, who should be beaten with iron rods when they blither on about the evils of the Washington Consensus. At least the US, for all of its hypocrisy, negotiates rather more realistic trade agreements. Although the CAFTA one ... well one word: sugar. Has a positively EU air around it this one.

Third, there's the hard evidence of Europe's recent past. The sequence goes something like this. Originally, there was a free-trade area, but that was not exciting enough a project. So, the idea for a single market was born. Once this was up and running (after a fashion because it is still not actually completed), it was decided that Europe needed a single currency to make the single market work.

Indeed even the original is unfinished business.

Now that Europe has a single currency, it needs greater political integration to make the euro work. This is very much the Gosplan approach to life; a group of central planners get together and decide what should happen. The comparison with the Soviet Union is not idle; at each stage of this process, the European Union has grown more slowly. The US has shown it a clean pair of heels in every year bar one since 1991.

What can I say, I have nothing to add to this but "Hear Hear"

Comparisons with the birth of the dollar are interesting. It took more than a century for the dollar to emerge as the single currency for the United States; in the 19th century states and banks were free to issue their own notes. The dollar emerged through an organic, biological process, not because a group of politicians decreed that it should be so. Those who warned about imposing the euro on economies that were not ready for it are now being proved right, because real signs of strain are starting to emerge.

Indeed, although I do think the Euro can work out.

Slow growth and high unemployment mean that public spending is under pressure. Germany is the most often cited case of the dangers of a one-size-fits-all policy, but actually Italy is the country with the biggest problems. It is not just that the country is technically in recession following two quarters of falling output, but that its higher costs and lower productivity mean its businesses are becoming less and less competitive. Italy badly needs a devaluation of its currency but that is an option no longer available to it.

See this week's The Economist for its arty on "The Sick Man of Europe." Most definately indeed Italy.

The single currency is Europe's New Coke; it's a failing brand. Unlike the Coca-Cola corporation, however, the pretence is that all is well and that no policy response is needed. Does this mean that the collapse of the European Union is inevitable? Not at all: nothing is inevitable. What is clear, however, is that the danger signs are flashing red. Some pro-Europeans have seen this coming for some time. Caroline Lucas, one of the UK's green MPs has constantly warned of the dangers of building from the top down rather than from the bottom up.

Bingo. Danger signs are flashing but the EU elite keep insisting this ridiculous piece of garbage is "the only path." Pure blind arrogance.

PS
The Lounsbury Read is:

Snap up Euro Assets during the stupid post no panic. EU is not crumbling, the slap in the face will have a salutory effect and the value will rebound. The silly arties in The Financial Times conveying asset manager unease and a faint hint of "oh fuck" are a perfect sign.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Various trivialities

First, I appear to have kidney stones. This is very unpleasant, but I have to confess given my habit of drinking vast quantities of coffee and probable constant state of dehydration, nothing that should be surprising. Better start watching my health, getting to be an old man after all. Ha. Have to look to hydration. [edit to add: I have to note that the women are all insisting that I go see a proper medical doctor about this. Rather like the broken foot incident (which has healed admirably except I can't move the toes anymore. Just bloody toes though.). In regards to the pain and all that, my personal rule is suffer for one week, see if it goes away. Hate doctors any way, always asking probing questions I don't particularly feel like answering, and so bloody disapproving hear if I answer honestly. UPDATE II: Amusingly have caved to the pressure I went to a doctor who ran all kinds of fun tests. Rather looks to be a minor if discomforting affaire, but better, complimented me on the health of my liver. Ha.]

Second, will be sparse again. Working on several proposals, one of which an exit strategy. Said to look good on the side of the US investors and 50 million is already lined up on the other side. We shall see. Maybe Mr. Get Kicked Out of His House didn't fuck things up so badly after all.

Third, a quick note on the World Economic Forum conference in Amman, Jordan. Actually only one phrase.

"The usual motherfucking useless posturing by the usual motherfucking media hog morons, gullible Western twits and corrupt players."

Why do I regard the WEF conference with such contempt? Because I know some of the main actors that get invited. The sort about which I say "Just because they speak good English doesn't mean you should trust them."

Case in point from my old Fund, the MD and his son were always invited (have no idea if that was the case this year); and they talked the talk. This is the same pair that corruptly ripped off US and other investors of a good and cool 50 million USD in hard capital, about whom I went nutso as you can tell in my early journal pages. But they were feature guests and invitees.

These conferences are, to be frank, useless wastes of time for empty posturing and grandstanding. I'm all for useful conferences focused on real practical issues, but these sweeping piece of filth do nothing but allow the corruptly connected to posture and often make connexions with the gullible "just came to town" twits ready to lap up the same old same old because they have no fucking background. See Liz Cheney, twit in chief. (Or else make idiotic posturing noises in re women and blah blah - repeating the same old Development Retards just so stories).

Otherwise, I was relatively recently amused to find a livejournal forum on Morocco that seemed to consist almost entirely of Western and especially American chicas that having once gotten shagged in Morocco by some or another skethcy Maghrebine lover, have fallen entirely and uncritically in love with the place. Amusing in its own way, although it does puzzle me about young chicas that come to a country to get fucked and fall so syruply and uncritically in love with a country. If only they knew what their boyfriends call them behind their backs (hanging out with young lads back in the day, I can attest it was rarely respectful nor complimentary. Gullibility. Shall never understand this particular form of it.

Finally, I received an amusing, for me if not its author, email from a friend, sent as a rant to his Lebanese partner who is two years in arrears. He copied me and followed up with a note that he had tried to make it as insulting as possible, especially to Muslims.

I have to say that it did not strike me as a particularly wise move - certainly it was fairly insulting, but on the other hand two years of arrears rather does suggest a typical Leb rip-off move. On the other hand, my amigo always knew that he'd get shafted at some point. I guess I would be upset too, but on the other hand... well, I mean really this should have been priced in. No sense getting this bent out of shape over all too typical practices in Leb Land.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 20, 2005

A comment: Arab Investment

Wasting time in between meetings, and properly shagged out, I visited blogs and noted this:
http://www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/drupal/?q=node/1191

A few quick comments.

First, the idiocy of USG speech on "BMENA" an ugly and idiotic acronym for USG's latest nonsensical "regional policy" (meaning ignorant ill-informed bumbling moronic half baked pie in the sky policy ideas) for "Broader Middle East and North Africa" or as one local USG official likes to call it "Bangladesh to Marrakech." Well, this is idiocy irritates me.

Then to the points:
· Increased legal and regulatory transparency, and greater government and business accountability;

Fine, good thing.

· Strengthening the rule of law, especially protection of property, enforcement of judgments, and bankruptcy procedures;

Desperately needed. Bloody fucking hard to pull off, however.

· Strengthening the financial sector through privatization, competition and better regulation;
Well, other than the better regulation... okay I'll go for better regulation, it's such a meaningless phrase.

· Revitalizing the strong pace of privatization of state-owned enterprises that has slowed in recent years; and
Super, absolutely agreed.

· Focusing on creating an attractive investment climate overall - not on providing special incentives to individual projects.
Now that is a good obs. Not original one has to confess, but needs to be hammered home insofar as the regional bumblers love the big special projects. Sexy, makes news.

This, however, is pure USG and Development Retards posturing:
With the dynamic culture of entrepreneurship that thrives in the BMENA region, there is no reason that reforms would not lead to much higher investment levels.

You have already read my sour comments on this mirage, this ... what is the word for it... gratitious self deception that USG and the Devalopment Retards practice on themselves in regards to a "dynamic culture of entrepreneurship" which most certainly DOESN'T MOTHERFUCKING THRIVE IN THIS BENIGHTED LAND OF CAPRICIOUS RENT SEEKING RISK AVOIDING TIJAARI SIT IN THEIR FUCKING SHOP AND WAIT FOR BUSINESS, LOOK AT THE NEAR TIME HORIZON RISK culture.

Oh and for the bloody commentators chez Pratike, lui compris, the governments here bloody well do need to be hollowed out. "Better government" is pie in the sky self deluded tripe given the entrenched habits and the like. Break the rentier enforcers allies backs I say. At the least we might see the utter waste of tax paying citizens payments be reduced a mite.

Otherwise, in regards to the comment re American based multinationals "swooping in" - what I often say to locals in the region "If only you had your fucking act together enough where this was remotely even a possibility or a real threat, then this khayali nonsense might make sense, and indeed would be a great problem to have." It's outlandishly stupid anti-Globo morons khayali idiocy to think internationals are going to scoop up anything all that important in the region, or even that they have any substantive effect on the economies. Bloody well the contrary actually. Given the risks, investment is minimal, as FDI flows clearly show. Stupid economic 19th century mercantilist illitarcy of the first order.

Of course there is a real problem of making liberalization work internally and not just for well-placed clans, but then the well-placed clans generally profit best from having regulatory capture - despite the wide idea Development Retards and Leftist Self Deluders bright eyed innocence in regards to somehow magically 'transforming' the way government is actually done.

Realism, my dears, realism will get you somewhere, not theoretical idealised scenario whanking.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Out still but a tidbit

I am still out of office, but this tidbit from Abu Aardvaark (now unmasked as an academic specialist in media, explaining his time for such things) is interesting:
Excerpt from an interview in one of the leading regional dailies, ash-Sharq al-Awsat (The Middle East), with al-Arabiya's director, Abderahmane ar-Rashed.
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/05/rashed_intervie.html
"Rashed criticized the American dealings with the Arab media, which he describes as indiscriminate and full of misunderstandings and reliance on incorrect messages, and also had this to say: "The main problem the Americans have in the region is that they don't know the Arabic language, so they confuse people and places and even policies and make fatal mistakes for themselves and for the people of the region... [and] have made big mistakes in Iraq because of this ignorance."

Quite true, really. Maybe not "the main problem" but certainly a serious problem.

Non-trivial really given the number of people who get their MENA news from the intel-op that is MEMRI and its nasty little spin (see the bit on al-Jazeerah in Abu Aardvark where MEMRI claims Jazeerah did not report on an item it ... actually reported a day before MEMRI's claim.)

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 19, 2005

Kicking

Absolutely kicking day, I think we did a great deal today, but of course bringing all to fruition is going to be tough. Another biz din now, I shall slime up to one of the leading asset managers of the region.

Was at event, I think someone took me pic, very unhappy about that. Next time will slump down are make faces. Thankfully more important people were at table, I expect their pics will be the ones retained.

Else, met President of regional exchange today. Important fellow. Bad teeth. Odd they appointed someone with such bad teeth.

Eh well, much to do, and have to fuck off now. Looking forward to a return to home base on Sat.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Amused.

I hear from my office that our HP dealer sold us a lot of contrabande HP ink cartridges. Not even particularly good ones at that. I am amused. Official licensed dealer trying to foist off contrabande / pirated (I mean fake) print cartridges. Got a good spread on them, motherfucker. Well, hopefully this will not require legal action.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 17, 2005

US Dollar Policy, aka short sighted nitwits in charge

I read today in the FT that the US has given a "deadline" to China to revalue its currency or.... what? Pout? Find bizarre ways to cut off nose to spite face? Or perhaps experiment in ways to prevent China from buying US Treasuries - show the PRC bastards what the US is made of.

Actually Snow's statement smells like weaseling:
Mr Snow said: “Unfortunately, the debate on China’s currency regime is clouded by a number of misconceptions of US policy...First, we are not calling for an immediate full float with fully liberalised capital markets. This would be a mistake at this time – China’s banking sector is not prepared. What we are calling for is an intermediate step that reflects underlying market conditions and allows for a smooth transition – when appropriate – to a full float.”

Staving off truly moronic moves from the short sighted, ignoramuses in the US Congress?

US policy is in the hands of nitwits. I wouldn't much care except my bloody salary is in dollars. Motherfuckers.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Entertaining and reflecting - MENA, Dev; US Reach and Stupid Laws

Still out fucking around trying to pretend the grinding, wrenching noise of the iceberg ripping open this ship's guts is not echoing in my head ( I sleep so well. Wonder what bonuses are going to be like... hahhaha. Bonuses. Fuckers. I hate them, I think I am going to write in my dumb fuck review that my best accomplishment was not engaging in so much cannabilism.)

This aside, the question arises tonight - is tonight's dinner legal? Is is a "gift" and further that, if I put the Cuban economic contribution on a side tab as... well, I will get creative ... does that make me amoral or immoral? Can't quite decide.

Further, it gives me the opportunity to reflect on an FT arty yesterday or was it the Economist? Well, no matter, it was about the USG's increasing reach overseas in pursuit of foreigners in re violations (claimed) of its laws, by people who never set foot in country. Despicable and will rebound on USG head. Wait for the squeeling like stuck pigs when the reverse happens one day. This sort of thing positively enrages me, that and all the fucking time spent reporting useless nonsense.

Finally, I note I now officially own real estate in this country. A point of horror as it dawns on me that I am bought into the other part of the package. Pity the no Shia customs are legal here, or that they passed that fucking divorce law.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 16, 2005

en deplacement

As we say. Out of the office. Silent for a while. But I read from Cental another senior officer has resigned, effective in 2 weeks. The decks are positively awash in blood now. We're not AIG yet, but....

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 13, 2005

Arab Sat TV Market, Media Review: I am an illiterate moron who needs remedial reading skill assist.

Ahem.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

In fact there is a discussion of the Arab Sat market:
The Rise and Potential Fall
of Pan-Arab Satellite TV
http://www.tbsjournal.com/fakhrads.html

To Pay or not to Pay? Free Western Entertainment Channels Seek Pay Package Audiences
http://www.tbsjournal.com/khalil.html

A quick review both seem interesting. I will comment soon. In the meantime, again, I am an illiterate moron for missing these.

However, I still remain morally superior to MEMRI.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 12, 2005

Italy: A Stinging Rebuke on the ABN shenanigans

Somewhat far afield for me, but something I have been following closely in regards to what the Commissioner properly frames as the question of whether the EU is going to be a market or a vast bureaucracy with internally squabling fiefdoms and non-tariff barriers:

(will edit down later

Europe must embrace market forces
By Charlie McCreevy
Published: May 11 2005 20:23 | Last updated: May 11 2005 20:23

There is a whiff of unreality in the air in many member states of the European Union. Facing ever lower growth forecasts, some even blame competition for their troubles.

In a sense they are right, but for the wrong reasons. It is the lack of competitive pressures that lies behind so many of the ills Europe faces today. A competitive financial services sector is an essential ingredient in supporting economic stability and growth. In spite of the progress made in integrating financial markets in the EU, there are still obstacles that prohibit competition. This is most obvious in the retail banking sector. Very little cross-border merger activity has taken place. We are currently examining the various reasons for this (legal, economic, cultural and so on) and will present a report to the EU's economic and finance ministers in September.

The report will be based on a number of elements including economic and legal analyses of the present situation as well as input from market practitioners on their views about current obstacles. I want to set out a wide-ranging examination of the factors inhibiting cross-border mergers and acquisitions, warts and all. On this basis, I intend to raise with ministers various key issues that need to be tackled in order to improve the competitive environment for European banking.

One of the issues is the need to adapt EU legislation to the requirements of a dynamic economy. The current controversy about bank takeovers in Italy has helped to highlight some of the problems. For example, it seems absurd to me that if the competent authorities of one member state accept a company which is a viable bank in their territory, the competent authorities in other member states undertake a separate evaluation of the suitability of a well-established and supervised bank. In the specific case of ABN Amro's bid for Banca Antonveneta, valuable time was lost because, under the relevant legislation, the Italian authorities undertook an adjudication of the suitability of ABN Amro's management and shareholders. This meant requesting information from the Dutch authorities and evaluating it. In contrast, the Italian authorities would not have needed the same information to adjudicate on Banca Populare di Lodi, as they already know well the Italian bank's management and shareholders.

In the context of a competitive bidding environment, these delays could give a domestic bidder a clear advantage. This was never the intention of the EU's legislation. While banking authorities must have a role in reviewing the suitability of those in charge, this must be done in a clear and transparent way that does not allow any discriminatory treatment. I believe it should be possible to lay down conditions whereby a form of mutual recognition of bank shareholders could operate between competent authorities.

To redress this and other potential barriers, I will present before the end of this year an overhaul of the relevant provisions of EU banking legislation so that any legal obstacles or ambiguities can be removed. As well as the mutual recognition point, other aspects that need to be dealt with include setting out the relevant criteria and procedures to be followed by competent authorities in member states when assessing new shareholders of banks.

The relatively low levels of bank profitability in the EU make mergers and takeovers less attractive. Increasing returns to scale through efficiency gains, consolidation or otherwise are necessary if EU banks are to break out of this vicious circle of low returns on investment. In the US, the legislature gave the impulse necessary for consolidation to take place. The positive results are evident. The US industry is generally healthier and the economy is stronger. Through further efficiency, Europe can achieve similar beneficial results and ensure the efficient and liquid markets necessary to drive the EU economy. If we want financial institutions that are global participants in the years to come, a strong competitive domestic market is a basic requirement.

What is clear is that we cannot afford to keep important sectors of our economies sheltered from market forces. Whether it be financial services, car manufacturing or textiles, no one is well served by protectionism. Jobs "saved" today are usually at the expense of those who will come on to the job market. In addition, consumers pay higher prices. This is not the pathway that leads to sustainable growth levels. One thing is sure: if the European economy is to regain momentum standing still is not an option.

The writer is a member of the European Commission with responsibility for Internal Market and Services

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Various

First, via Abu Aardvark, media hounddog, several items of interest:
(i) A new Arab media report. Pity it's all focused on the democracy and governance aspect of media, but I suppose that is what I should expect. Unless I missed it, there was no business aspect (although yes I know, given the state of the media...)

Of note several US program connected discussions. The prime item that stood out to me, however, it the irritating translit al-Hurra seems to have adopted. Alhurra? What kind of childish subliterate translit is that? Gives me the sense of some half-educated British Council English class chat driven failure.
See http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/05/tbs_14_online.html

By the way, the articles on al Hurra suggest it is getting 'better' and indeed gaining share, but by programming fluff. Good use of money that (and yes the programs mentioned in the reviews can be found elsewhere, e.g. on LBC etc.).

(ii) MEMRI caught in blatent spin and ... lies.
I like it. http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/05/memri_nails_alj.html
I like it alot. A lesson for those of you who would depend on this mendancious for intel op.

Second, I attended some blah blah free trade promotion blah blah waste of time. Some development people were there, I think USAID idjits, blithering on about how expensive credit is for "small and medium sized enterprises" (SMEs in development speak). Are they smoking crack? Local enterprises can get credits ranging from 7-13 percent over a 1 to 5 year term. That's positively ludicrously low given cost of capital and risk premia. Bloody development people, ignorant fools. No wonder their programs are so poorly conceived, they don't understand the bloody market.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 11, 2005

On the Xian Concert in Marrakech, an observation

A comment on a comment on a comment.

Brilliant.

Well, leaving aside my archness for a moment, at this site there is a comment that I wanted to shred, largely because I am mean, but also because it irritated me:

http://www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/drupal/?q=node/1075#comment

A certain "Andromeda" commented:
I'm not ready to assume this is a bad thing.

One of the things that I've been pondering is that Christian fundamentalists may be better at communicating across cultural boundaries with moderate Muslims because both sides share a strong faith, and a similar set of conservative moral values.

More cultural interchange between Americans and Muslim countries can't possibly be a bad thing. An interfaith dialogue between Christianity and Islam could be extremely helpful in dealing with issues like church-state separation and women's rights, because they'll be less likely to be seen as an attack on Islam if they are conveyed by people who also have a strong (if different) faith.

I do worry that if they get pushy it could provoke antagonism though.
I don't want crazy Christian evangelicals pissing people off.

Also, Muslim and Christian conservatives could also join forces to roll back some more liberalizing social influences as home, which is another negative side effect. But I think that it is more likely such interaction will help liberalize Muslim societies.

This is possibly one of the stupidest things I have read in a bit. Well, to be fair, actually I have read far stupider things, so merely it is irritatingly stupid coming from someone otherwise perhaps not quite so stupid.

First, the idea fundamentalists might be better at communicating across cultural boundaries because of supposed share strong faith is idiotic. Shared 'conservative' values never helped Protestant and Catholic wing nuts communicate during the wars of religion and contemporary conflict. Nor would it appear that "strong faith" has much meaning insofar as the Xian fundies deny the very validity of Islam, where except the most looney of Islamists, Muslims don't deny the validity of Xianity (only look at it as superceded). A fundamental hurdle, that. It's like saying that because I have red hair and you have red hair (I don't actually, but no matter) we understand each other better.

As for Church-State seperation, this is idiotic. There is no Church, the structures are utterly different, no comparision. Nor would Xian conservos make a "dialogue" more "compatible" - a truly idiotic thought - as in fact it would associate the concept of secularism (not Church - State sep) further with what the Islamists insist is a Xian assualt on their religion. In other words, precisely the wrong fucking move. Same for women's rights. Idiotic thinking.

Strong faith has fuck all to do with it. Perception of outsider and the fucking colonial era are the problems. The motherfucking colonial period. Bloody naive gits.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Random Low Value Thoughts

First, today at lunch, after nearly being murdered by a random Fiat (and reflecting that being murdered by a piece of junk like a Fiat would add insult to injury), I was moved to reflect (not for the first time) on the fiendish cleverness of the local authorities in managing to design crosswalks that maximize the chance of murdering pedestrians.

While urban planning in the developing world is frequently said to be non-existant (and the sheer horror of modern Cairo is hard to argue), I for one appreciate the evil genuis that went into the local traffic planning - all with an eye for ensuring the survival of the fittest and weeding out the stupid and the inattentive (as well as the unwary foreigners, who needs them anyway).

While the design here in the financial district is particularly brilliant - the feeding via traffic circles that ensures that regardless of traffic light color, none of the cross walks are ever truly free of traffic - I don't mean mere turning traffic, but full bore run-you-down traffic - I have to say that the most fiendish touch is across me office where a dual light, an ambiguous traffic circle and the leafy quasi Parisian boulevard ensure that while the unwary and unworthy pedestrain may assume they have the light (due to the stopped traffic, one high speed lane remains "green lighted" and partially screened.

A truly brilliant design, sure to whack at least a few insignificant scum. It's a good thing the locals are the proud holders of the title of top ten most murderous streets in the world (which we can also attribute to the peculiar half-observance of traffic laws, which is to say 80 percent of the time they are observed, but a good 20 percent of the time not, just to keep you on your toes).

The other item I have to observe is the irritation I presently feel with the Ministry of (Late) Statistics which just managed to provide me with sub sectoral data to 2002 (lord knows we wouldn't want state secrets slipping out too early), in electronic format.... in a locked pdf. Supercilious pompous gits. On the other hand I am finding scanning the print out, tedious as it is, actually appears to be more efficient than copying data straight out of the PDF. Of course an excel file or something similar would be far too easy.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 10, 2005

Well, not such good news: Turkey-Kurds

Overlooked I believe, this is not a good thing:

In Turkey, New Fears That Peace Has Passed
Army Takes Offensive As Kurdish Rebels Return From Iraq

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 10, 2005; Page A12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901253.html

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Various Random and Marginally Relevant MENA Obs

First, I am moderately entertained that the Big Shrimp Eater and The Eye Doctor are having a pow wow in Sharm esh-Sheikh
(al-Hayat: http://www.daralhayat.com/arab_news/05-2005/Item-20050509-c2f022b5-c0a8-10ed-0053-d3cf9c0afa19/story.html) Thursday. I can only imagine the fun that conversation will hold.

In related matters, I was very amused to read this little bon mot from Abu Aardvark's favorite Egyptian commentator, Baheya: http://baheyya.blogspot.com/2005/05/enter-ikhwan.html
"You�re starting to sound like Rif�at al-Said (the most venal joker on the Egyptian political scene), and I just don�t buy your claim that the Ikhwan will never change and should be shunned forever."
Not amusing to any of my readers I am sure, but I know Rifaat. He's an entertaining figure, and while I can't disagree with her...brutality, it does bring to mind being in his office once for some, eh, discussions quite a few years back, and him deciding to slap his Beretta down on the desk between us. A most unnerving moment, he being a more than slightly odd chap. Well maintained gun. I even think he knows how to use it.

Mind you, I like the actual commentary there as well. But the bon mot on Rifaat really touched me.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Idiocy: "Christian Rock Concert for Muslims" (updated, with more vitriol and new improved abuse)

Christian Rock for Muslims
By SAMUEL LOEWENBERG
Published: May 10, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/arts/music/10chri.htm?pagewanted=all

This deserves extended comment, when I get a moment. Will update later. From a comment at Abu Aardvark in an item on the Nancy Ajram concert in Marrakech that I mentioned a bit back.

[Update]
Well, I was fascinated that I had heard literally nothing about what would normally be a terribly controversial event. I bit of research showed why: it was spun on the local basis as a purely cultural event with no mention of the religion angle. Indeed only in Western press do I see that echo.

Some interesting links and comments from local press (afraid we shall skip the Arabic press, too hard to search on):
Tourisme
Un nouveau festival pour Marrakech
Marrakech est dotée d’un nouveau festival.
Le «Festival de l’amitié». La première édition aura lieu du 6 au 8 mai en plein air à Bab El Ghli.
Au menu, une programmation axée principalement sur le rock.
http://www.aujourdhui.ma/tourisme-details2407.html

Rock'n' roll arabe à Marrakech
Près de 40 000 Marrakchis et touristes, des jeunes, mais aussi des familles entières, se sont rendus à Bab Ighli, en face des remparts et des jardins de l'Agdal, vendredi 6 mai, dès 18 heures, pour assister à l'ouverture du premier festival de l'Amitié de la ville, le Friendship Fest, sur une grande place dominée par une scène monumentale
http://www.casafree.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2202

Un festival de rock américain à Marrakech
· De grands noms y sont attendus
· Le Friendship Fest cherche aussi à renforcer la coopération culturelle maroco-U
http://archives.leconomiste.com/article.html?id_journal=2006&a=62494

Marrakech fête le rock
· Le Festival de l’amitié commence aujourd’hui pour trois jours de musique
· De grandes têtes d’affiche sont au programme
· La ville s’oriente vers une cadence d’un festival par mois
http://archives.leconomiste.com/article.html?id_journal=2015&a=62755

Well, if one reads over the various articles it is pretty bloody clear that it wasn't seen as a Xian event but an American rock concern (reflecting I suppose the near complete ignorance locally re American rock and low profile overall - hiphop gets far more play), and most highlight the local groups that played.

The saddest part, however, is the Moroccans putting Xian rock in the context of Marrakech being an emerging destination for the jet set, and mentioning this backwoods rube art form in the same context as the Montreux jazz festival, etc.

Poor hoodwinked bastids.

Now, my comments on the NYT article
Christian Rock for Muslims
By SAMUEL LOEWENBERG
Published: May 10, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/arts/music/10chri.htm?pagewanted=all

MARRAKESH, Morocco, May 9 -
In a sprawling open space alongside the Royal Palace here last Saturday night, Baimik Youness and his friend Salahe Boudde were jumping with excitement, about to see their first American rock concert. The Moroccan students had never heard of the band, Rock 'n' Roll Worship Circus. Nor had they realized that the three-day concert they were attending was a Christian rock festival.

"It's not my business," said Mr. Youness, an 18-year-old Muslim and heavy-metal fan. "I just want to listen to the music."

But Mr. Boudde had a question: "What are 'evangelicals'?"

From the accompagning photos, it's fairly clear our boys here are from the Marrakechi elite (or perhaps Casaouie), certainly heavy metal is not something generally popular.

Last weekend's concert, organized by several American evangelical groups and the Moroccan government and called the Friendship Fest, was staged despite criticism from Moroccan Islamic groups and opposition political parties. Seven American Christian bands alternated with Moroccan groups. The event drew more than 15,000 Moroccans a day, police officials estimated, as well as dozens of evangelical Christians from around the United States.

I wonder how this got sold - I have to suspect the Tourism people got some whack ideas in their head about one day attracting large numbers of American rock fans.

The concert was about more than power chords for Jesus. From the evangelists' perspective, it was an opportunity to gain a foothold in a relatively liberal Muslim country and give religious priorities a more central role into American foreign policy.

Wonderful, as if more ignoramus input is needed in American foreign policy.

"We see ourselves as doing important foreign policy work that the Bush Administration is not doing," said the Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals, a Christian-values lobbying group in Washington and one of the organizers of the festival.

"As followers of Jesus, we should, in our civic capacity, work to reduce conflict by promoting international understanding," he said.

By organizing a rock concert......

Well, I suppose in some odd way it makes sense.

From the Moroccan government's point of view, it was a chance to interact with what is perceived to be a politically influential group in American politics at a time when the country has been criticized on its human rights record and continues to grapple with a longstanding dispute over the status of Western Sahara.

Some media commentators in Morocco said that by befriending the evangelicals, the government was attempting to curry favor with American political leaders. The magazine Telquel said the government's embrace of the festival was intended to "sell the image of Morocco to the neo-conservative lobby in America."

Telquel eh?

Scrappy little newsweekly with somewhat dubious reporting standards.

A quick visit to their archives finds http://www.telquel-online.com/174/culture_174.shtml with some sour commentary, but nothing regarding the Neo Con lobby. (search non-existant, so we'll have to take the author's word, must have been in another section or edition. Rather more important for local fans, Rachid Taha is coming to Casa l-Mghribe next week. Bloody hell, now can I manage to be in attendance?

The Marrakesh regional president, Abdelali Doumou, said in an interview that the government hoped the Friendship Fest would bolster Morocco's image on a variety of fronts, as "a modern country, a democratic country" and "to improve our image in the States in politics, in economics and everything."

Marrakech regional president Doumou is a gullible cretin in my opinion being exploited by dishonest god bothering scum, but what the heck, some money into the economy.

I am amused how the Moroccan government manages to insert the Western Sahara into every fucking subject possible. Miserable whankers.

However, it seemed to have worked on the ignorant rube organizer:
He was more coy on the political influence wielded by the evangelicals but said, "If it happens that they are strong, it can help."

For Morocco, a pressing issue is Western Sahara, former Spanish territory that has been under Moroccan control for much of the past three decades. More than 150,000 former nomads from the region, the Sahrawi, have been in refugee camps in Algeria since fleeing the invading Moroccan army in 1975. Several American evangelical groups have provided assistance to the refugees and backed calls for a referendum to resolve the region's status. Some here say the government's welcome to the evangelicals was an attempt to co-opt their support.

In fact, one of the evangelical leaders who was behind the Christian rock festival, the Rev. Rob Schenck, who leads the conservative Christian lobbying group Faith and Action in Washington, said that after what he had seen in his meetings with Moroccan officials he would now seek to get evangelicals to reassess their position on Western Sahara and the Sahwaris' political leadership, the Polisario Front. "Evangelical Christians have to be extremely cautious about supporting any group that would sympathize with a socialist or Communist philosophy or world view, which is completely in conflict with an evangelical or Christian worldview," Mr. Schenck said in an interview. He said Moroccan officials had told the evangelical leaders that the Polisario had received Cuban training and aid.

First, I find it strange that these idiotic god bothering backwoods ignoramuses have a position on the Western Sahara (let alone know the name), but this pales in comparison with the sheer delight I find in this ignorant hick fool getting sold on the Moroccan position in re Polisario - ooh the evil socialists (the ignorant hick twit is unable to distinguish between Marxism and Socialism. Not that I am personally favorably inclined to either per se, but his idiocy and gullibility amuses me.

In particular I am pleased with the Moroccans sheer .... creativeness in raising the Cuban angle. Sure, what 20 years ago some Polisario cadres probably got some training from Cuba. Everyone did back then, you gullible floundering ignorant rural git. It's Algeria that is the main culprit here, Cuba being fucking irrelevant to the question.

The evangelicals did have to retreat on another front. After criticism from the press and Islamist groups, the Moroccan government canceled a planned conference on Christian-Muslim dialogue that was to have taken place in the week leading up to the rock festival.

Good, Moroccans were spared listening to utterly uninteresting god bothering nonsense. Might have turned them even more against America.

One of the country's main opposition parties, Istiqlal, said the evangelicals were trying to use the events as a covert means of conversion to Christianity.

Well, Istiqlal is right. Not that one could expect the drooling hick god botherers to have much success.

By the way, although the clumsy writing here manages to imply Istiqlal is Islamist, it most certainly is not. It's ... well conservative in a social sense (old school pre-whack job takeover Salafist roots, with a strong nationalist component, but rather all over the place on economics - indeed horror of horrors, often a mite taken with Arab "socialist" policies in the past).

Mr. Doumou played down these fears, saying critics had drawn false inferences from some of festival's early promotional material. One evangelical organizer, Michael Kirtley, had called the event "an expedition for hearts and minds." Mr. Schenk had told The Christian Post, that the evangelicals would "communicate clearly why we personally embrace Jesus Christ." By the time of the concert, however, the evangelicals were watching their words, and there were no references to Christianity in promotional materials or on stage, outside the lyrics of the songs.

Doumou is either stupid (which I credit) or mendacious (a given), or both (entirely possible, I go with mendacious)

Communicate clearly why they embrace X. Super, go over like a lead balloon.

Evangelical attendees were given written instructions by the organizers not to proselytize, which is illegal in Morocco. In interviews with more than a dozen of the evangelical Christians attending the concert, most stuck closely to that script, speaking instead about "bridging cultures" and "making friends." One, who would give only his first name, Samuel, said that some of his friends had been interrogated by the Moroccan authorities on suspicion of proselytizing. Many of the American Christians at the festival said they were thrilled at the chance to interact with local Muslims.

I can only imagine. A bunch of idiot god bothering rural gits with limited language skills wandering among the spoiled elite. I am sure it was a match made in ... heaven.

"To play worship music openly in a Muslim country, this is something that lots of people have been praying for for a long time," said Steve Iliff, a 44-year-old cook from Wisconsin who had traveled to the concert with four other members of his church.

News to idiot hick (a cook, super): Morocco has a religious music festival where "worship music" (fine and literate turn of phrase that) of an Xian persuasion has been played "openly" for over a decade.

Ignorant fools.

Some Moroccans at the concert, like Mahmoud Zuine, a 21-year-old economics student, enjoyed the music but found the Christian component of the rock concert unsettling. "They know we love this music, so they use this music to pass their message," Mr. Zuine said. "It's like a magic way. It's not direct."

But he doubted that many of the Moroccans understood the lyrics. "I laugh because nobody knows what they are saying," he said.

True enough, and even those that knew English were not likely to pick up on evangelicals particular hick jargon.

Following on this, let me also comment on the quite similar and perhaps even more stupid Telegraph arty

Christians take their message to last frontier
(Filed: 09/05/2005)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/09/wevan09.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/09/ixworld.html

Evangelicals rock with Muslims, writes Isambard Wilkinson in Marrakech
The Rev Harry Thomas often organises Christian rock music festivals for God-fearing Americans. But this weekend he staged the first such event in the Muslim world, in the desert city of Marrakech, despite fierce opposition from Islamists.

Uhhuh. Fierce opposition of the Islamists which managed to make almost zero noise.

The noise over Nancy, that everyone was aware of, this? Nada.

Of course, the article forgets to menion they had to back down.

As he watched Gabriel Wilson, the lead singer of Rock & Roll Worship Circus, blast out a doleful paean to "God's Love" in front of thousands of Moroccans, Mr Thomas realised he had accomplished a mission, a mission from God.

Its organisers had billed the gathering as "an expedition for hearts and minds", an "apostolic journey into a heretofore closed nation" and a "Book of Acts experience".

A closed nation?

I don't know what to think about this ignorant god bothering gits - perhaps they could do just a bit of research before coming.

But Mr Thomas was more circumspect. "We are not here to proselytise," said the white-haired preacher from New Jersey. "We are here to sing."

As the born-again President George W Bush, a hero to America's Christian Right, wages his global war on terrorism, the festival's backers were not so much hanging on to Uncle Sam's coat tails as stepping where US foreign policy fears to tread.

"I am convinced that this is the crack in the door of the Islamic world," said the Rev Rob Schenck, one of the project's religious leaders, adding that Morocco "provides a potential model for other Muslim nations".

Emphasis added: meaning he's having entirley unfounded conversion fantasies. American rube Xian fundie porn.

The mission rhetoric is to "combat terrorism by confronting stereotypes" and show that "people of different faiths can be friends and live in harmony". Although, as Mr Schenk said, he does not want to be seen as "getting soft on Islam," the "last frontier" for American evangelicals.

Getting soft on Islam?

As the sun sank over the khaki-coloured folds of mountains behind Marrakech, the Friendship Festival, featuring such stars of Christian rock as the Newsboys and the British band, Delirious?, got going.

Men in jellabas and women in headscarves listened to the entertainment but many were oblivious to its message. "I don't think most people know or care about the message of the music - they have just come to listen to it," said Aiman Karim, 22, a student.

It was free after all.

Incongruous among the crowd were a hundred or so stiff-backed and baseball cap-wearing Americans.

One of them, Steve Peterson, 53, chief of police in the Wisconsin town of Augusta, said: "It is a great gathering. I have just a great love for people. I believe this is another open door for Christianity and I am praying for that."
Emphasis added:
Conversion Porn.

Stupid hick moron.

Another member of his group, Jerrid Stetter, 35, also from Wisconsin, said: "I have travelled here for an historic occasion not just for Morocco but the Arab world. In a country where it is illegal to stand up and preach, to invite Christian bands to sing about the Lord in public, well, it blows my mind".

Stupid hick moron, bis. Playing music isn't illegal, trying to convert people is.

The concert was partly sponsored by King Mohammed VI, who is eager to strengthen his reputation as the most liberal of Arab monarchs. But the heavy security served as a reminder that the concert was a risky venture for the king.

Seated with Mr Thomas in a backstage tent, Abdelali Doumou, the president of the Marrakech region, acknowledged that the National Association of Evangelicals and the National Clergy Council, the groups behind the event, were linked to powerful Christian lobbying groups.

"We know which goal they are fighting towards and we know what ours is," he said. "Our goal is improved standing in the western world. They should know that it is better to teach us to be good Moroccan Muslims than anything else."

His comment that "we would have get on as well with them [the evangelists] as if they were communists," made Mr Thomas, whose colleagues loath "Reds" even more than "unbelievers", shudder.

Doumou, not sure if that last was a brilliant comment or merely accidental. However, overall is a twit.

The US is already co-operating with the region's military and collaborating with Morocco on its plans for democratising the Arab world.

Collaborating with Morocco....

As part of the wider initiative, a team of evangelical Christian doctors has been despatched to work in villages outside Marrakech.

The third prong of the "Messianic offensive" as one Moroccan magazine, Telquel, described it, was to have been a debate between evangelical pastors and Muslims. But after an outcry it was postponed. Even moderates were aghast at the prospect of Christians trying to convert Muslims to their religion.

There are sour memories in this regard from the French colonial regime. Something these ignorant hicks have no understanding off, as they blunder around like the ignorant mornic god bothering cretins that they are.

The Americans had been warned not to distribute Christian literature or proselytise. Several Christians have been jailed in Morocco over the last decade for preaching or handing out Bibles.

For this batch, however, this visit was a triumph. After all, Christ's gospel had been heard in the desert once again.

Eh. Cretins.

UPDATE:

Oh, my this hit the big leagues: al-Hayat
http://www.daralhayat.com/arab_news/nafrica_news/05-2005/Item-20050509-c2f7075b-c0a8-10ed-0053-d3cfc4959ec5/story.html
The article is in re the Islamists being pissed off.
On this angle I can't say I blame them, as the entire thing seems to have been one fucked up dishonest farce.

It was free though.

Wonder if we could get a free angle on Rachid Taha?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Realism and expectations: Egypt, Expats and Witless Fools

I was at once amused and irritated by this comment in an expats blog:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/mid_east_expats/18103.html

The poor thing is all wigged out to discover, horror of horrors, that al-Ikhouan are the real political opposition in Egypt and hopes they don't come to power.

Witless fool.

There are in fact only two real options in Egypt: Algerian solution or a prise de pouvoir in a more or less democratic fashion by the Ikhouan.

One or the other is inevitable in the medium term in my opinion, the Egyptian system is too sick and I see no realistic way for a "liberal" opposition to win democratically.

So, you either continue the sick system but with a more palatable face, or you hope for a Sistani like wise head (aside, yes, harder to pull off in Sunni context as the Imamate doesn't exist) can guide the Ikhouane through a reasonable compromise.

Merely squeeling about Islamic law isn't going to get one anywhere. Bloody people like this thought the Shah was a good deal. It's judo that wins the day, not boxing.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Charming: from the wires - bomb aimed at Sistani

"In the holy city of Najaf, security forces dismantled a four-kilogram bomb hidden 150 metres from the home of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite"

Now that will help Shi'a - Sunni dialogue.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 09, 2005

Goddamn Expense Report Nazis, ruining my scummy lifestyle

Bloody expense report nazi just wrote me telling me that I can't charge so much alcohol on my dinners.

Fuckers.

Now I shall have to play the bloody US Gov and development people's little game of getting bills rewritten w/o alci mentions. Self righteous kill joy twits.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

An article to share: Sex Trade

A controversial article published some months back, in French, which I ran across by accident (searching for leasing companies actually, wierdly enough) on line today:
Maroc : Le business du sexe
Lejournal-hebdo nº 196. Du 19 au 26 fevrier 2005
http://www.mediterraneas.org/article.php3?id_article=328

I share for those with a reading interest. Perhaps later for comment. I have to say I think one has to take many of its assertions with a grain of salt.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq: Government - Bahr ul-Uloum; Settling of Scores

Well, Chalabi did not last long, must be terribly upset.

The run down on the government is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4493999.stm

Our man Chalabi still has his fingers in the pie, however.

Note from The Independant:

Former ministers flee as Iraq begins corruption inquiry
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
09 May 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=636841

While I am sure there was and is corruption, I am as sure that there is more score settling than real corruption fighting going on.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Aoun the Fascist: Sat TV all the time

This weekend was rather taken up with coverage of Gen. Aoun's return to Leb Land. Bloody minded killer is back and sadly back to his old games it appears. Claiming he played a role in the Syrian withdrawal..... Hah.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

World Bank Middle East and North Africa Economic Developments and Prospects 2005 Initial Comment

For those of you interested in such things, I thought I might take a moment to draw your attention to the relatively recently released World Bank report entitled “Middle East and North Africa Region 2005 Economic Developments and Prospects: Oil Booms and Revenue Management.”

A fairly longish report with all the various benchmarking indicators one could want – or at least most of them if one is a policy maker. Rather less useful from a private investment perspective, but nevertheless interesting reading. I shall try to find some time to actually comment on this in extensor, but frankly given I need to get cracking on the private equity in MENA note for this fall, this may not be soon. Or ever.

Some quick observations, from a lazy weekend spent digesting this and other items. First, this contains some of the most poorly labeled and obtuse graphs I have seen in a while. I flatter myself in thinking I know how to read these things, but some of them require a good few minutes of study, and one (unemployment) is so poorly labeled that I defy anyone to make sense of it. WB should know better, a graph should not require a minute of reflection to puzzle out, it needs to be right there and understandable in 5 seconds.

However, this is mere whinging. Decent report overall, the aggregated indicators are interesting (although again, the manner in which they chart them out, requiring a full paragraph footnote to explain suggests that they could have spent some time in rendering the presentation). The overall message – economic reforms have improved conditions, but much slower than the rest of the world. No surprise, but they do present an analysis of different factors. I would note that their breakout of MENA countries (or a sub-set, some are excluded for data reasons) into ‘resource-poor – labor abundant’ (RPLA); ‘resource-rich – labor-abundant’ (RRLA); and ‘resource-rich – labor-importing’ (RRLI) breaks out the economic structures better than the usual regional groupings do. Reflecting on the discussion, which I will have to get back to, on private sector development, I came away not agreeing with the Bank’s habitual focus on trade barriers. While free trade is important, my experience suggests that in order for the poor but labor abundant countries to successfully improve their export performance, reforming internal business environment – ease of business creation, related regulation – needs to be at the forefront. Obviously both are important, but my sense is that at present, the focus should be on internal reforms such as more reasonable labor laws (flexibility, flexibility; hiring and firing has to be easy) and ease of business creation.

On this last item the minimum capital required to register a business is particularly evocative (as well as truly puzzling). As the report notes, the minimum capital for starting (or better, legally registering – obviously one can be an unregistered ‘grey / black’ market business where rules don’t apply) is “exceedingly high in the MENA region, almost five times as high as the world average and well above any region of the world.” By was of explanation, they note the requirement is “a measure of the amount an entrepreneur needs to deposit in a bank account to obtain a company registration number.” Expressed in percentage of per capita income (based if appears off of Gross National Income – GNI, not GDP) is extraordinary, even stunning. Eyeballing the chart, Egypt requires minimum capital (c. 2004) equal to 800 percent of per capita income, Jordan somewhat over 1000 percent of per capita income, Morocco somewhere around 750 percent, Syria around 5000 percent. More “reasonable” figures in Tunisia, for example, 350 odd percent, UAE, 400 odd percent, Kuwait, somewhat under 180 percent. By way of comparison, the chart reflects an average for Latin America in the 50 percent rage, Asia-Pacific in the 180 percent range.

That implies an enormous of amount of capital, relative to disposable resources in country, to open a business – legally of course. Now, certainly one can do so ‘illegally’ but being ‘illegal’ or unregistered – above all in a Code Civil country – carries no small disadvantages in terms of access to resources, financial or otherwise. As the report blandly notes, such “high minimum capital requirements all but block entry into the business sector.” They certainly make a step-wise, evolutionary development for entrepreneurs rather more difficult and immediately open up rent-seeking activities for rentier capital holders.

Now, I have all kinds of observations in this connexion but let me share rather a conversation I had, about this very point with my afternoon coffee companion. A banker for one of the largest (fully private, international) banks in the region.

I shared my outrage and incomprehension over these figures with her (Yes, sadly in taking coffee with attractive young women on the weekend, I remain unable to have light conversation. I am afraid she only puts up with it because she wants to bed me and my handsome passport. I remain coy. Ha. Besides, otherwise we have to talk about her hair or some boring nonsense – or I end up talking to her fetching white but too tight and full shirt, better to get wound up on macro-economic data and entrepreneurship. Save me from making my life more complex.), and I believe rather got something of a window on the thinking – perverse, conservative and risk-averse – behind these otherwise completely incomprehensible numbers.

First, she argued that high minimum capital requirements are very positive because that ensures that undercapitalized companies are not created. This left me aghast and I pointed out that her confreres are always complaining that local companies of all sizes are severally undercapitalized with too little capital retention for investment, and local entrepreneurs tend to slip out the capital regardless. Rather clearly the high minimum capital requirements are not doing anything effective there. She granted that this might be the case, but then argued that things would be even worse if it was permitted to start up even more thinly capitalized firms – where upon ignoring her leaning back most improperly – I noted that if one is strangling off enterprise creation to start with and the result of a policy is under-capitalization, it hardly seems that the regulation is making things better. After bickering about the mentality of “Arabs” and enterprise creation, we declared a truce on the issue of whether comportment would be better or worse without the regulation, per se.

However, she most interestingly asserted that the ‘wrong kind of people’ would create firms if just anyone with a little capital was allowed to do so. I found that an amazing assertion, above all as coming from someone coming from a modest family. It was an amazingly clear statement of unconscious rigidity. She also argued that there would be “too much” firm creation by doubtful types and that this would lead to explosion of failures, of bankruptcies. Again, her ideal – as a banker mind you – seemed to be firm creation by the “right” people with the “right” resources, and to forgo possible growth for more sureness. Not “too many” bankruptcies by “the wrong kind of people.”

As one might suspect, this absolutely horrified me and provoked a perhaps too excited anti-regulation rant (and anti-French, there being some French people nearby to gratuitously insult for having foisted the idiocy of a particularly rigid version of Civil Code thinking off on the Med. Basin. Afraid they merely ignored me, but I do believe I got under their skin.) on my part, where I believe my best point was quite simply that all this creation and failure is going on anyway, but only in the black or grey market where for lack of proper legal protections, financing, etc. really renders the economy less stable – although it does render the formal economy more ‘stable’ in a rather conservative, rent seeking fashion. Forgone growth for a false sense of stability and continuity. The sense of continuity I think is important. Rather a similar situation to the situation in labor market regulation where they are always copying the most ‘protective’ regulations to “protect” the workers – and manage by doing this to squeeze a significant percentage of employment out into the grey / black markets where no protection at all exists. The moronic mistake of the anti-globos, pushing for more “protection” for workers in terms of useless laws that will only present opportunities for rent seeking corruption and blithering on a “fair trade” as a polite way of saying “protection.”

In the end we only partly agreed – I think largely because she wants to pretend to agree with me, I doubt I convinced her of the evils of government regulation in such areas.

[edited]
I note that contra certain rumours, this was not in fact a date. Just wanted to clear that up. On dates I talk about concrete business.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 06, 2005

New Month - Reader Feedback etc.

I almost forgot my abusive tradition of pretending to be customer friendly, so here it is the place to remind me of questions neglected, ask questions, ask me who the bloody hell I am (and get the usual evasive answer), etc.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Intellectual Property Management Sanely

An item of some interest to me, as I both live this and (sometimes tangentially, sometimes somewhat less than tangentially) deal with these issues: IPR or in non-jargon acronyms, intellectual property rights.

I also hope this is a return to some real value added commentary. Laziness and a bit of burnout set in. Pity that, but what can I say. You should be happy I post this rubbish at all.

Now, as those who have read me somewhat off-kilter online ranting since the message board days know, in the past I worked on issues directly and intimately tied to IPR. Gen Mod actually, although only on the touchy feely business end, not on actual science. I revive this to highlight that I have an inherent sympathy to IPR, in its proper place.

How piracy pays
By Guy de Jonquières
Published: May 2 2005 19:36 | Last updated: May 2 2005 19:36
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/771c7db2-bb32-11d9-911a-00000e2511c8.html

When western businessmen in China and other emerging Asian markets meet, the talk soon turns to pirates. Not the seafaring kind but the armies of imitators, counterfeiters, criminal syndicates and corrupt officials who profit by violating the rights of intellectual property owners.

Well, real piracy too.

Almost every company has a story of new product designs mysteriously appearing in shops before it has launched them; of vast markets in illegal copies and bogus spare parts; even of Chinese customs impounding genuine imports, claiming they were fakes and then charging legitimate importers a stiff fee for their release.

I have to confess, in terms of the way market power works, I somewhat admire what the Chinese are doing. Strategic respect is probably far more intelligent than reflexive respect.

Piracy is estimated to cost US software producers as much as $10bn a year in lost revenues in China alone. Neither hot-shot lawyers nor Washington's diplomatic table-thumping has stopped it. Periodically, Beijing rounds up a few offenders, but new ones are on the streets the next day.

Indeed, using hot shot US lawyers in an emerging market is often a recipe for cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

The hot shots rarely have a sense of the real limits of legal power in emerging markets. I’ll sue you is something that the well connected in such markets laugh at.

Tough World Trade Organisation rules on intellectual property rights enforcement, established a decade ago at US insistence, were supposed to crack the problem. But the only time they have been used against a developing country was a public relations disaster. When big pharmaceuticals companies sued South Africa in 2001 for overriding patents in order to import cheap generic Aids drugs, an international outcry forced the industry into retreat. Today, even the strongest advocates of the WTO rules flinch from invoking them, fearing their companies will suffer a political or commercial backlash.

I have to say that despite my Pharma history, this should have been obvious as a PR disaster and a loser from the get go.

Lesson one from this: Never let the lawyers decide strategy in these areas. Same bloody thing Monsanto did, bloody gave the anti-Gen Mod ignoramuses vast ammunition. Lawyers rarely know the meaning of Pyrrhic victory, and rarely, even when they do know it, understand the meaning. Now, to be fair, you pay your lawyer to be your unflinching advocate on the battle field. However, too many executives think that one should cede strategy with legal implications to the Champion. No, no, no. Bad idea. The Champions are almost always in favor of the death match. The cold hearted Machievelli who is your strategy man should be there to tell the Lawyer-Champions, “well yes, you’ll win in court and you will lose in the market.” In general it’s the market that counts.

The South African Pharma case fairly stunk of a loser –sure if pressed it might have been one ‘legally’ but only at a pointless loss of face and damage to one’s own market. Now the Big Pharma boys objectively had no small point in re their issues re leakage etc., but anyone smart should have know that this was an issue best treated as a compliance issue. That is cut the deal on cut rates and then police for the re-exporting problem. Hire Kroll or whomever (Kroll having gone seriously down hill in my opinion, I’d suggest a local actor) to police this, and when it leaks, bust it. And give yourself the spin of protecting the locals, rather than play the Big Bad Moron 800lb Bad Guy.

Simple strategic analysis, but they fucked it. Fucked it. Rather like Monsanto fucked us on GMO – motherfuckers….. Still bitter about that. There was a beautiful, rational industry strategy in place before the morons took over at Monsanto. But I digress.

No wonder they feel frustrated. Now they are trying a new tack, reining in aggressive lawyers and rolling out programmes in developing countries to teach consumers to respect IP rights and governments how to enforce them. Whether the soft-cop approach will work any better remains to be seen. But at least it is dawning on the IPR lobby that it has been fighting the wrong war with the wrong weapons.

Thank you (oddly my above rant was written before reading this paragraph closely, fits well by accident, I was ranting from heartfelt experience).

Indeed IPR has been fighting the wrong war with the wrong weapons (or generously, the right war with the wrong weapons).

Violations abound in poor countries, not because their citizens are crooks or their governments corrupt and lazy - though some undoubtedly are - but because they are poor.

BINGO!!!!

Well, not on the governmental part.

Actually, respect of rule of law is lacking too, so I am not sure I would say citizens are not ‘criminals’ by intent, but rather they are … innocent criminals? Criminals of circumstance rather than open volition against a reasonable standard?

I go back to comments I have made here over time: there is nothing worse for the respect for the rule of law than making laws that fit some far away ideal but are in fact operationally ineffective. While one may make some superficial foreigner happy and the check box investor (who will get fucked anyway because he believes those motherfucking “development report” driven data bullshit “summaries”), one does not build what is truly important – sustained local respect for the rules.

An aside if I may in regards to the issue of local respect and the “Check Box” approach of the development community and the disservice they do – unintended consequences as it were. About a year ago, no a year and a half, I read a pious piece of rubbish by a development agency (USG connected) asserting that the Moroccan securities market was doomed to its 1998-2002 bear market unless it adopted a range of “reforms” – largely making it a real Mercedes of a securities market. All this was piously asserted as the “solution” to their problems. Mid-2003, without any bloody substantive changes, well sentiment changed, and the market took off again. I will not bore you with my interpretation of what happened, the reasons were multiple, but the real lesson here was that the foreign consultants wanted to impose an idealized version of North American securities markets standards on an immature market. This was “obviously” correct – forget that the idiots who wrote the report knew literally nothing (I am afraid I do not exaggerate) about the market or country. Nope, cut and paste. Indeed, if one looked at a real success in addressing relatively similar issues in terms of a public securities market in the developed world, I point to OFEX and AIM in the United Kingdom as clear rebuttals to the pre-packaged nonsense of the development “international best practices” (aka overly idealized market structure nonsense) crowd. Transparency. Blah Blah. All that necessary to attract FDI. Well except that it’s not. A component to be sure, but not the overriding one. See PRC. Reasonable protection of property rights, certainly, but a dynamic market is far more important. Dynamic either internally or export driven.

Returning to the article:
“Many people in Asia yearn for better living standards. Globalisation has whetted that appetite by exposing them to slick marketing campaigns touting the desirability of sophisticated foreign products and affluent lifestyles. But many of those products far exceed their means. A suite of Microsoft software would cost the average Chinese worker several months' income, a Louis Vuitton bag even more. When the genuine article is beyond reach and risks of prosecution are low, buying an affordable copy is a rational economic choice.”

Indeed, and as in fact a USG officer charged with IPR (but whose apartment is full of Malaysian knock off DVDs) told me, “I see it as building a market – building tastes. Without piracy most of these people would rarely see our [US] products. When they grow rich enough they will opt for the real thing.”

I suspect that this is right. The real problem is leakage to developed markets, not piracy in the poorest markets – although some effort has to be made to start the process of course.

Or in other terms:
It is still theft, of course. But it is not always socially retrograde. One Asian-born American recalled recently that his generation would not have received a decent education in their, then backward, homeland if parents had been unable to buy cheap pirated textbooks. Today, his native country is rich and he is a Silicon Valley tycoon.

In short, there are payoffs for the holders of IPR to turn a blind eye in some cases. Or it is best to take a longer view rather than a penny wise pound foolish view. Above all as a policy maker.

Further highlighting my argument, or better the argument of my US Gov amigo who turns a blind eye to that which he is supposed to be suppressing (I suppose a bit hypocritical given the salary drawn but better use of money):
“Nor is piracy all bad news for brand owners. It has been so effective in creating a mass market in China for Microsoft's standards that Beijing is trying to break their hold by buying home-grown Linux-based systems. That may cost Microsoft state contracts. But it is unlikely to sever the allegiance of millions of private computer users who may one day be able to afford genuine Microsoft software.
Emphasis added.

Bingo.

Finally on the argument of stages:
History tells us they will. Japan, a serial violator of IPR while it was industrialising, now upholds them vigorously. India has just passed a tough IPR protection law with enthusiastic support from local pharmaceuticals companies that once fiercely opposed such legislation. As they start to develop new drugs, rather than just copy existing ones, those companies are eager to enjoy the monopoly over rewards from innovation that patents seek to confer.

Again it is the argument against being penny wise pound foolish.

The conclusions are obvious: first, relying narrowly on legal measures to protect IPR is pointless, unless the market provides effective incentives to respect the law. Second, those incentives grow as economies develop, industrialise and innovate.
Emphasis added:
Proper market driven incentives and a real sense of what is possible given the market.

And don’t let the lawyers drive your strategy nor policies.

Americans who rail against IPR infringements in poor countries should listen less to lawyers, study economics and learn from history. Until a century ago, their country was the world's most persistent pilferer of other people's intellectual property. Today it is IPR's global policeman. As Rupert Murdoch once observed, monopolies are a terrible thing until you have one.

Indeed.

I should add based on my own experience from what I see in this region is that there is little point – that is little real return – in squeezing the local market. It is best to adopt an intelligent policy of simply cracking down when (i) the violations are too open and more seriously, (ii) when there is leakage out of the emerging market into core developed market territory.

Besides, I have come to cherish my “Adidos” brand super cheapies for mucking about. Adidas is for sports, Adidos is for mucking around…..

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 05, 2005

EU: Walking to the edge of failure - or the Constitution is irrel

I may be getting off my reservation for the moment, but a comment on something I have been watching closely, both for its professional interest and for its reflection on problems that impact on my region of interest. On the impact on my region of interest, MENA, I make the following case: the hypocrisy and "do as I say, not as I do" attitude found in this case (ABN being blocked on an Italian acquisition for transparently 'national' reasons) also goes for Euro relations with MENA - espcially France. French penetration and exports to MENA - super, wonderful, dandy. Off-shoring of services to Maghreb, say call centers - oh the horror, "social dumping." Pure mercantilism of the stupidest kind.

Well, to the article:

Europe balks at a free market for bids
By Guy Wyser-Pratte
Published: May 3 2005 19:45 | Last updated: May 3 2005 19:45
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/dd9aa6b0-bbfd-11d9-817e-00000e2511c8.html

"It is widely acknowledged in financial circles that an effective guarantor of good corporate governance and effective management oversight is the existence of an unfettered market for corporate control. Corporate executives who consistently destroy value in a free market are replaced by good managers, often through takeovers. Potential bids are a "sword of Damocles" dangling over incompetent managers. "

Well, one has to admit this is a bit overstated. Incompetent well-connected upper management is often suprisingly resilient and well-rewarded for its destruction of shareholder value.

"In this regard, the sad spectacle of ABN Amro's attempts to take over Italy's Banca Antonveneta sends a terrible signal about the future of the European Union's corporate sector. The Dutch bank has complained that the Bank of Italy has allowed a rival Italian bank to build up a large, potentially blocking stake in Antonveneta.

It all seems a far cry from late 1999, when Vodafone, the British mobile telecommunications group, launched a hostile takeover of Mannesmann of Germany, providing a glimmer of hope that corporate Europe was changing. Despite clumsy interference from Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, Vodafone's bid succeeded in April 2000, becoming the largest cross-border transaction in history.

Elsewhere, however, it was a different story. In 1999, LVMH, the luxury goods group, attempted a full takeover of Gucci, the Italian fashion company listed on the New York and Amsterdam stock exchanges. Pinault-Printemps-Redoute, the French retailer, always eager to block the ambitions of its erstwhile adversary, used an obscure Dutch law that enabled Gucci to issue new shares to its employees' pension fund. As a result, PPR gained effective control of Gucci through a minority interest, preventing a free auction from occurring. So much for the Netherlands. Following PPR's "victory", other European companies began incorporating there to obtain the same takeover protection. The Netherlands had become Europe's Delaware. "

The main point here really should be the blocking of cross border transactions - within the Euro zone or at least within its zone of influence (granting that Swiss companies are not precisely EU) - is clearly becoming an issue, and intra-EU corporate consolidation is being blocked by outdated national-mercantlism. The same issue struck at the services directive.

It seems abundantly clear that integration, real integration, is stalled out and doesn't have proper support. Political posturing tied to French elite dreams of Great Nationhood is not a proper substitute.

"This was not how it was supposed to be. A unified takeover code covering all members of the EU was meant to ease cross-border acquisitions and help the rationalisation of many of Europe's fragmented industries. Frits Bolkestein fought valiantly during his tenure as the EU's internal market commissioner to pass legislation that would enshrine such a code and prevent management from entrenching itself with measures to deter takeovers. But this effort was undermined by German members of the European parliament, eager to sustain Lower Saxony's obtuse law protecting Volkswagen from a takeover. The scheme eventually adopted by the EU last year is a toothless hodgepodge, which allows countries to determine individually if anti-takeover measures can be applied locally. In a fitting adieu, Mr Bolkestein convinced the European Commission to take Germany to the European Court of Justice over the "Volkswagen law".

That's the EU at present, spinning out toothless hodgepodges to try and cover up the fact that in reality the EU is stalling out. Rather than taking this on forthrightly, trying to cover up the loss of momentum.

"There have been numerous attempts by individual European states to thwart takeovers over the past 10 years. One wonders if the EU's statesmen have ever read the relevant article of the Treaty of Rome that lays out the need for open competition. The French, for example, continue to want to create "national champions". When Aventis, the Franco-German pharmaceuticals group, last year received a bid from France's Sanofi-Synthélabo, the French finance ministry did everything in its power to dissuade Novartis of Switzerland from counter-bidding. Anyone bidding for a French company must obtain the ministry's blessing; the result is usually a contrived solution franco-française. So much for a free market. "

Indeed, so much for even the common market.

In Austria, meanwhile, the government hastily enacted a special interest bill to prevent a takeover of VA Technologie, the engineering group, by a foreign bidder, after rumours surfaced last September. The bidder - Siemens of Germany - promised not to pursue the bid against political opposition. Its interest was later rekindled and a formal offer accepted, but the initial protectionist sentiment almost scuttled a valuable merger transaction.

Everywhere one looks in the EU, except for the UK, there seems to be no concern for shareholders or for what is best for the European economy, only for what serves parochial interests. The only recourse is to the European Court, which has in the past struck down such measures as "golden shares" and over-arching anti-takeover laws. But the wheels of justice grind slowly.

Only what serves parochial (short term) interests.

And one talks of further integration, sustaining momentum?

Whistling in the dark I say.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Welcome to a world of Junk

Yup, finally happened.

GM is junk.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=530&e=3&u=/ap/20050505/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street

Financially speaking that is.

Ford as well.

Should imagine a big downdraft there, institutionals shedding.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

FT: Interesting but flawed arty on Arab Americans

Culture is not the culprit in Arab poverty
By Moises Naim
Published: May 3 2005 20:22 | Last updated: May 3 2005 20:22
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/fdfef900-bbfe-11d9-817e-00000e2511c8.html

A strangely wrong headed if interesting commentary from earlier this week.

People of Arab descent living in the US are better educated and wealthier than the average American of non-Arab descent. That is one surprising conclusion drawn from data collected by the US Census Bureau in 2000. The census also found that Arab Americans are better educated and wealthier than Americans in general.

Not having the data on hand (yes I know there is a website, but I have other things to do other than dig through), I have to ask - just how is Arab identified?

Arab American may well may a Lebanese Xian family resident for 2,3 or even 4 generations (although one would guess that only those in the past 2 would self-id as Arab - in the aggregate).

Whereas 24 per cent of all Americans hold college degrees, 41 per cent of Arab-Americans are college graduates. The median annual income of an Arab-American family living in the US is $52,300 - 4.6 per cent higher than the figure for all other American families. More than half of such families own their home. Forty-two per cent of people of Arab descent in the US work as managers or professionals, while the overall average is 34 per cent.

Interesting figures. Encouraging I suppose.

But what does this say, in reality? Does it really say anything substantive about immigrants? Above all in the sense implied in this next paragraph:
That immigrants generally do better than their compatriots back home is no surprise. What is far less common is for immigrants to out-perform the average population of their adopted home. This should prompt debates on issues such as the notion that cultural factors lie behind the Middle East's widespread poverty. Cultural explanations for why some succeed when others fail have a long history. From the argument that the "Protestant work ethic" was more compatible with capitalism than other religions to the idea that "Asian values" drove east Asia's economic miracle, the "culture" factor has been a common explanation for economic success or failure.
Frankly, I find it somewhat bizarre to try to pose the success of multi-generations of Arab Americans in the United States as a refutation that cultural issues are important in explaining MENA economic issues. It is self evident that they are. Of course, I suspect he really wanted to say "immutable, unchangeable" cultural factors. In that case.... well nothing is unchangeable, ex death I suppose, but it sure isn't easy.

Of course, a rather unforgiving and unstable natural environment doesn't help, and in fact I would say reinforces many of the "bads" in MENA societies.

The Middle East's poor economic and social performance today has also prompted some to argue there is a malignancy in the prevailing culture.

Well, there is.

Of course, again, I think he really is talking about the quasi-racist Islamophobic bigots who would claim this is inherent to the region, etc., rather than the product of a specific confluence of present factors and historical experience - and natural environment constriants.

Such views are fuelled by the inexcusably poor performance of Arab nations. In the last two decades, no region besides sub-Saharan Africa has seen income per person grow as slowly as the Middle East. At the current rate, it will take the average Arab living there 140 years to double his or her income. Asians, Europeans and North Americans are expected to double their incomes in the next 10 years. The total economic output - including oil - of all Arab countries is less than that of Spain, and the Middle East's unemployment rates are the highest in the developing world while its literacy rates rank near the bottom.

Eh..... yes, but a note of caution - one of the issues that I think clouds thinking on reform in the MENA region is that... well, it really isn't a socio-economic unit. Rather like generalzing about Europe West of the Urals. Generalizations are useful and necessary, but one would rightly object about airy pan-European generalizations as usually not very useful, esp if talking about current political and socio-economic trends. Sub regions, West. Europe, Med. Europe etc. make more sense.

Same for the "Arab World." Maghreb is rather different than Machreq and within Machreq you really have Egypt, Sham, and Gulf. (and the two oft forgotten appendages, Oman and Yemen, but who cares about them?)

But if cultural impediments are behind the Arab world's disappointing performance, what explains the success of people of Arab descent in America?

Ah.... liberation from that overarching culture?

Perhaps not, but really, this is a weak argument.

One common perception is that Arabs who come to the US come from the wealthier Arab countries and are already better off.

Eh, really? Well, that's just wrong headed, but again note he's conflating in my opinion Arab Americans in the census as being the same as Arab immigrants. I rather suspect that this is not a good identity.

Another answer, of course, is that the US offers them better opportunities and institutions. Arabs in the US have ample opportunities to prosper and can rely on institutions to protect their civil and economic rights to do so.

Given my experience, on the ground, and hearing daily the gnashing of teeth of frustrated people here, I have one word:
BINGO.

It is tempting to dismiss the achievements of Arab-Americans by pointing out that people who emigrate tend to be younger, more ambitious and entrepreneurial. In this view, the Arab-Americans doing so well in the US would have made it anywhere.

Again, see the standing objection.

Sadly, that is not true. Otherwise, why are Arab immigrants in Europe worse off than those in the US?

Well, a number of explanations leap up:
(i) His Arab Americans in the census are not immigrants (or covers generations not normally thought of as immigrant, although on the other hand, among the worst performers in Europe are the 2nd and 3rd gen).
(ii) The profile of immigrants is different (e.g. Europe may be getting a "lower" quality due to proximity - ease of travel. This is certainly likely for the Maghrebines in Europe.
(iii) The US is better at integrating immigrants. Although overdone as an argument, a comparison with the failure of the French to integrate even the harkis, and what I see in Europe re the underlying non-acceptance of immigrants on the continent (blood nationalism, even if politely disguised as in France), suggests to me this is true.
(iv) Different generations - the Arab Americans may have greater time depth in the US (e.g. how strong is the Lebanese component in the id'ed "Arab American" pop and what percent is older generation immigration)?
(v) Strong presence of Xian (for US Arab immigration purposes, Palestinian-Leb-Syria) who may face less cultural issues in integration than the Maghrebines
(vi) Lack of colonial history baggage on all actors parts in re US as compared to Europe.

Why are leaders of Arab communities in France warning that social and racial tensions could create a social and political atom bomb?

Because the French have done a fucked up poor ass job of integrating their "Beurs" - polite 1960s style Anglo world type racism as against blacks - strikes me as rampant in France. Getting jobs with a name that is not "classic" Franco-Xian is tough: repeated scandals of employment agencies marking dossiers with code words to id 'native' French or at least white European against non-European, a French official position that tends to whitewash....

France may be an extreme case, but the situation of Arabs in the rest of Europe is hardly better. In general, Muslims living in Europe (of which Arabs constitute a significant proportion) are poorer, less educated and in worse health than the rest of the population. In the Netherlands, the unemployment rate for ethnic Moroccans is 22 per cent, roughly four times the rate for the country as a whole. The problems of Arabs and Muslims in Europe are particularly worrying given that the 14 states or entities along Europe's eastern and southern borders are home to 385m Muslims - mostly Arabs - with a birth rate more than double that of Europeans.

Well, here we have a big of a bait and switch.

First, of course, the Maghrebine immigrants (ironically largely Berberophones, not Arabophones, so most are... well only Arabs by extension and assimilation in Europe, oddly enough) have historically been from the very poorest, dirt poor illiterate rural areas. It's not surprising given their "host societies" ambiguous attitude towards the "Moors" in their midst, and their own rather 'low status' origins that there have been problems. Rather like the Mexicans in the far West I would guess.

Second, the main source of old Muslim / Arab emmigration to Europe, the Maghreb has seen its pop growth rates plummet to just above replacement levels in the past decade. The Moorish hordes are not really all that explosive - unless one throws in the Machreq, and esp. Egypt into the mix. But these are not the immigrants to Europe. The Maghrebines birth rates are not all that different from the Europeans and converging very, very rapidly.

So, mixing, mixing data without regard to coherence.

The US census data should prompt soul-searching in many quarters. Cultural determinists may want to revise their theories of Arab backwardness. Arab leaders should be ashamed when they see their emigrants prospering in the US while their own people are miserable. Europeans, too, should consider why their Arab immigrants lag so far behind those in America. Finally, Americans need to ponder if the changes instituted after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 will make future generations of Arab immigrants look more like their disadvantaged European compatriots than like today's successful Arab-Americans.

What can I say, I don't disagree that the "Muslims are inalterably backward and evil" morons are wrong, but sadly he's not really made that point here.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Massacres Continue

Another round of blood dripping "announcemnets" from central. At this rate, central's floors must be running with blood. Question - business impact? I have to suspect there will be. Much knowledge is flowing away in these streams of blood.

Second question: what does this mean for me?

Hard to know.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Confirmed

Well, it looks like I am confirmed on my speaking at the conference. That means getting serious on writing the bloody paper and blah blah.

Some data on recent deals would likely be helpful.

Hopefully will be fun.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dollar Dollar and Pass Through Pricing

Dollar Dollar and Pass Through Pricing

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ef1fca2c-bb36-11d9-911a-00000e2511c8.html

Here is an issue at once Macro and Micro in implications, and fascinating as well as chilling for those of us paranoid regarding the dollar, current financial system stability and – well frankly – bloody self interest. (for all that I still feel the sting from one of my dearest amigas accusing me of seeing everything in terms of payments and bribes – well it is true, but…).

But back to the point:

The article starts off with an appeal to the drinker in all of us, and the blessed gift to American drinkers of second rate Dutch beers in terms of the Dutch brewer eating the exchange rate change rather than raise prices and likely lose market share. What in finance classes you learn as “pass through” (or not).

The essential empirical evidence suggest that to date exporters have been eating the pain, in order to preserve market share in the world’s most financially profligate market, the land that invented the big fucking brick and mortar credit card (aka: home equity loans for current consumption – one of the most financially idiotic concepts ever foisted off onto the masses, but fuck it, caveat emptor. I frankly am of the feeling if you are so fucking stupid as to leverage your house to take a fucking vacation, you bloody well deserve to lose it.).

The figures cited are instructive:
The drinker's gain is Heineken's pain. Between 2002 and 2006, analysts at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein calculate,the Dutch brewer's annual operating profit from the US will have fallen from 357m ($461m) to 119m.
Got that? What? Doing a drunk calcy that looks like a 60 percent decline, right? (If I fucked up, well, blame it on the Cubans. They seduced me. If only they’d send a slinky dark curly haired chica to accompany the nice rhum they send me, I’ll tell them all).

Well, call me old fashioned, but I’d call that eating some big ass pain.

The FT authors note:
US consumers have, by and large, been able to take for granted stable import prices in spite of their currency's sustained slide. Heineken is just one of many exporters who have been shielding America from the full impact of the weak dollar. German carmakers, Korean electronics groups, Italian furniture exporters, Swiss watchmakers, Scotch whisky distillers - their shareholders and workers have all have been bearing the pain on behalf of American customers.

Generous of them. If I may, however, I’d like to poll our financially literate readers: how many of you think the internal market modelers are predicting this will continue?

That is, say I am … well me, and I walk into your office and profer a market projection in the contest of , I don’t know, let’s say whack another 15 percent off the dollar relative to most float or near float currencies on the assumption that the US will continue to act like a cheap whore on crack in re capital flows, and the rest of world will continue to act like a short-sighted pimp who likes getting play. Well, I walk in with the 15 percent decline, year on year, and project a 90 percent pass through (to us, not to the customer).

Does that look attractive? It sure does wonders for ROI.

Or restated:
The unwillingness of these companies to increase the prices of their products to levels that would fully offset the decline of the dollar has helped to keep a lid on inflation in the US (see below). But now, after three years of sacrifice, are exporters to the world's biggest market reaching the end of their endurance?
Alan Greenspan, chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board, raised the question in his testimony to Congress in February. Exporters to the US, he said,had held dollar prices "relatively steady to preserve their market share, effectively choosing to absorb the decline in the dollar by accepting a reduction in their profit margins". Their ability to withstand more currency pain could be limited, he warned.
Profitability might have "contracted to the point where the foreign shippers may exhibit only limited tolerance for additional reductions in margins should the dollar decline further", Mr Greenspan added. At their March meeting, Fed policymakers also alluded to the possibility of continued dollar weakness driving up prices.

Now, the authors follow up noting UBS economist-whores ( no disrespect to my amigos at UBS doing the whoring necessary to get things done – I work for cheap crack addicts, so I guess I am a cheap crack whore myself) the just so story of unrelenting cost cutting in the next paragraph is fundamentally unconvincing. I do not think that there is a lot of fat in the system, rather it strikes me we are in a starve the present Paul and hope the future Peter gets drunk and never calls in his due mode. Or as stated here in an amusing discourse: http://billmon.org/archives/001860.html : “Roubini spends most of the post tearing apart the arguments of those Wall Street economists who – true to their calling – have been busy explaining how the United States can go on sucking up close to 80% of the world’s available capital flows indefinitely because . . . well, just because. You know: It’s a new economy and the Internet has changed everything and traditional measures of valuation mean nothing any more. Stuff like that. And could we interest you in some slightly used Pets.com stock?” Okay not 100 percent on point but I liked the para so much I had to find an excuse to quote it. (btw Roubini is quoted here: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d341511e-ac4e-11d9-bb67-00000e2511c8.html on the related issue and interesting digression on trade and forex balances); also fun to read, Wolf, http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2adb483c-b67f-11d9-aebd-00000e2511c8.html.

Slightly used pets.com stock is priceless, I may add. Of course, so is “Or Alan Greenspan running around without any pants on, like the crazy guy in “Seven Samurai.” One has to read both texts to get the full amusement value (although perhaps both are a bit too arch and too finy-econy boy insider to be amusing).

As an aside, the note in the cited blog that the world is facing a global investment drought (opportunities) strikes me as a better way to look at things than a savings glut.

I note as an aside this paragraph:
Heineken is unwilling to shift production of its beer to the US - a move that would more closely align its cost structure with its dollar cash flow, creating a "natural hedge" that would make it less vulnerable to currency swings, but would betray its heritage as an imported beer. It is not just a matter of brand image, says Mr Ruys. To make beer locally in the US, Heineken would have to brew at three locations, he says, destroying the efficiencies it had built up in the Netherlands. Furthermore, he says, it is cheaper to ship beer from Rotterdam to California than, say, from New York to California.

This last… well I don’t want to say it surprised me, but it did. I am not sure (not being conversant with the transport market in the US) whether this speaks more to inefficiencies in the domestic market or efficiencies of sea transport. Of course, in a sense both, but in terms of orders of magnitude and what is reasonable to expect. Is it an issue of say poor rail-truck integration? I don’t know, the distance in the continental US would suggest to me this might be the key.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 04, 2005

Wounding

Here is what an amiga just said to me: "Everything you do is kinda like a bribe."

I may be getting too scummy.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

In honor of the latest warnings and USG Policy Effects in the region

I for one am happy that I feel more loved with the newly sustained stream of messages from Embassy asking me not to get blown up or otherwise assasinated on their watch.

In the old days I could a year or more without such heartfelt expressions of concern.

It's touching and moving. At least they know I am alive.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Kingdom of Heaven

I am looking forward to this film but this story, well, it grated on my nerves.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&ncid=529&e=5&u=/ap/20050504/ap_en_mo/film_the_crusades

The Arab=Muslim usage. Mind you Salah ad-Dine was a Kurd, for fuck's sake.

Okay, I know, trivia, but such things drive me batty.

By the way, in reality except among the professional Offenderati and the neo-Salafi Islamist Whack Jobs, the Crusades are not a huge point of sensitivity in the region. Had not some axe grinders gone after Bush's comment, it would have gone unremarked (although subsequent behaviour and the rise of idiot Xian Whacko commentary would have unearthed it).

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Trivia

To further the decline of Egyptian music, I discovered Amr Diab and J Lo are cutting tracks together.

Clearly, the end is near.

I share an email, somewhat edited, from an amigo of mine with time in funny places. Funny employer. On the recent set back for women's terrorism:
"When you pause and think about it, this nakba is 100 percent egyptian; i.e., a giant cluster fuck. The mujaahidat: a) only got off 3 shots; b) chose a fast moving vehicle; and c) capped themselves. Going on jihaad means taking out as many people as you can. And that chowderhead who detonated himself jumping off a bridge. what gives? yes, leave it to the Egyptians to screw up an already asinine plan."

This man is keeping you safe. I love him dearly.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Football (ii)

I mentioned over the weekend I was in the office because of the football match going on in the big stadium near my apartment.

Well, the local press covered the results yesterday. Not the match results, the post-match results. As I suspected, a lot of post-match hooliganism.

More ominous, the crowds of young bastids spontaneously turned into gangs attacks "rich people" and their cars (I as you imagine do not live in a poor neighborhood). Football crowds here tend to come from the poorest neighborhoods (everyone else is afraid to attend), they walk back - no proper transport - through these very well to do neighborhoods, anger boils over.

Not good, this. Sign of underlying anger boiling up.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On various Maghrebine news

I continue my low value-add rambling, not having the time or conviction to launch into any particular commentary, but building on the navel gazing for some insights on markets and situs.

First, I read a very amusing (to me of course) article on the evils of the black market economy here (oh my) and what could be done. The writer - in rather French style - was unable to imagine appropriate responses beyond yet more (and sure to fail) regulatory ones. I find it puzzling that the only response concievable is regulation. Well, not that puzzling given the writer held a diploma from one of France's "Grandes Ecoles." Nevertheless, in the face of clear evidence of massive failure in the region....

Second, an amusing reflection on the issue of the mortgage (and I can report that I am now the black market owner of a percentage of a very nice apartment with a beautiful terrace. I look forward to adding to the Cuban economy in the evenings from this terrace, hopefully while getting foot massages): I was reading an analysis of the mortgage market here (new, exploding in size, fairly healthy, but no real depth) and it struck me that among the reasons why there is a black market portion to the mortgage - besides the tax reason driven by builder tax-evasion - is the government controls the terms of the mortgages. Banks are not free (within reason) to create mortgage products, but in a highly restrictive approach to Civil Code, products are individually licscened. Among the restrictions - nothing over 20 years. That's right, max mortgage runs 20 years. Which renders things rather more restrictive and less affrodable for the first time buyer or the buyer with current cash constraints. It also seems particularly strange as to my knowledge one can do lease-backs running out to 50 years, leading me to ask why a firm would ever do its own mortgage when it could do a lease back.

Speaks volumes to why the economies around here are not growing - innovation is strangled, it's impossible to get the governments to move but very, very cautiously, and when new products are licensed, it is usually with a view to protecting the cartel of est. financing companies and highly restrictive.

And this just on the financing end.

Again and again, I am led to the conclusion that the West would do just as well to chuck the frilly rubbish regarding democratization and the like and push full bore for internal market liberalization. And not trade liberalization alone - indeed give developing countries a break on lowering their barriers, get them to liberalize internally.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 03, 2005

A public service: al Jazeera

This post has little content than hopefully spreading a little bit of information around:

AL JAZEERA.COM IS NOT, REPEAT NOT AL JAZEERA.

The real sat TV site al Jazeera is found at www.aljazeera.net - got that dot net.

For english see http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

I see this error all the time. (e.g.: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006226.php which is most irritatingly not corrected)

Get it right.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 02, 2005

Local color and low value commentary

Various items, because I remain uninspired.

First, I was amused by the local commentary on May Day and the Labour Unions shenanigans this past weekend. One of the key phrases in the local business press: "Slogans about Nasser, territorial unity, one wonders if without the comment by [someone not of any interest to you, nor the comment] the trade unions exist on the same planet as us."

Delicious. And true. The best thing about this May Day was that local TV, rather than feature increasingly irrelevant and irrational trade unionist blithering on about extending rights to the workers (they mean the labour elite they represent, the others be damned), rather they featured a new nation wide contest for the best entrepreneurial ideas.

Okay, it's true, the show sucked. It was.... well not very interesting. Little stand up speeches - some very good business ideas although I remain puzzled by the concept of an American style self service dry cleaners.... I think the woman in question was a bit confused.

However, the idea was right. Now, if they sexed it up a bit (some of the prelim adverts implied a more interesting almost reality TV format.) this could be both a real hit and a fine tool for kick starting entreprenurial action a bit. And believe me, the region needs. I was just in the lobby of our Big Ass Tower with my amigo Remy the Sad Frenchman Trying to Do Private Equity in an Impossible Region, when we remark that any profit driven owner would lease out at a very advantageous rate the cavernous and utterly dreary and empty lobby to some Cafe and make the area into a money spinner - as well as up the value to the tenants.

Sadly, the Big Ass Tower is owned by the Equally Big Ass Irrational Conglomerate Owned by the Big Cheese Family Number One. That means, although private, they manage as if they were some semi-competent public sector firm (which is to say, okay but rather in a bumbling fasion). As a further aside, I note the immense progress shown in local press development (note to self, 5 years, invest in advertising agency here), where one of the local journals had the freedom to write that the Big Ass Irrational Congolemerate was "an irrational set of fiefdoms obeying no [business/economic] logic where loyalty is more important"- rambled on for quite a bit on this vien. It was quite amusing to see that in print. a mere 10 years ago putting that in print would have led the writer to take a nice vacation in some desolate territories, permanently.

Progress.

Now, returning to my bored, rambling, I wished to note for the entertianment value alone that I have calculated that I spend 10 percent of net income on alcohol. Good think I track these things. I was impressed. I believe that I represent a major source of income for Cuba on this basis.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Foot, must shoot it.

This is on a purely local level. Appears we managed to completely fuck a project up with our biggest client. Delivered unwanted product, so to speak. Client hanging by a thread, lose this, we lose major baraka. Somehow I am completely at ease in this connexion. Local office (us) made it clear the junk pre-package idiocy they were trying to push was not what was wanted. Overruled. My boss sends message today: "Maybe you will start to listen to our advice." He had a moderately amusing observation: "I'm getting tired of constantly apologizing for how much we suck."

I personally am beginning to have a degree of fascination with the sound of ice ripping open metal.

Of course I got about 3 hours sleep last night thinking about this, and the fact I just bought an apartment here in a fit of madness (well okay bribing a woman, more or less the same concept).

To add some value to this post, I note that I have found the process of apartment buying to be utterly fascinating.

First, there is the real or 'black market' price. This is your point of negotiation. Once you arrive at a mutually irritating equilibruim price, then you go to the second round - how much of the price goes on the record, how much goes off the record. As the buyer this is important for two reasons. First, the on the record price is the price against which you can leverage your equity. Not the real price. Although there are caveats there which I will get back to. Second, the greater the off the record price the more you run the risk of an assessment that will really clobber you on real estate taxes. On the other hand, the off the record amount can end up being rediscounted. A bit of a strategic option, and depends on how much you want to lever up your property, your fear of the assessor, and the degree to which the black market gives you the jeebies. One can even get straight up legal advice from straight up sources on the 'customary' and 'acceptable' amounts in black.

Now, as to the lending price - well here there are some well accepted games to add back the black market portion of the real estate price via "furnishing and equipment" addition to the mortgage. The "furnishings" of course are suspiciously close to what the difference between tax declared value and real market value are - which is to say identical, and one can go to established bank-trusted sources for "supporting documentation."

I find the entire process very amusing to observe. Of course, I have not participated in any of these manuevers, I've merely observed. Wouldn't want to soil meself.

In any case, I have now foolishly engaged in a major side payment to the key woman - hopefully this will unwind some expectations. Of course it will not, actually, but I prefer to fool myself at the moment as I go through one of my habitual bouts of paranioa.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 30, 2005

So long as we're thinking of Cairo

This story from Friday amuses me immensely. Anyone who has lived in Cairo can sympathize. Some of the worst muezzines in the entire world blasting out high decibal crap:

Last Updated: Friday, 29 April, 2005, 14:35 GMT 15:35 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Cairo dilemma over prayer calls
By Sylvia Smith
Cairo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4485521.stm

The comments are amusing also. I note the people who have not been to Cairo stand out (like Yusuf the idiot American Hindi Muslim on "secularism" in calling the call to prayer cacophony. Clearly he's never been to the screaming madness that is Cairo.)

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Cairo: a world of bad.

Well, hard to read what is going precisely at the moment in Cairo, but since the mass football mania next door to me has driven me to the office, a word on Cairo.

I won't bother with links at this early date, suffice it to say a bomb, possibly thrown, killed an Egyptian (or alternately he was the bomber) near the Egyptian Museum, and then two muhajabat (hijab wearing cows) tried to shoot up a tour bus in the old city. The last has some small novelty value, although for the same of women's rights and all that, one would have wished they had not proven such awful shots. This sets back women's tourism by years. At least one had the presence of mind to shoot her companion, although she proved less skilled in committing suicide (as of this hour). (Alternate versions have them being gunned down by police, although given the shitty nature of Egyptian police I prefer the more amusing semi-competence in suicide)

Reflecting on the meaning, there are two main streams of thought, besides my disappointment at the inauspicious beginnings for women's tourism in Egypt. Equal rights and all that. Algerians did it much better. This aside, the two main thoughts are: (i) kefayah (enough) feelings are running rather hotter than Mubarek the Fat Shrimp Eater thought and you're seeing the extremist expression now, (ii) seems a trifle convenient for the Fat Shrimp Eater, this niggling thought occurs that security apparatus might have loosened up and let some bunglers move ahead to give pretext for a big ass crack down on the nice and appropriately scary Islamists as well as, conveniently enough, everyone else. Stability and all that. While perhaps a bit too cynical, I do point to Algeria and the dark things "le Pouvoir" did there.

However, overall I would opine you're seeing the harvest of radicalization post Iraq - not surprising in basket case Egypt.

Of course, I note that none of the three ideas expressed are mutually exclusive.

PS: I recall in this connexion with amusement attending a public event some five years ago in New York where the speaker - someone prominent in the current Admin circles - opined forcefully and confidently that women in the Muslim world were too repressed to ever play a role in terrorism. The speaker knew that they were only kept at home.....

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 29, 2005

Rolling along

I can think of few things I enjoy more than translating or summarizing obscure Central Bank jargon. Perhaps root canels.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 28, 2005

Well, on sliminess

Just coming back from my ever-so-convenient Euro owned Supermarket (or hypermart if you will), where I can get everything but condoms, I have to confess maybe I should buy less rhum.

Ran into a chica who apparently knows me there, also shopping - I say apparently as she knows my name although I don't recall meeting her. Wish I did, she is very memorable. I must have had a convo, although perhaps given today's push up and low cut outfit, my mind was elsewhere.

But no hidjab.

Nevertheless, her knowing my name and me not recalling her is not good.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On the news: Chalabi interim in oil

Well, you have to hand it to the slimey fuck, he got a sweet short term deal.

Let's see. Biggest money spinner. Chaotic with poor oversight. Much sweet spending.

Why, it makes me think of the steel deal. Indeed. It really makes me think of the steel deal.

Although I have to go take a shower when I think this way.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Arab Media - al Jazeera

Abu Aardvark draws my attention to a truly idiotic editorial in WSJ on al Jazeera (no surprise there):
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/04/dorrance_smith_.html

I have the original text and shall have my own comments when I finish addressing work issues. I do note that anyone who was a responsible official with CPA should be automatically considered entirely incompetent in regards to any Arab region issues and ridiculed if they try to provide "advice" on how to handle the region. Contemptible idiots ruined an excellent opportunity.

I also read al Jazeera is still being pimped around - hopefully the Qataris are only making noises to passify the Moron Knee Jerkers in the US rather than actually crumpling.

I also note the amusing Aardvark series on sexy girls in Arab vidclips.

One item he does not note, girls wearing hidjabs and really revealing (if not skin revealing) clothing is not in any way uncommon. Indeed it is common. I can not count the times I have reflected, standing across the desk from a Sec. or the like on the funny purpose of the super tight skirt/jeans/pants with super tight shirt/blouse coupled with some form of hidjab. The sexier wrap ones just about entirely defeat the ostensible purpose.

Pity, I should work on a layout of sexy hidjab wearing girls, utterly blow the stereotypes so very prevalent back in the West in re the hidjab.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 26, 2005

Oh perhaps fashionable now. Iraq. Civil War.

For a while I was getting worried that my congenital cynicysm and pessimism would not serve me well (although the steel project almost overcome those traits with my greed and cynicysm).

ANALYSIS-Once taboo words 'civil war' now spoken in Iraq
26 Apr 2005 14:14:13 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Luke Baker
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAK623643.htm

"I do not want to say civil war, but we are going the Lebanese route, and we know where that led," says Sabah Kadhim, an adviser to the Interior Ministry who spent years in exile before returning to Iraq after Saddam Hussein's overthrow.

......

The failure to form a government in the immediate aftermath of the ballot, when the nation was buoyed by the fact more than 8 million people defied threats and voted, has allowed distrust to grow as all sides scramble to secure a share of power.

"The huge window of opportunity created by the success of the elections has been frittered away in the politics of personal gain and internecine squabbling," said Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert at Queen Mary University of London.

Well, although I wavered, my underlying feeling is in the Middle East you can usually count on the super-atomized clannish nature of politics to fritter away virtually any opportunity in any given moderately consensus based decision setting.

I was wrong when I said that elections would change nothing, but not wrong in presuming that in the end they would not really change the political calculus that has slid more or less inexorably to maximalism.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

In Amusing Business Assertions

I've thought about commenting on this for a bit, but it is a bit dry. Nevertheless, in the local market there is an ongoing controversy over a new bill revising pharma sector regs. Frankly, it is a damned good law, gets rid of a lot of archaic rubbish regulation. Not enough, but in the Arab region we have to move slowly, slowly.

This of course has provoked massive protest on the part of pharmacists. Such bizarre regulations as any pharmaceutical company (producer, distributor) has to have 50 percent of its capital held by pharmacists (what the logic of this is utterly escapes me, but it's a great rent for pharmacists) and equally the limitation on the size of the pharmacy are about to go out the door. This provoked a general strike by pharmacists a few weeks ago - bloody lazy gits don't even stay open after 19:00 or 20:00 so I don't know how they can "strike" - but now the latest and most amusing maneuver(s) are the dual claim that the pharmacists union should be authorized to license all new pharmacy opening (great give a clubby bunch of self-interested slime more power over their little inefficient and inconvenient cartel) and ban clinics from having internal pharmacies.

This last produced an assertion that still amuses me. The assertion that a clinic (hospital in fact) having an on premises pharmacy is "disloyal competition prejudicial to the profession."

Wonderous that. Fuck the sick people, make 'em walk 100 meters.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Eurotunnel

Eurotunnel seeks debt write-off
By Mary Watkins in London
Published: April 26 2005 08:22 | Last updated: April 26 2005 12:10
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/92d7f44e-b620-11d9-aebd-00000e2511c8.html

The odd thing about Eurotunnel is that it's been obvious for ages that there is no way that it can service the debt. Not in any realistic world (ex Europe suddenly firing up 6 percent growth... hahahhaha, sorry).

It's a bit painful, but they may as well bloody default and get over with it. If I was a bond holder I'd go for an equity conversion (might as well, you're effectively in that position) or except pennies. .... Of course one could always offload, same-same when it comes down to it.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Pope - I think Benny the Rat is a good monicker.

I don't have strong feelings about Popes - other than my generic contempt for all religious figures and some lingering ancestral hostility towards the Roman model of churches. However, this article really made me lose any perhaps reflexive respect for this lying pig:

Pope Prayed That He Wouldn't Get the Job
Pontiff Tells German Pilgrims That God 'Didn't Listen to Me'
By Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, April 26, 2005; 12:00 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/03/25/AR2005032507903.html

Yeah. Right. You didn't really want to be Pope.

Then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he could have eliminated himself from contention by getting up before any of the closed-door votes in the Sistine Chapel and telling the other 114 cardinal electors he didn't want the papacy. Numerous news reports said that Ratzinger had a well-organized cluster of supporters able to round up votes quickly. It took only four ballots to elect him.

In Monday's audience, Benedict suggested he was dissuaded from dropping out by a fellow cardinal who slipped him a note reminding him of a biblical story about Jesus and Peter, the founder of the Roman Catholic Church. In the story, Jesus tells Peter to follow him even to places he might not want to go. Ratzinger had used the story as the basis of a sermon during John Paul's funeral Mass. "Then I had no choice, and I said yes," he told the pilgrims.

Right, no choice at all. Scheming politico, at least be honest.

This sort of posturing is contemptible.

(I note in closing that I really don't give a fuck about his politics, policies or Pope positions, I expect the Roman church to be an anachronism, so no comments on that substance please.)

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

And finally, Iraq, POW item

Court Declines to Review POWs' Lawsuit Against Iraq
Associated Press
Tuesday, April 26, 2005; Page A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501277.html

A very good thing. Nothing worse, in my opinion, than using courts in foreign policy realms. Bloody stupid law to begin with. Sadly the American government seems to have a growing penchant for extraterritoriality for its laws. Short sighted, stupid, cheap political manoevers.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Oops, another pretext slips away

Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 26, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html

What can one say? Somewhat old news now, but the conspiracy mongers have a harder row to hoe.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

In amusing reflexions

First, it comes to mind I watched an al-Jazeerah interview with an Iraqi Sunni leader. It was quite comical, the guy (old school style Arab nationalist) kept insisting there are no Sunnis, no Shia, everyone is in fact Sunna. Uh huh. It was delusional. The anchor kept poking him and his rhetoric kept getting more stupid. What is it about the Arab world that so much of its leadership seems mired in the failed 1970s agitprop?

Boring interview overall, after poking him got old.

In other, trivial matters, but in some ways important: the local quasi private TV station has begun a competition for entrepreneurs, a TV competition. Some 1000 odd people are signing up to take part in it - apparently the winner will see the project financed. It's a pity the show is relatively poorly produced - almost an interview format. Not that interesting, but hopefull will get better. Nevertheless, I take these things as a good sign that society is changing, that instead of going on strike to get government jobs, young university leavers will start to look at private sector opportunities (more realistically, sadly a recent survey of MBA graduates found 60 percent wanted.... drum roll.... government jobs. I wonder if they knew what an MBA was when they signed up?).

Otherwise, still pulling for that no vote on the EU constitution.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Well for some reason

A general strike has been called here over some employment law nonsense. No one seems to be following it though. Stupid unions here have yet to understand this is not France, 1975. Idiot leadership has no clue.

Never mind the special employment rights they're striking for only apply to the formal sector, the labor elite as it were. They're of course pretending this is about protecting the workers. Rubbish, it's about protecting the priviledged minority who can work for firms that can afford absurd, French style social protections that even a rich economy has trouble bearing, while fucking over the rest of the laboring lumps.

I truly do loathe labor unions. Not in theory, but in practice.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

And another one bites the dust

Well, another officer resigned this week, per the finely worded staff announcement.

As I calculate that, 30 percent of responsible staff back at HQ have resigned this month. I'm impressed. 30 percent turnover in one month among experienced front line staff is an impressive achievement. Why if senior management keeps this pace up, they will soon have zero experienced officers, and have successfully rid themselves of all institutional memory by year end.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. If only the Titanic's Captain had understood that when your guts have been torn out, the best solution is "damn the torpedos, full steam ahead!"

On the other hand, in the short term, this no doubt will put a stop to anti overseas office scheming as they are likely to be entirely consumed by HQ infighting and chaos.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 25, 2005

Leb Land - Fin Min.

I was suitably horrified by this:

New Lebanese Finance Minister upbeat on economy
The DailyStar - 25/04/2005

BEIRUT: Newly-appointed Finance and Economy and Trade Minister Damianos Kattar said on Saturday the government will "pump money into the market" and promised more loans for small businesses. Speaking at a ceremony in his hometown of Jezzine, which gave him a "key to the town," Kattar said he was encouraged by an upswing in the market following the formation of a new Cabinet headed by telecoms tycoon Najib Mikati last week.

"The government should not say it doesn't have the funds because the people are paying their taxes," Kattar said. "So the government has to pump money into the market and keep the wheels of the economy turning."

This from a government skating on the edge of insolvency.

"We must allow small institutions and enterprises to get loans from banks," Kattar said. "The means to get loans must be improved."

Ooo, just what the financial crisis doctor ordered, underpriced, politically motivated lending to sketchy small businesses. Perfect.

Kattar added: "The economic situation is good and the government will exert all efforts to ensure that progress continues. The new government is serious and it is cohesive."

Right. Situ is just super.

The Finance Ministry also released figures this month showing the budget deficit at a post-war low as a result of increasing tax revenue from VAT and a drop in expenditures.

Well, that is genuinely positive, ex of course the above indicates the drop in expenditures ain't lasting.

He is expected to focus on providing aid to small businesses which were devastated by the economic downturn following the Hariri assassination and the string of bomb attacks in commercial areas last month.

A government soft loan program called Kafalat, intended to help small business owners, has seen applications surge for its almost zero interest loans after bombs ripped through an industrial complex in Sad al-Bouchrieh and a commercial area in Kaslik in March.

Hmmm, well in some ways it is hard to fault, on the other hand a debt financed spree for a decade with accumulated government and private debt reaching unsustainable levels..... wait that sounds like another country.....

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A short note on the EU Constitution

My opinion. The unwieldy thing should go down in flames. European integration at present is a crock, and frankly a slap of realism is very much needed. Forcing this ahead largely to pander to French driven Americaophobia and wooley ideas about a European super-state modeled on France's sclerotic system is not a good idea.

I do note I am not a congenital Francophobe and not opposed to European integration, but the clownish way in which (the admittedly idiotic and poorly thought out) stability pact break-down has been dealt with, the faisco of the Services issue, etc. have convinced me Europe needs a genuine crisis to shake out the dead wood, scare the French and generally make the whole Continent get serious about reforms.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bolton Again

It rather looks like the problems are accumulating. I have to say that the more I read, the more I have to conclude that a reasonable observer must conclude that Bolton is not the right man for the job in any way, shape or form. Only ideology justifies his appointment. Shake up has to have buy in, this guy is not going to do it.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

MENA and Investing

Returning to this item, which again still needs to be confirmed, what I have been asked to comment on is Maghreb PE:
· Current and future trends in Maghreb Private Equity
· Privatization and deregulation as catalysts for the industry
· Successful strategies: sectors and investment phases
· Foreign versus local capital

In that context, I have things to say, but the context is going to be limiting.

I am interested in reader comments on the above, if you were in the audience.

By the way, one of the things I have to say on the subject is that the asset class is so new (oldest funds just hitting a decade old) it is hard to judge where the returns are.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq, Government

A quick comment on this: as I have long feared, maximalism is setting in. The Kurds trying to upend Jaafari strikes me as a losing proposition. There are no two ways around it, the Shia Arab block and population is Islamist in its views. Kurds are not going to be able to undo that. Screwing with the government is simply going to push to the Shia towards the view they have to maximalize.

Already the sweet smell of civil war is in the air. Kurds are being short termist.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Egypt, where

Well, four day weekends are fine things, and although the tar baby that is my personal life has gotten worse, the rest was good. It rather appears for 'my own good' I am getting tied down (there are other options, perhaps I can weasel out, but on the other hand I am most attached to myself). And even the foot is almost back to normal - above all as I have mastered walking without too much pressume on the toesies.

So, that of course that leads to Egypt.

A fairly decent column here on the place
Battle for Egypt's Future
By Jackson Diehl
Monday, April 25, 2005; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/24/AR2005042400890.html

I have a very hard time crediting the idea that Mubarek is going to allow anything but a Ben Ali type election (although perhaps better done, although I doubt it). At least Ben Ali delivers economic growth.

I also lay good money on this latest liberalization campaign in Egypt petering out in about 6-9 months.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Fin Sector Developments

First, I see the local press has a spate of articles on the new anti Money Laundering bill that USG has been hounding them about. Bloody busy bodies. I have a soft spot in my heart for money laundering. It provides me with fancy cafes to while away my weekends at, at rock-bottom-can't-possibly-cover-operating-costs-let-alone cost-of-capital prices.

Besides, cracking down on ML is going to cut into the flow of money into the private sector from locals living and working in Europe and the Gulf, insofar as it goes by funky routes. That isn't a good idea. Social tension and all that. Well, probably can count on the government hemming and hawing for another year or two, and then the law being ineffectually applied.

Second, I see AIG is in for another round of restatements. I guess that North Africa expansion is probably right out now. Wasted my time buttering up the COO. Well, my ability to curse firms I enter into contact with seems to be undiminished. Maybe I should get in touch with GM's capital division and tilt the fucker into junk status.

Finally, I was looking at the AR of the local super holding company for Big Cheeses Interests. My single thought was "it was a brave auditor that signed off on this...." I have to say, for achieving a level of confusion, this one is a beauty.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 20, 2005

Expat scumminess and the LSE

Well, time to fuck off and enjoy my last 12 hours ability to damage my liver and behave like an idiot. Shall have to disappear the next 48 into family land, eat too much couscousi, sit on beach and work, perhaps have some italian ices, try to avoid or otherwise finesse probing questions from want to be relatives on my intentions and the like. Then another 48 lounging in much greater comfort on my veranda seeing how much rhum one human being can drink. 2.7 liters should about do it. White cuban rhum, and my newest fad, grapefruit juice. Moderately vile, but I like it.

I do enjoy being an expat. It plays to my scummy side.

In other matters, my maid has randomly rearranged her schedule again. I must be too nice. But it is very hard to find honest, hard working maids. Plus ones that are smart enough to operate on autopilot and go shopping for me (other than her annoying tendancy to try to save me money), which is good because I typically have no idea what's even in my apartment.

Finally, anyone have any ideas on securities screening tools online for the LSE and Euro exchanges? Free ones preferably, I'm lazy and cheap. Wanted to muck around a bit.

PS:
It appears this conference is a go, or at least I have heard nothing otherwise. Any thoughts on what you would like to hear if I were actually giving you a presentation on the Maghrebi private equity market? As a potential investor, not as a dirt seeker. I'm genuinely curious. Don't worry, I am likely to ignore you, as usual.

PPS:
Major investigation announced by the local market regulator. It appears they've suddenly decided to get righteous about the last round of IPO shenanigans from the 98-01 period. Well, I guess five years later is not inherently absurd. Considering that some people I know have retained people.... wonder if it would be in poor form to take odds on the chances this will not, like most other regulatory actions here, disappear into the sands..... Confidence building and all that. Make some noises, maybe whack a few of the truly egregious.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

In random regional business - reflexions

From this article in FT:
Decline and fall of the freebie
By Dan Roberts
Published: April 19 2005 19:06 | Last updated: April 19 2005 19:06

This is both amusing and of real interest
The surreal dilemmas sound like they could be drawn from a magazine advice column for paranoid lawyers: can I provide sacrificial goats for my customers in the Middle East? What if the client asks us to procure internal organs for his sick relative? Is it OK for me to donate cash at a Korean funeral?

These are not the made-up challenges of some legal agony aunt, but the real-life scenarios under discussion by senior executives responsible for setting policies for corporate hospitality and gifts in an increasingly strict US regulatory environment.

The conclusion of the executives, who recently gathered in New York for a summit on the problem, was that the fine grey line that separates acceptable generosity from the darker world of bribery and corruption has narrowed substantially.

What lies behind their nervousness is the growing impact of Sarbanes-Oxley corporate governance legislation on the already strict rules of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Combine this with increasingly active enforcement agencies and the rapid globalisation of US business and there is a recipe for multinational angst on a grand scale.

Where minor local transgressions might once have been swept under the carpet, they are now likely to emerge as so-called "material weaknesses" in internal control reports requiring sign-off from a chief executive and finance director worried about their own liability. What might be common practice in Seoul or Yemen may not look so wholesome in front of the Securities and Exchange Commission or a Manhattan jury."

One begins to wonder how publicly listed US firms will be able to compete in emerging markets where ... ahem standard and legal practice departs from the increasingly absurdly prissy standards in the United States.

In particular, I draw attention to this observation:
"To those tempted to see this as American smugness, she points, in contrast, to sharply lower prosecution rates across much of Europe for similar international bribery cases. The problem is particularly acute in industries or regions of the world where a degree of modest generosity has always been seen as a polite way of building long-term relationships."

Indeed, emerging US standards are absurd and cold in the context of where I am at.

Now, to answer some intriguing questions at the end of the arty:
THE TRICKY PROBLEM OF STAYING IN THE REGULATORS’ GOOD BOOKS

What would you do? (A hypothetical dilemma posed by Trace International).

You have a contract for a high-value project in a developing country and it states that payments will be made by the customer at certain milestones in the project. To determine if the milestones have been reached, the contract calls for periodic visits to the facility. The contract is silent on how the cost of these trips will be handled.

1) Your main contact at the customer asks your company to pay for the trips, including travel and lodging. What do you do?
2) Several committee members say they plan to bring their spouses.
3) The trip is unexpectedly prolonged for a second week for legitimate reasons and, as the weekend approaches, the committee members ask what you have planned for them for Saturday and Sunday. They make it clear that they have always dreamed of seeing Disney World.
4) Assume the contract includes a per diem allowance for these visits. When and to whom do you pay the per diem?
5) You want to host meals at the beginning and the end of their trip. Any concerns?

Answering from my emerging markets perspective (w/o regards to stupid American idiot rules)
(1): If it's a significant contract and the margin allows, absolutely. Not so big, or not such big margin, maybe offer a cost share.
(2): Tell them that's fine, but spouses are on their dime, although offer assistance on visas.
(3): Arrange a trip to Disney World, at their expense, but take on the logistics. Possibly arrange transport and deals on the same. If milestones are in a dodgeyway, look into cost sharing.
(4) Presuming a general cash allowance, each member in by cheque or similar instrument, for the week, up front with proper notation of per diem.
(5) None.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Roots Subj: Fin Sec. and Wolf, FT; Financial Balance of Terror

Martin Wolf again has an excellent analysis of the rather dodgey position the world's economy finds itself in, with regards to global financial flows.

US deficits aren’t just China's problem
By Martin Wolf
Published: April 19 2005 20:47 | Last updated: April 19 2005 20:47
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b3cf88b0-b107-11d9-9bfc-00000e2511c8.html
""If you owe your bank a hundred pounds, you have a problem. But if you owe a million, it has." John Maynard Keynes"

After the pitty quote from Keynes (Keynes was indeed a real master of pithy quotes one is constantly reminded, our man Wolf has a bit of fun pointing out that while the quote appears to reflect US official thinking, it may not be true:

"If Keynes was right, the world's creditor countries have a huge problem and the US none at all. Yet the assumption that the creditors should be more terrified than the debtor is wrong if the latter needs to continue borrowing. If creditors face an endless stream of additional borrowing and a good chance of default at the end of it, they should refuse to throw good money after bad. They will then impose huge costs on the debtor.

This balance of financial terror, as it has been called, characterises the current huge flows of finance to the US. Carefully thought through economic policy is needed if the world is to extricate itself from this predicament. Alas, we can rely on the administration of George W. Bush not to provide it.

The last line is both amusing and true. And it gets better (as an aside I suspect it is the following kind of writing that had clueless nitwits at Political Animal echoing the clueless post bashing The Economist and whinging on about the snottiness of the writing. Whinging gits.)

So it proved at this weekend's meeting of the Group of Seven leading industrial countries. The communiqué remarked that "we emphasise that more flexibility in exchange rates is desirable for major countries and areas that lack such flexibility". If anyone was in doubt about what that meant, John Snow, the US treasury secretary, insisted that China should embrace a looser exchange rate immediately. Mr Snow is not the organ-grinder of US economic policy but the monkey. But he accurately reflected the "China-bashing" now sweeping across US politics, so painfully reminiscent of the Japan-bashing of past decades.

I personally found the monkey line priceless, but I may have a mean streak.

Wolf highlights the rebuttal well enough (although sometimes biting the hand that feeds one is quite useful):
As Nouriel Roubini of New York University promptly responded, the US attack on one of its principal creditors is playing with fire. In the past two years, he argues, three quarters of the US fiscal deficit has been financed by foreign central banks, 100 per cent of the fiscal deficit has been financed from abroad and about 80 per cent of the current account deficit has been financed by foreign central banks.* Biting the hand that feeds one is folly.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the US general government fiscal deficit this year will be 4.4 per cent of gross domestic product, while the current account deficit is forecast to be 5.8 per cent of GDP. At present, therefore, the American people are able to consume and invest as if the fiscal deficits did not exist. The treasury secretary of what is arguably the most fiscally irresponsible US administration since the second world war should fall down on his knees in thanks rather than indulge in complaints.

Queer that, the most fiscally irresponsible administration - true and a lesson about ideology versus practicality, and believing one's one agitprop to the point of willful denial of reality.

However, the real issue here is not solely the madness of the Bush Administration, but rather the overall system. And most seriously the degree to which adjustment has to involve major changes in emerging market behaviours as well as on the part of the profligate navel gazing US.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Perso Trivia

Well my moles inside New York report that contra expectations, the Big Fat Idiot told the management committee that me and the Director are doing a fabulous job in a "very difficult market." Also, someone forwarded me a highly complimentary letter to the Big Divorced From Reality Director about us.

It may be we're not going in flames quite as soon as I thought. We're still fucked given the shitty offer, but what the hell. On the other hand another resignation was announced today, another senior staffer out. Hard to tell if this is blood letting, rats fleeing or a bit of both. I vote both.

Now, on the other hand, I am trapped into going to visit bloody women's family over this goddamned break. I hate doing such, bloody endless supply of cousins, uncles, and others who simply bore me. At least I can take my laptop, maybe go work on the beach.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Arab Democracy, Genocides and Facile Thinking

Largely because I simply can't stand working on this proposal in front of me (yet more snake oil for the gullible fools), some random, largely incoherent and certainly not at all well thought through rambling.

First, I was reading the new editions of Oxford Business Propaganda Unit's "Emerging Country" X series. Not bad, actually considering they're moderately bought and paid for, it is not that far off of EIU. But to the point, one of the pieces in the Emerging Morocco edition 2005 had the opinion as follows: the gradualist but genuine changes of a Morocco are far more likely to be a beacon of democracy in the medium term than Iraq.

I agree with that sentiment. Evolutionary change in Morocco is proceeding quite well. I've had over a decade of connexion with the country... indeed 15 years now, it's encouraging to see how a fairly free and critical media has emerged. True, there are red lines, as in getting up and denouncing the King as a medoicre playboy (after a strong start he has begun to show some tendancies to ADD Playboy disorder) being right out. However, everything else in right in, including denouncing the government as a bunch of incompetent slackers for forgetting to send a delegation to the World Economic Forum Arab Competitiveness Whanking two weeks ago. The "maquillage" as people like to put it no longer works in the press (as it does in Tunisia - whose numbers, while strong, may be dodgier than the Moroccan numbers - although Tunisia has better overall macroeconomic policies and knows how to market itself). Particularly illustrative was how the press took apart the ministerial whinging that the WEF assessment was based on old numbers (true), which was a moronic excuse insofar as it was those same ministers that failed to produce up to date and viable numbers (true).

As anyone reading me of late knows, I have only contempt for the idiocy of "democratic transformation because the US is suddenly pretending to play the transformation game." Democracy in a real sense does not emerge from some demos more about protecting established interests (Lebanon) or a one-off election (Iraq), it comes from evolution within a society. On Iraq, I highly doubt the current balance can hold against unresolved issues between Sunni Arabs, Shia (Arab and Turcomans), and Sunni Kurds.

Nope, quiet little Morocco may be the better long haul bet. I'd throw Tunisia in there if I thought Ben Ali was ever going to wise up and introduce a modicum of reform. His regime has done a fine job of delivering real economic growth over the longer term for Tunisians, and has made them all richer. However, signs are the corruption and non-transparency factors are starting to grow as problems. Letting go of the Cult of Ben Ali would go a ways to letting the press get rough and tumble. I doubt Tunisia would change much - the example of Algeria was deeply sobering for most people.

(I recount again the joke I think I have recounted before - actually much funnier in Arabic: An Algerian Dog coming back from vacation in Tunisia meets a Tunisian Dog coming from vacation in Algiers. The Algerian Dog is stunned, and stops the Tunisian Dog. After praising the clean streets, order, quiet, wealth of Tunisia, the Algerian Dog asks the Tunisian Dog why on earth he would take vacation in Algiers, which is a mess. The Tunisian Dog nods sagely, and says, "I felt like barking.")

On the thought of Iraq and civil conflict, bloodletting. I am afraid that in the end patching together a short term compromise probably is not going to avoid longer term bloodletting. I just saw Hotel Rwanda, fine film overall, and reflected on this, Iraq, Cote d'Ivoire and interventions. A thought coming away: perhaps it was better not to have intervened in Rwanda. Looking to the Lebanese experience, looking to Cote d'Ivoire, I come away with the perhaps facile sensation that once inter-communal hatred has been stirred up, the only real solution is for the communities to beat the crap out of each other until the pain gets to be so much they're ready to call it quits. In Cote d'Ivoire we can see that neither side is really ready, each thinks it can go for the gusto. The only thing the is going to convince them otherwise is a bit of nastiness.

Well, as promised poorly thought through, and superficial.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Madness.

At work I mean.

I continue to be astounded at the sheer idiocy of this organization. My assistant is out today, so I take a call from accounting (what the fuck are the doing up so early, I have no idea, accounting freaks), the 2nd officer wants to know if we can negotiate new terms on our mobile subs for the corporate officers here. It's four fucking phones. Four. Four. The Telecom Giant is not going to cut us a special deal on four fucking phones. We're not even huge users (well who knows... but at the moment we've got no record of being such). It's utter madness. A waste of my time responding to this nonsense, a waste of their time (so they don't like the sub agreements, well, tough.).

This is as bad as asking the Director here to conduct suprise inspections of petty cash, a facility of such trivial amount that the dollar XR move adjustments are generally larger than actual usage. They're mentally ill.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bolton - on hold, down in flames?

A quick comment on this. I saw this AM in FT that Bolton's hearings are on hold. That's a good thing. Unlike say Wolfowitz nomination where I thought (and think) the Bush Administration made a small error as while Wolfowitz isn't / wasn't a bad fellow for the seat, the timing was bad, I think Bolton is the wrong guy.

As in Wolfowitz's case, it's not the ideology but the positioning that I see as the problem. Wolfowitz will get over the hurdles, and as I opined earlier, will make, despite the spluttering from the anti-globo morons, a decent World Bank President - hopefully a good back to the basics one.

Bolton, however, by all I hear from my State amigos and what I read, is a tempermental bastid who's not charming nor smooth. Fine, well enough. But if you want someone to help shake up the UN and get things going your way, better a Negroponte or a Kirkpatrick who have all the politics you want and are smooth.

Bolton isn't. Bad choice for the job. Period. Let the ideological fireworks aside, get someone who fits the bill on your basic agenda, and has the skills. Simple as that.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 19, 2005

What to talk about

I confess I am a bit burned out by the past month of idiocy, and not fairly inspired, other than perhaps by getting back to economic issues. Big holiday coming up this week (extra points to identifying which one), will disappear a bit although this bloody broken toe prevents any long distance travelling.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Pope

My only comment on this: finally I don't have to watch those bloody blake smoke stories. All bloody weekend.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Arabic Translation Tool

Sakhr seems to have fixed its translation tool: http://translate.sakhr.com/sakhr/default.asp?lang=1

For translation into Arabic, the other way appears to still need a subscription.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Trivial, Facile Comments on Leb Land

http://www.spiritofamerica.net/lebanonblog

In particular, "the revolution will be blogged."

I am amused by the naivete and credulity of the writer here.

Group of wealthy Beiruitis get together ..... and this is telling you what about Leb Politics?

Hint: nada. It's like basing your read of US politics off of Greenwich Village people.

As bad, the idiotic comments about Hizbullah, the utter misunderstanding of the politico-demographic shift that is behind the current issues (hint Shia are likely soon to be an absolute majority of the voting age population, but are relatively marginalized in the current "free" democratic framework).

No, this twit is on and on about freedom.

Navel-gazing as analysis.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 18, 2005

In trivial matters

In entertaining this weekend, some people started asserting I should be on the Apprentice show. I take it this was mockery, although all I know about this show is (i) it has something to do with Donald Trump, world's best marketeer of failed managers selecting managerial staff for something, on TV, (ii) it seems to be a series, (iii) it has Donald, I am a loathsome serial defaulter, Trump.

The question, then, is, what angle of mockery this was.

I think they were playing off my admittedly stupid, but sadly reflexive, habit of speaking about my social life as if it were business.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Clearly I have been gone too long

A class apart
By Craig Offman
Published: April 15 2005 18:25 | Last updated: April 15 2005 18:25
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/14a5a0d4-aca8-11d9-ad92-00000e2511c8.html

While this will earn me no points among my lefty readership, I have to say I find this idiocy in re 'transgender' to be ..... well idiocy. Not that I am particularly prescriptive or judgemental, being a classic live and let live liberal on all matters economic and social - free markets for idiocy as it were.

But the arch specialness of this new little fad strikes me as so bloody.... developed world idiotic navel gazing moronic bloody idiocy. And did I mention idiotic? Whatever, dress in men's clothing, etc. But the entire "identity" idiocy is just that.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Amusing reference

From comments today, I found this:
http://billmon.org/archives/001836.html
One obvious explanation for this trend is that credit has become ever so much easier for American consumers to get -- and abuse, which is why the credit industry spent the past six years lobbying Congress to bring back debt peonage. And nowhere has the industry been more inventive, or successful, than in its ability to persuade American homeowners their houses are actually giant credit cards made of brick, wood and plaster.

Emphasis added.

I was very amused by this. Brilliant turn of phrase. Amusing post overall.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Holy Lunch Hours

One of the most charming habits in this region is the sacredness of the holy lunch hours - which whatever official pronouncements occur, run from roughly noon to three in the afternoon. Absolutely impossible to reach anyone of any importance in an office. Everything is shut.

This includes, and I confess I continue to find this bizarre, shops. Even in the office complex - shopping mall attachment I am located in.

Now, on one hand this 3 hour break gives me plenty of time to ruminate, drink more human petrol, blunder about the office and/or aimless research things on the internet. Or internets as the case may be.

On the other, it strikes me as mind numbingly idiotic that the shops shut down during this period, with few exceptions. What is likely one of the potentially busiest shopping moments of the day, and they shut. This even includes the gift shop in the fabulous five star where we put up our incoming guests and the like. It is not a particularly well placed gift shop, but one would expect that the one time of day where it might get extra traffic is during the holy lunch hours. Guests coming back to the hotel and the like.

This aside, I remain impressed by the lemming like timing that the office workers here keep to. Everyone leaves quite promptly (or early) in the 12 to 12h30 time slot (in which time the elevators become virtually unusable because of the morons who push both up and down buttons to call the elevator, illiterate country hick idiots), troop out into the 12h30 to 1h30 mass traffic jam of all the lemmings going home to (if female) cook and eat or (if male) eat and lay about, and then in the 2h30 to 3h00 time slot, come back through another mass traffic jam.

Now, this pattern is clear to all. But does one see anyone altering their habits to avoid this chaos? Nope. For it is the holy lunch hours, and it is written.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sadly remaining a degenerate

Afraid too much celebrating over this weekend has left me incapable of higher thought processes.

The combined end of the entire reporting fiasco, ex ridiculous edits and further massaging (mere polishing as it were) and the news that the special person (or whatever) is suffering from 'the female sickness' (and thus putting an end to one of my episodic bouts of utter paranioa that various modern medical advances had betrayed me and my scummy alter-ego me, and caused potential family things to come about) had me in fine form. Even better, without permie type accompagnement.

However, this AM, besides realizing that I have ingested far too much nasty substances over the weekend, I'm also recalling I made some promises about investing in an apartment that I think I am going to have to keep. I guess a few K into a condo here is not an inherently bad idea. Real estate, although getting a big frothy is not madly unreasonable, and the condo in question is quite stylish. Should things go south, I can hole up there, should they not, still a decent value. Of course, there are some legal niceties and the like, a bit awkward.

One of the best things about the convo on this, as I recall (quite a lot of rhum preceded - hmmmm, she's getting sharp to the idea getting engagements out of me over rhum is efficient.) is the open legal advice about what percentage of the apartment sale price should be "off the books." It appears there are open and well accepted percentages - too low and you're a sucker, too high and it's a bit too much of sharp dealing. What I liked best was the advice came from a perfectly respectable lawyer.

Else, The Washington Post has a perfectly irritating series on reform in the Arab world. One of the things that I rather detest about this subject is the sheer faddishness of all the journo writing on it. "Oooh there's reform...." Bloody idiots. Well, maybe not that bad, but the faddishness of the coverage irritates the fuck out of me.

Finally, it looks as if the conference is a go. Pending confirmations.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The other item to note

Nancy Arjam is coming to town. I am looking forward to her further prosleytizing on Leb Slut Fashion.

This reminds me, one of the floor's best on this achieved a new high, or low, with net stockings, a mini skirt and a bustier.

Yes, this is what passes for Arab world female working fashion.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dollar, Credit, Crash

Higher brain functions are still impaired, but a bit of quoting from The Economist is doable I think.

This week's editorial comment:
A call to action
Apr 14th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Unless politicians stop talking and start acting, the world economy is heading for trouble

“CIRCUMSTANCES seem to me as dangerous and intractable as any I can remember, and I can remember quite a lot.” That sombre assessment of the world economy came from Paul Volcker, chairman of America's Federal Reserve between 1979 and 1987, writing recently in the Washington Post. “What really concerns me”, he went on, “is that there seems to be so little willingness or capacity to do much about it.”

Coming from one of the giants of American economic policy-making, the man who vanquished the high inflation of the late 1970s and helped navigate the global economy through the 1980s debt crises, that is a pointed admonition. The finance ministers and central bankers, who gather this weekend in Washington, DC, for the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, would do well to take it seriously. For beneath a veneer of resilience, the world economy is becoming increasingly fragile.

In other words, we're walking up to the edge of a serious systematic crisis and it is about bloody time to start getting serious.

I wonder if the dimwits in Washington will begin to understand.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 15, 2005

And away.

Entertaining this evening, but the quarterly report draft is of with all the highly sketchy numbers and claims nicely rounded up and put in dollar terms. Shall return to normal blithering on, ranting and the like next week.

Or when so moved.

I would note, in closing that I was suitably entertained by my doctor's attitude towards the broken toesies - rather like my own. I love developing world health care. None of this bloody test and test, and whimper on about peanut dust allergies.

Of course on the other hand I do have a nerve damaged finger due to this, but such is life.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Home Stretch

But I wish to signal an amusing story I heard over lunch yesterday with a US Embassy boy and some private equity people.

The Embassy boy was complaining that the regional brand director of Nike (AMENA) is harrassing him about a recent incident. As retold by the officer, Nike sponsored the local National Team, bought them uniforms, etc. The brand manager, watching the team play for the first time after sponsorship, sees them come out on the field in their brand spanking new uniforms. Nike and all that. Except.... they're not the real uniforms - the guy knows what the real ones looked like. These are counterfiet Nike uniforms. Live on TV, the team comes out with counterfiet uniforms that don't match the real ones Nike provided.

Wonderful. Word on the street is that someone on the team resold the real ones and got fakes. The why is as of yet unknown.

A thing of beauty.

The other great phrase from the convo:

"That Bank [large well known bank] isn't a bank, it's a pawn shop."

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 14, 2005

No Value Added, but a Question

My poor laptop, even after being subjected to multiple anti virus scans continues to show signs of issues. Any thoughts?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 13, 2005

Continued lack of value to add

Other than to note the foot is fixed and the neo-Salafi blunderers got my suit back. Bless their scraggly selves.

I continue to have episodic bouts of paranioa about the fallout from certain extracurricular activities, but refuse to pose any direct questions. Best to cruise.

Otherwise, reporting due back to NY, working like a madman. Will return to normal schedule thereafter.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 12, 2005

Another edition of other news

First, I am glad to report after installing a new, non-Norton AV, anti-virus product I found my problemos. My life has gotten better. Now if only the connexion here would be stable.

Second, I am happy to report I broke my foot yesterday. Toes only. Little purpley but nothing fatale. The women are insisting I go to hospital but I don't see much point in that, what can one do for toes? I am quite gimpy, however.

Third, my dear local dry cleaners has lost one of my suits. Gave me the wrong one, now deny all knowledge. Bloody nightmare. I am going to try to make them cough up something, but it's really a lost cause unless the fellow who got my suit returns it. This is a cash business and they don't keep names. Bloody women again "saving" me money..... Go to the bloody expensive place for fuck's sake. Well, it wasn't one of the really expensive suits so perhaps this will motivate me to go suit shopping again. Afraid I was rather nasty to the owners, but what kind of moron tells me I have to go into their absolutely chaotic bloody pressing house to search for my own bloody suit? Especially when it's fairly clear their neo-Salafi employees with the scraggly beards fucked up and switched suits last week?

Fourth, this little story from FT warmed my heart. The question that arises though, is, given the Medievel (royal) influence of Maghrebine food on my benighted ancestors, what the bloody hell happened afterwards?
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f2f69480-a805-11d9-87a9-00000e2511c8.html

Otherwise, my foot really does hurt. Wonder if I should take some pills or something. I suppose I could go to the clinic, but it seems quite a bother for a couple of toes. Coffee is good today though, at least that's going right.

Finally, I have been invited to be part of a tender on something in the old Middle East. Trying to decide if this is a good idea or not.

Furhter thoughts, coffee remains good, but foot is getting a bit swelly. I may actually have to seek medical attention. Really remains quite painful. Stupid toes.

I should write about Iraq, but not in the mood of late.

EDIT:

Footsie has been examined. Minor breaks, no loss of toes in order. Perhaps my feet will be somewhat less classically beautiful, but what can we say? The taping up of toesies does wonder for mobility.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 11, 2005

Most Amusing Recent Convo

Rapping last week with two North American investment banks, convo brought to mind by today's AIG news:
The statement came up, while discussing AIG: "AIG is a criminal enterprise with an insurance wrapper."

I think that goes too far, but it was and is amusing. In a sour way, but....

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Back to the Dollar Watch and Related Imbalences

This week's Economist has a fine arty on USG paper addication with For CBs and USG addiction to cheap For. CBs money. Take a look at the chart and tell me what you feel like in terms of momentum.

You need us and we need you
Apr 6th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

America and foreign central banks are locked in a codependent relationship: America is addicted to spending, and the banks can’t stop throwing money at it in order to keep their currencies down. This is unhealthy for both parties, say the IMF and the World Bank. But is there any political will to change it?

The answer is no, of course.

Pity I never became a debt workout specialist.

By the way, the other item to cast an eye at is the GM debt issue and it's imminent descent to junk status. FT has some reflection.

Angels, falling from heaven.

By the way, on tangential lines, I link to a comment I made about Leb Land: http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/028022.html

It's in comments, replying to some silly pish-toshing on Leb Land's impending currency crisis.

I feel a good argument for liquidity issues coming on.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friedman: Dreary Failure

I give you The Economist review:
Globalisation

Confusing Columbus
Mar 31st 2005
From The Economist print edition

The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century
By Thomas L. Friedman

THE term “populariser” is often used to sneer at writers who manage to reach a wide audience by those who don't. But not all popularisers are guilty of sensationalising or over-simplifying serious topics. There is a sense in which everyone in modern societies, even the most earnest or intellectually gifted, relies on the popularisation of ideas or information, if that term is understood to mean the making of complex issues comprehensible to the non-specialist. Achieving this is admirable.

In the field of international affairs one of America's most prominent popularisers is Thomas Friedman, the leading columnist on the subject for the New York Times. Mr Friedman constantly travels the world, interviewing just about everyone who matters. He has won three Pulitzer prizes. If anyone should be able to explain the many complicated political, economic and social issues connected to the phenomenon of globalisation, it should be him. What a surprise, then, that his latest book is such a dreary failure.

Surprise? It's not a fucking surprise, it's simply more obvious now that Friedman is a facile idiot. Of course the reviewer is throwing him a bone.

Mr Friedman's book is subtitled “A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century”, but it is not brief, it is not any recognisable form of history—except perhaps of Mr Friedman's own wanderings around the world—and the reference to our new, baby century is just gratuitous. Even according to Mr Friedman's own account, the world has been globalising since 1492.

This kind of imprecision—less kind readers might even use the word “sloppiness”—permeates Mr Friedman's book. It begins with an account of Christopher Columbus, who sets out to find India only to run into the Americas. Mr Friedman claims that this proved Columbus's thesis that the world is round. It did nothing of the kind. Proof that the world is round came only in 1522, when the sole surviving ship from Ferdinand Magellan's little fleet returned to Spain.

Undaunted by this fact, Mr Friedman portrays himself as a modern-day Columbus. Like the Italian sailor, he also makes a startling discovery—this time on a trip to India—though it turns out to be just the opposite of Columbus's. An entrepreneur in Bangalore tells him that “the playing field is being levelled” between competitors there and in America by communications technology. The phrase haunts Mr Friedman. He chews it over, and over, and over. And then it comes to him: “My God, he's telling me the world is flat!”

Of course, the entrepreneur, even by Mr Friedman's own account, said nothing of the kind. But Mr Friedman has discovered his metaphor for globalisation, and now nothing will stop him. He shows his readers no mercy, proceeding to flog this inaccurate and empty image to death over hundreds of pages.

Now here's a reviewer after my own heart. Of course this goes for all his books.

In his effort to prove that the world is flat (he means “smaller”), Mr Friedman talks to many people and he quotes at length lots of articles by other writers, as well as e-mails, official reports, advertising jingles, speeches and statistics. His book contains a mass of information. Some of it is relevant to globalisation. Like many journalists, he is an inveterate name-dropper, but he does also manage to interview some interesting and knowledgeable people. Mr Friedman's problem is not a lack of detail. It is that he has so little to say. Over and over again he makes the same few familiar points: the world is getting smaller, this process seems inexorable, many things are changing, and we should not fear this. Rarely has so much information been collected to so little effect.

A number of truly enlightening books have been published recently which not only support globalisation, but answer its critics and explain its complexities to the general reader—most notably Jagdish Bhagwati's “In Defence of Globalisation” and Martin Wolf's “Why Globalisation Works”. Because of Mr Friedman's fame as a columnist, his book will probably far outsell both of these. That is a shame. Anyone tempted to buy “The World is Flat” should hold back, and purchase instead Mr Bhagwati's book or Mr Wolf's.

I heartily second the last. Wolf is far, far, far more intelligent than Friedman, usually manages to have more than just a clue, but real understanding. Avoid Friedman, take Wolf and Bhagwati. Just what the Economics drs. ordered.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Further to the idiocy of American Policy, Political Change

I just had lunch with my boss. On a positive note, we both talked about the concept of getting risk capital backing for a management turn around for a company. Rats, Ships. Appears we've been thinking along similar lines. Wonder if it could work. Except I am not sure about his management skills. Well, still at least he's rational. Rational is always a good start, as opposed to living in a stark fantasy world.

Now, to the point, I was just chatting with him about the Jordanian items, and he reveals at his table some of the American USG Idiot Big Cheeses were going on about how the current government here needs to come down, spoke favorably about the Jordanian changes.

Good lord, these people are clueless morons. No wonder the US is blundering about like a blind elephant, it has clueless, ignorant morons rearranging the deck chairs to make it all pretty. Egypt seeing "positive change"; Walid Jumblaat, great proponent of democracy. Bloody motherfucking morons....

And they're making my life more dangerous, the clueless ignorant drooling gits.

Post Script:

Just saw the WSJ arty today. Now I understand what these clueless gits are out here for. Front pager even. Out here to "learn" and rap.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Cole, A note relevant to Right Bolshevism & MENA Studies, Commentary

Juan Cole has a very interesting comment here on Friedman and MENA Studies
http://www.juancole.com/2005/04/friedmans-slander-of-middle-east.html

I will try to find time to expand on this later, but let me make a quick, brief comment.

First, Cole is absolutely right in re both the attention shown among scholars to the issue of democratization in MENA (and in the lit which interest(s/ed) me, on liberalization), or lack thereof during the 1990s and the reality that recent changes are not some unrooted manna from heaven, pre-"US suddenly gets reinterested in MENA" post 2001 there were breezes of change not dissimilar to the present.

Second, I am getting rather more and more disgusted by the Right Bolsheviks ignorant pimping of the idea that somehow the Ideologues have suddenly focused attention on such issues, and that the Right Bolsheviks have suddenly caused, via Iraq, sweeping change where before there was none. Both are dangerously ignorant and stupid posturing for purely political-ideological gain. Pipes and his despicable "Watch" group of Politically Correct Thinking are feeding a spin that simply is pure political agitprop. It disgusts me. Worse than that, it's usually a bizarre distortion of reality, with a Bolshevik type spin to put it in party political terms.

I find such things dangerous. I just came away from a dinner wherein I heard Morth Africa described by some of these characters in town as a "tribal society." The amount of a pure cluelessness and pure political Right Bolshy idiocy here is dangerous. Normally I would not care what the bloody fuck these morons did, let me set up right to life for bloody fucking vegetables for all I care. However, this sort of Right Bolshy Political Correctness irritates me and makes me life harder. Morons.

Also, drawing attention to this comment by Aardvark:
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/04/marching_all_ar.html
The key points: for those of you pissing your pants in excitement about every demo that fits your pre conceived understanding, recall there is a larger picture. Deal with it. Second key point, popular power doesn't mean pro US democracy.

Also to this one:
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/04/dpb_watch_day_5.html
US Jordan policy. I really should find time to comment, but have not the gumption. Let's say just say the conspicuous silences are noticed.

[EDIT TO ADD]
From Aardvark's note
http://futurejordan.blogspot.com/2005/04/jordan-no-room-for-error-8-april-2005.html
Oxford analysis, unremarkable, but let me highlight this:

The new prime minister, 69 year-old Adnan Badran, the US-educated former president of Philadelphia University, will now see if he can deliver these elusive achievements. Although the possibility of a new government had been circulated widely in the last few weeks, Badran being named to the top position certainly wasn't expected, as many didn't think the King would name an academic. His 25-member cabinet includes four women and 12 ministers from the former government. Badran has also taken the defence minister portfolio for himself, while the new foreign minister is Farouq Qasrawi, a former ambassador to Japan and advocate of the King's policy of close ties to the US. Bassem Awadallah is the new minister of finance, while the Interior Ministry goes to Awni Yirfas, a tough intelligence general who was head of the Passport Department.

Badran will inherit the task of righting the government ship and will have to tackle a number of looming challenges. In addition to bringing eventual political reform, Badran will face the immediate difficulty of selecting a cabinet. For all the diversity of the previous government, there were reports that inter-cabinet squabbling had begun to be an obstacle to progress.

The appointing of Marwan Mouasher, the former foreign minister, as deputy prime minister was supposed to encourage more inter-ministerial co-operation. Yet the surprise resignation of Bassem Awadallah as the minister of planning in February 2005 was an omen that the internal problems were yet unsolved. Awadallah, one of the King's closest allies, stepped down under unclear circumstances. Some speculated that he disagreed with the awarding of certain infrastructure contracts, but others cite his consistent inability to work within the el-Fayez cabinet. Since he has long been known to stand very close to the King on issues of reform, his leaving could not have pleased the palace.

Emphasis added.

How to say this......

Bassam is needs to wash his hands. Take it from me, the bolded thing I know something about. The "surprise resignation" had fuck all to do with Fayez, and something the fuck to do with something some of my dinero was looking at in 2003-2004.

That he is back is Finance Minister (and that he's so described in re King) tells you everything you need to know.
{End Added Text}

Finally Jumblatt was on TV this weekend apparently saying (I caught only part of it) that he was not riding the UN Resolution Train, but the Accords train. Sounded like he was throwing Hizbullah a bone, but I only caught part of it so take me note with a grain of caution.

ADDED:
Egyptian Terror attacks
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/04/egypt_terrorist.html
Note on this: at the end, don't discount the terror attack as intel op. I hate to say it, but Mubarek's cronies would indeed stoop so low. Doesn't make it so, but we say that sort of thing in Algeria.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 08, 2005

A Final In Other Items To Close The Week

I shall have to ask my maid not to buy me toilet paper. Nor any women with keys to my apartment, which is awkward as well as inefficient.

Everyone seems to want to save me money. However, given my recent stress, and the emergence of what appears to be a delicate gastro constitution, I feel that some splurging on toilet paper is quite within the budget. However, the female species seems to believe I do not need it.

Well, what can be done?

Finally, I was looking at the invite list for this conference. I think I should not accept in the end. All the others are CEOs.

Otherwise, must redouble efforts. The rats fleeing suggest much disorder. And I discovered a Leb woman is after my job.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

In Today's Other News

I open my email this morning to discover not one but two Senior but not Managing Dir staff have resigned, each effective in two weeks.

Rats. Ships.

A number of questions arise in my head.

First, what does this mean for me? That of course is ... actually the only question I really care about.

So, actually, to restate, one question with several aspects arose in my head: What does it mean for me? Is this the source of the "Come Back To New York to Join the Damned" come hither inquiry?
Is the person piloting one of my projects who is resigning actually going to complete her deliverable in ... ahem ... one week? (Well, hope springs eternal)
Can I complete someone else's deliverable although to be frank I barely understand it?
Can I do so while also working on the motherfucking reporting, the stupid new duplicative shiney "special MENA" section designed I suppose to try to disguise what a cock up this is?
Can I pull of an exit strategy before these idiots exit the land of living firms?

In other news, none of our Cairo office staff were killed (pity, they're contemptible liars, would have done the world good), but one resigned to move to India or Indonesia, something like that.

Also, Pope's death and all the blithering on about it may have the effect of preserving Egypt from the blowback on this - since the news is Pope 24 / 7. I suppose this makes it all worthwhile.

My only further Pope observation is that I find the Coptic Pope far more interesting. Baba Shenouda. That says it all.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 07, 2005

Cairo. Bombing.

Not sure yet. My colleague is flying out this evening for the Khan. I already explained to her that visiting the vile cess pit that is Cairo is bad for you.

Well this bombing is going to help tourism.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Clearly not getting work done today.

I am vaguely reflecting on how I could somehow take advantage of a very interesting business opportunity in the leasing sector. Despite my lack of background in leasing. And lack of capital. Connexions are worth something. Secondary market. Sub-Saharan. Need I say more?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

One more final comment

This really brightened my day. This is the stuff I live for.

I open our local "FT / WSJ" wannabe paper (not bad although prone to bizarrely florid prose, and having a stunning ability to fill up a page with florid prose without actually conveying any substantive information on the issue at hand.

Big news, the local state owned bank that's been on death's door for ... well forever ... is going to be recapitalized and relaunched. Again. Fourth round I think. What the fuck, a few billions here, a few billions there. Best is the interview with the new guy they just stuck at the top of this motherfucker. He's pretty upbeat, admits the "clean up" operations are partially complete, not fully, and yes it's going to be hard with a cost of capital seriously above that of competitors, and that they lost 30 percent of their market, and ... this is the one that brought tears of joy to my eyes, "staff remains traumatized by the judicial cases in progress."

That would the judicial cases against a vast number of your own staff for fraud, corruption, etc. etc.

Yeah, I'd say traumatized.

However, I can also say: "Hmmmm, potential client." Stupid, gullible, may actually believe my establishment can deliver something of value.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

In further last other news

I share with you the latest response in an ongoing saga of trying to get information from my insurance company. Via their spiffy new website where I simply wanted to get some of their local provider infos. Very simple. Only their motherfucking site doesn't fucking work.

April 6, 2005

Subscriber's Name: Collier Lounsbury
Control Number: _________________

Dear Mr. Lounsbury:

Thank you for using the Internet to contact Big Goddamn Motherfucking Idiot Insurance Company (BGMIIC).

Unfortunately we do not have any direct pay hospitals in ______. [Great, but I didn't ask about that] You may seek care at the facility of your choice. [Yeah, I know, and then you fucking challenge everything like last time, assholes] Though direct payments are not available on a routine basis, BGMIIC can attempt a one-time direct pay to virtually any facility. When requesting a one-time direct pay, please submit a direct pay request, indicating that the request is for a one-time direct pay.

Go to[website] and click on the word "Here" that is shown under New Website Login Process. The system will prompt you to Log In or Register Now, you will want to click on Register now and follow the below Login instructions.

Upon review of your file, you must enter the identification number that is shown on your ID card. The identification number will start with a "--" followed by nine digits. Therefore, do not enter the 01, no spaces, or hyphens. This information should be entered in the Username field. [I know, I can read. However my original message was that this DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

The password should be entered as _____________. Note that the system is case sensitive so make sure the password letters are typed using capital letters.

The system will allow you three attempts to register, if you are unsuccessful, then close your browser and try again following the above steps.

If you continue to have problems, please do not hesitate to contact Member Services.

Once you are prompted to Step 2 of the registration process, please see the below helpful hints:

Usernames must be between 6 and 25 characters in length.

Password requirements:

Must contain at least one letter and at least one number

Must be between 6 and 20 characters

Must be different from your username

Passwords are case sensitive

Should you have any further questions or concerns, please reply to this email.

___________ is our member and consumer self-service website that provides a single source for online benefits and health-related information. At the click of a mouse, members and consumers can access the site for the information they want, when they need it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Go to ____________ to enroll today to take advantage of the many tools that are available for our members. Once on the ________ Home Page, click on Log In located in the upper right hand corner of the screen. If you are new to the website you can register for your unique User Name and Password online. Click on Login and learn more about _________, then click on Login to ________. If assistance is needed contact us at the above email address or contact Member Services at (Inside USA __________). [THANKS. Of course you know I am not in the US.]

In order to continuously improve our service to our members, we are soliciting your feedback. Please click on the below link, or copy/paste to your internet browser, and complete the short online survey. Thank you in advance for your time.

_______________________

Sincerely,

Annoying CSR Drone Who Sends Form Letters

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

In other, other news

I am thinking I am going to buy an apartment here.

I may accidentally end up owning something that is not an investment. This is largely motivated by the woman who I may have to marry due to some unfortunate extracurricular activities and perhaps a bit too much lingering morals on my part. Can't quite muster up the gumption to be entirely amoral on this front, although perhaps I can leave her with an apartment and a new job and the equation will work out.

This aside, the apartment on the block at the moment is pretty fab. I like the top floor with the mega terrace, but frankly I'd have to extend myself a bit to get it, and further leverage on my part is not a good idea, above all given the dollar exposure. The one really on the block is fairly fab as well, near a gym which means my progressing deterioration can be halted and I will return to my svelte former self (not that I am un-svelte now, but still, ideal modes and all that). Same building by the way, just the next floor down, with a slightly less dope terrace and less potential for naked sun bathing expat drunkeness that I like to indulge in from time to time. However, still very fine. And this can be paid in cash, no leveraging up. Odd, just a relatively small difference in price.... (I confess I have a somewhat slimey scheme on making the company pay for this via some arrangements. Not that the housing allowance can't be applied to housing payments, but I don't like them knowing very much about me.)

In further other matters, I seem to have a new nickname which vaguely bothers me. I am not sure it's complimentary. "Homme Fatale." The staff at my favorite club. They used to call me "Le beau" and now they call me "Homme Fatale." I really have no idea where this comes from, and I can't quite decide if I am being mocked or not.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 05, 2005

Arab bla bla bla report

Some decent comments I wanted to draw attention to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26528-2005Apr4.html

I'm far too depressed by this disaster of a visit to comment - not even the Pope and Schiavo dying has pepped me up from this blundering moron's visit.

At least he got to hear from some others what a hard market North Africa is to break into and heard some folks praising me and me direct boss. That was good. Not good was his running around confirming that the enterprise is run by second rate baboons.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 01, 2005

Accountants

An odd personal question.

Sitting with taxes this year, and in connexion with some of the oddities of 2003, I believe I may be well served with some professional advice State side. Wonder if anyone has personal accountant familiar with expat issues in re the US to recommend. Preferably not too expensive, I hate paying these people, but this wrinkle has some unpleasant implications.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Traditional New Month, Reader Intros, Questions and the Like

As has been my tradition, every new month starts with an open item for reader questions, reader intros (say hi, ask questions about me if you want) and generally somewhat put on effort to appear customer friendly. I'm actually not, but hey, you get what you pay for. (In this case free abuse, rants and the like).

Promised subjects in the future (promised meaning I'm thinking about them but that has fuck all to do with whether I actually write about them):

FDI and Emerging Markets - the in the trench view (or The Lounsbury argument that you can earn a return)
Iraq: Off the Cliff or Not.
Continuation of Private Equity and Emerging Markets
Entrepreneurship in MENA
Bush Admin and MENA

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

In personal connexions

The BFI is coming into town tomorrow. I got stuck entertaining him. I fucking loathe this fat reptillian moron, now my weekend is shot entertaining this loathesome fuck.

Ah well, for the good of our team here..... Solidarity, Reg.

Meanwhile have learned the management bid for the NA Fund went down in flames; still a ME option open, but since fuck head went and got himself thrown out of his house just in time for the final push on the bid, I don't see this as a real option. Well, it is a real option (technically speaking) but far out of the money. Another exit angle appears to be going down in flames (what am I, cursed?). Had some talks with a certain big financial entity, operational director. They're in the news, and not in a good way. So, I guess that expansion push and "my role in that" are fucked.

There we are my dear readers. Through no actions of my own, but I appear to carry doom with me. Want a firm to go down in flames? Have me start talking to them. I'm vaguely amused by this, even as a tear my hair out over exit options.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wolfowitz: In Like Flynn

So our man is in. I wish him well, not the right man at the right time, but again recalling what I know of him personally, I think the teeth gnashing is far overdone.

From Washington Post article:
Still, many bank insiders and analysts expect Wolfowitz to shift the bank's direction in important ways, reflecting the complaints that administration officials have expressed about its shortcomings.

The administration has generally prodded the bank to be more hard-nosed toward countries that don't appear to be using its aid effectively. It has pressed for tighter monitoring procedures that are focused on results, to ensure that money lent for, say, immunization programs leads to more children receiving vaccines. At the same time, the administration wants more bank aid for very poor countries provided in the form of grants rather than loans. Administration officials contend that the bank too often ends up lending to impoverished nations just so they can pay back previous loans.

Because of the administration's recent emphasis on spreading democracy, especially in the Middle East, much speculation has arisen that Wolfowitz will use the bank's clout to prod governments to implement democratic reforms. He has sought to quash talk of a dramatic change in policy by stressing that he believes the bank should focus on economic development and alleviating poverty. But development experts who know him well expect him to place particular importance on encouraging the development of solid political institutions and the rule of law.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17519-2005Mar31.html)

Frankly there is nothing wrong per se with these criticisms, and if the Bank moves away from fluffy stuff to more basic economic development, with reasonable oversight, that's good.

I hope Wolfowitz does not try to move the Bank into democracy promotion, that's not its business. Rule of law is, but despite the wooley headed thinking found in the United States and among the human rights / anti globo types, rule of law is not synonymous or coterminus with democracy.

I found, the anti-globos ninny hammered bleating about him amusing, however.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 30, 2005

Iraq, Gov

The news is looking very bad, one has to seriously consider the problem of a collapse or worse, a Chalabi-Allaouie old boys plus Kurds run that will fuck legitimacy. Well, like I said, elections are not magic, and it is the doing afterwards. It better get done soon or the illusion of progress will slip away.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 29, 2005

Hariri and Leb Land: further

I saw this on al-Arabiyah, but BBC helpfully has a synopsis for the lazy.
TV shows Hariri 'murder footage'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4387109.stm
Synopsis: may be a suicide truck bomb after all.

(al-Arabiyah's online story for reference: http://www.alarabiya.net/Article.aspx?v=11654)

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Theocracy in America - edited: comments closed.

Theocracy in America

I have to say that I was fairly appalled at the spectacle this past week or so in re the Schaivo case (and as well what appears given my disconnected reading of US events, a new anti-science “God Botherers” –as my dear old ultra-con and yet ultra secularist father puts it – push against evolution and the like.).

I confess that in many ways I really don’t care very much about American domestic politics, except when it very directly intersects with personal interests. However, I found this spectacle truly irritating, even disturbing. While always a pragmatist, I have always rather respected bedrock yankee liberalism (or libertarianism in purely American parlance) as a guiding value set for a society. Non-interference in personal affaires, meritocratic values, etc. I have always been too pragmatic and anti-ideology to mistake the idealized vision for reality, but in terms of guide posts or soft ideology, old yankee conservatism is by far the most attractive to me. I suppose it is the real source of my politics – informed by my highly utilitarian and pragmatic willingness to bribe the masses to enable markets to operate and throw them a bone for their undemocratic and anti-liberal leanings [and yes, to enable my own elitism and snobbery from time to time]. A certain Dubaiwalla has heard me express in person such sentiments – I forget what precisely I said but it had something to do with me having nothing against transparent bribery (side payments as we like to say in economics); I am not sure if that appalled him more than my perhaps moderately cold blooded comments on the camel nomads – and I meant them. Oil to grease the wheels of commerce. Not too much one hopes, or the wheels spin, but too little and one wears those wheels down in a penny-wise, pound-foolish manner. I wish more of my free market compatriots understood this calculus.

However, returning to the subject of Theocracy in America and the “God Botherers” – I confess one of my favorite memories of my father, otherwise … well a model for my personality, was his reducing some Mormon missionaries to tears, quite inspirational that – I find myself appalled in a real sense by this case. More in the sense in which these so called “Conservatives” in the American government lost their hypocritical attachment to local rights, family and whatnot to use the power of the State to intervene and even try to override the courts. These are the policies of Right Bolsheviks, not classic liberals by either instinct or nature. They are the actions of theocrats (in the wide sense the very same people often use in regards to the Islamists (who are not so far away from them in their thinking)), with this talk of “God’s Law” and the like. To take Central Government action to rip a case from its proper context and place it into another sphere, into the Federal court system in this case, is an abuse of power worthy of any theocracy.

This is dangerous thinking, and I am glad Shays of Connecticut gave it its proper name. In combination with the assault on the teaching of proper science, and generally the theologically driven assault on evolution, I frankly see a real danger in my yankee homeland. I rather despise the God Botherers, who are in general one in the same with the Know Nothings of Foreign Policy. They are no better than the woolly headed morons on the Left bleating on about the “Washington Consensus” and confusing World Bank and IMF, and now they are a good bit more dangerous being far, far closer to the center of power. Confusion of science and theology is a sign of idiocy and decline, and unworthy of any nation pretending to civilization. It strikes me that American “Conservatives” need to relearn liberalism, or they become naught but the stalking horses of dark ages theocratic morons.

Ah well, without satellite TV and the people in from the States I might have remained blissfully unaware of this idiocy; although Andrew Sullivan also touches on this: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_03_27_dish_archive.html#111203137716792801

Comments have grown far too irritating and stupid. I am hopefully freezing them to spare me the distraction.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 28, 2005

Well done Wolfowitz Comment

I rather liked this commentary on Wolfowitz:

World Bank Pragmatism
Wolfowitz's Ideology Fits New Challenges
By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, March 28, 2005; Page A17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5757-2005Mar27.html

...... What of the Wolfowitz ideology? His nomination has been bracketed with that of fire-breathing John Bolton as U.N. ambassador, but this is ridiculous. Bolton argues that international law and multilateralism constrict the United States and that this on principle is bad. Wolfowitz espouses no such principle. His passion is the advance of democracy, and he's willing to use unilateral tools to get there, but unilateralism is not an end in itself. To strengthen democracy in Eastern Europe in the 1990s, Wolfowitz advocated multilateralism in the form of NATO expansion.

Wolfowitz appears pragmatic on economics as well. His main exposure to development comes from his time as ambassador in Indonesia, which combined miraculous poverty reduction with state intervention; he surely does not believe in privatizing everything in sight. Nor is he associated with the common Republican belief that, because Brazil or China can borrow on private capital markets, the World Bank should on principle stop lending to them -- a principle that would deprive the bank of its strong borrowers and threaten its financial foundations.

Well, I am not sure I am convinced that Wolfowitz is a pragmatist in this sense, although what I know of him from my convos, I would endorse that the characterization of support for a broad role for WB in activating and supporting private markets is correct.

I emphasized the underlined because this somewhat highlights Wolfowitz is not a strong candidate on this kind of experience, although I do know he's genuinely interested. That's fine of course, but so am I. Should I be WB President?

The next question is harder, and gets to the points the FT made:
So there are some troubling ideologies that Wolfowitz does not share. That leaves the reasonable question: Is a passionate democratizer right for the World Bank? Fifteen years ago the idea would have seemed outlandish; the research consensus held that democracy was actually bad for development, because it takes a hatchet-faced dictator to cut government spending, close inefficient government businesses and eradicate inflation. Taiwan and South Korea in the 1970s; Suharto's Indonesia in the 1980s; China, Vietnam and Uganda in the 1990s: All seemed to demonstrate an "authoritarian advantage."

And yet, over the past decade, our understanding of what drives development has changed. The Washington consensus reigns no longer, partly because it's been successful -- in nearly all developing countries, hyperinflation, rampant budget deficits and other forms of crass economic incompetence are gone. Now a new consensus -- also headquartered, naturally, in Washington -- holds that the chief challenge in poor countries is political. It's to fight the corruption that deters private investment and to create the rule of law.

Well....... I think this is rather thoroughly overstated as where the hard core problems remain - e.g. Middle East and Africa, some parts of continental South East Asia, the problems look rather similar as to the cited. As for the corruption that deters foreign investment, that is but one driver, and arguably not the most important one (within certain limits).

A China, a India can overcome this drag by the sheer attractiveness of their markets, nor is democracy always a route to transparency: see Nigeria.

For this new challenge, democratic virtues such as accountability and transparency are essential, and appointing a passionate democratizer as World Bank president seems less outlandish after all. Amusingly, the cheerleaders of this political new Washington consensus have been mostly left-wingers -- intellectuals such as Joe Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief economist, and nongovernmental development activists -- and now these same left-wingers are deploring Wolfowitz's appointment. But anyone who regards Wolfowitz as a wacky far-right ideologue should consider Nicolas van de Walle's new book, just published by the sober and nonpartisan Center for Global Development. It says democratic reforms, especially presidential term limits, should be required as a condition of development assistance.

First, I rather dislike Stiglitz, although I reluctantly admit he has some on point criticisms, however the man is blind to a lot of problems and idealizes emerging market actors at the expense of developed market actors. An ideological thinker.

Second, I think tying development assistance to democratic reforms is a loser. Fooling oneself about where the drivers are.

Wolfowitz should be cautious about pushing this agenda. Although the empirical link between good economic governance and poverty reduction is well established, the link between democracy and poverty reduction remains debatable. It's fair to ask whether, given his naive forecasts about the easy success of Iraqi reconstruction, he can be trusted to be cautious. But if he can avoid hubris, and if he can fight through the thicket of negative perceptions, he may prove a worthy leader for the World Bank.

I agree with this overall, empahsis added on the above; hard to know what extent he say this as political spin.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Cole, amusing note

Just to indicate I still like the guy, despite his inane post on the oil sector issue:

"A different kind of violence, social violence, broke out on Sunday. About 50 building guards demonstrated outside the ministry of Science and Technology, protesting that they had not been paid their salaries in full. Bodyguards for the minister, Rashad Mandan Omar, shot into the crowd and killed one.

Generally, I'd say you want to avoid killing the people who guard your building if you are a cabinet minister in Iraq (many ministers have had assassination attempts on their lives). In fact, I'd say if you made sure anyone was paid, it should be the guards outside your building. (Does this mean the Iraqi government is broke, having been badly hurt by oil pipeline sabotage?)"

Emphasis added. Funny and true.

I doubt the lack of payment says anything about the Iraqi government not having liquidity to pay salaries, it probably suggests that payment systems are breaking down and/or graft is siphoning off monies before it reaches the little guys.

I note the above, if it is frequent is a very bad sign. More of a bad sign than the random violence - it suggests an operational government that will be still born in legitimacy terms.

I remain of the view that while things have gotten moderately better in Iraq of late, this does not reflect a fundamental shift but a sidewise slide in "trading" / activity. Until a government forms, and one knows the shape of things, it is impossible to have a solid view on where the new trend is. All the signs are that Iraq is sliding inexorably towards communitarian civil strife - likely along the Lebanese glide path I have evoked previously.

By the way, I have to say it is hard not to conclude Lebanon is approaching the same dynamic. Why so many soi disant Leb experts opined this was impossible escapes me. I guess talking to the Middle Class one never thinks the hard men are willing to go one bridge too far. Unfortunately, they almost always are.

To quote my mentor on this, from an email where I opined we're seing 1975 bis: "I share your skepticism re Lebanon. I've been watching that country's travails since the early 70's. But let's hope."

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 25, 2005

Wolfowitz, Economist

Echoing my own comments, an Economist

The World Bank: Wolf at the door
Mar 17th 2005
From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3767432

The World Bank is the world's biggest development agency—a sprawling bureaucracy that is extremely difficult to run well. Its leader needs to know about development, be able to articulate a workable vision and be a good manager. Mr Wolfowitz scores passably on two counts. He is not an economist or a banker, but has first-hand experience of developing countries (as American ambassador to Indonesia). He has public-sector management experience—not least as number two at the Pentagon, although the bungling in Iraq raises questions about just how good his management skills are. .... it is doubtful that Mr Wolfowitz's zealotry, albeit in that noble cause, is right for the Bank. Its job is alleviating poverty, and the relationship between democracy and the relief of poverty is, let us say, complicated. Think of China. There is also a risk in coming to the World Bank with a vision that is both grand and idiosyncratic—witness Robert McNamara, another Bank president fresh from the Pentagon with a mind to change the world. Haunted by Vietnam, Mr McNamara had big ideas for eliminating poverty and oversaw a huge expansion of the Bank. The result was bad lending and a weakened institution. Jim Wolfensohn, whom Mr Wolfowitz will replace, was likewise drawn to the grandiose. The Bank needs a realist more than a visionary.

I think this is fair and well stated. I've said before I am not at all comfortable with the ideological opposition to Wolfowitz, a man I do like at some level, but there are very practical reasons why another appointee would be better. And above all, more realism, less vision/ideology is needed from this Administration.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Leb Land bis: It Appears Syria is stupider than I thought.

Well, I have to say my doubting the Syrian angle is looking less and less supportable - have to issue an early observation that I am likely to have been wrong. Syria does appear to be far stupider than I thought.

From The Financial Times:
Syrian president ‘threatened to harm Hariri’
By Mark Turner at the United Nations
Published: March 24 2005 23:11 | Last updated: March 24 2005 23:11
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c8c2c984-9cb8-11d9-b1c2-00000e2511c8.html

Bashar Assad, the Syrian president, had threatened Rafik Hariri, the assassinated former Lebanese prime minister, “with physical harm” if he opposed the extension of the Lebanese presidency of Emil Lahoud, a UN inquiry said on Thursday.

The inquiry also said the Syrian government bore “primary responsibility” for the political tension that preceded the February 14 killing, although it did not say who was actually responsible for the attack.

While one would be well served in maintaining a degree of skepticism, I have to say this information causes me to favor the "idiot self inflicted wounds" path to Syria.

Ultramarooons.

Of course, that does not exclude the corrupt mafia angle as a sub plot.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 18, 2005

Cole: Iraq, Privatization, Ignorance

I like Juan Cole. Despite his rather typical leftish politics, he is usually a good observer. However, today's comment on Iraq was ... borderline illiterate in many aspects, alhtough it contains valid points. A quick run down.

Plots
http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/wolfowitzs-plot-to-destroy-opec-and_18.html
Cites to the BBC story on the Iraqi oil sector and US plans
(see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm)

I'm going to comment on Cole, not on BBC.

Selections

"It is a story that also has a bearing on Paul Wolfowitz's bid to become chairman of the World Bank. I have some questions for him. Does he want to reduce the Arabs to poverty? Is he hostile to the very existence of OPEC and of producer cooperatives in primary commodities? Does he favor the use of warfare by states to permit their corporations to take over public energy resources in the Global South? Are his economic policies going to be rooted in a desire to further the interests of the Likud and other rightwing parties in the Global South?"

This is largely a set of dumb and confused questions. Wolfowitz's hostility (or not) to OPEC has fuck all to do "reducing the Arabs" [sic] "to poverty."

OPEC - which is hardly an "Arab" organization, although it's true KSA plays a key role - is not "The Global South" (whatever that means, sounds like silly anti-Globo Leftist idiocy speak to me) and frankly its policy (rational one may add) of maintaining the highest sustainable oil price is more of a tax on the poorer non-oil producing emerging markets as percent of buying power than it is on The West or Developed Markets. Nor does OPEC money effectively get reinvested in those non-producer nations.

Producer cooperatives for primary commodities: actually I think Wolfowitz is critical of such, but that's not an evil.

Warfare for taking over the public energy resources of the "Global South" (every time I type that idiotic phrase I hate it a bit more, namby pamby academic bullshit speak)? What the bloody fuck does that mean. Iraq? Yes, but what the fuck does this have to do with World Bank? In any case, it's a confused smear of a question.

The last question is simply incoherent.

"As Palast tells the story, the Neoconservatives (presumably Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith) and the Department of Defense were dedicated to privatizing the Iraqi petroleum industry as a key plank of their Iraq project. They hoped that Iraq's privately-owned (presumably by American petroleum corporations) petroleum industry would secede from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and would pump large amounts of petroleum, refusing to stay within the bounds of the Iraq OPEC quota. By setting quotas for members, OPEC attempts to keep the price of petroleum from falling too far or from oscillating too wildly."

Well, actually it was more than the NeoCons hoping for this, although it was a dumb ass aspiration from the get go, given Iraqi interests are naturally for price stability at a maximum current price. Of course among the reasons why OPEC "works" now is that the non-OPEC producers and OPEC coordinate. The price collapse of 1998 taught all producers what pain was. OPEC is working because in fact "oil producers" generally presently see gain from cooperation.

Of course privatization is not of necessity connected with exiting OPEC. Nor is willfully violating quotas (which members in good standing have done almost at will, until prices smacked them).

"That there was a cult of privatization at the Pentagon has never been in doubt."

Cult of privatiation?

" Iraq has been a socialist country since at least 1968 (and had elements of socialism in the period of military rule 1958-1968). Most major industries were publicly owned. Moreover, the Iraqi population liked it that way. Opinion polls show that 80% of Iraqis think the purpose of a government is to take care of people."

Yeah, Iraq has been a basket case economy since the 1980s. Socialist enterprise development has contributed to that. Most major industries outside of the oil sector were complete shit before hand. I note Cole's stupid, reflexive leftist "take care of the people" line.

Great, take care of the people historically in that context has meant deadly dictatorships. Yes, the Iraqi people are afraid of privatization - afraid of losing jobs etc. Afraid of instability.

All valid fears. That does not make their fear of change a good basis for economic policy nor privatization bad.

"Paul Bremer, the second US civil administrator of Iraq is a fanatical laissez-fairiste."

Fanatical laissez-fairiste. Interesting turn of phrase.

Naive believer in the ability of markets to regenerate I grant. Fanatical? Nah, had he been fanatical some of the real whack job plans I saw would have been forced through. They were not.

"The privatizers would set up private corporations to sell you creek water and oxygen if they could get away with it."

And?

Selling water delivery services is a good thing. Attracts capital, allows extension of services and improves quality.

"In a BBC interview, Jay Garner alleged that the Department of Defense dissolved the Iraqi army and sent it home, causing all of us no end of trouble, because they were afraid that retaining a large Baath institution like that would form an obstacle to radical privatization."

Possible.

I would agree that probably fed into decision making (among many reasons) and was stupid.

" Bremer wanted to allow foreign companies to buy any firm in Iraq and to be able to expatriate profits immediately."

Cole is over personalizing this. CPA generally. See my comments back in 2003. CPA was filled with what I would frankly call naive ideologues who did not understand the country they were dealing with and the fact private enterprise would need to be nurtured. The rules were to allow for free investment, Iraqi or otherwise. Expatriation of profits comes as part of that, nothing wrong per se. Ex of course the Iraqi economy was too fucked to handle that. Should have been planned as a gradual move, very true.

Dumb ass naive planning.

Cole decides to speak to things he doesn't understand
" (The abolition of currency regulations, advocated by Washington Consensus free marketeers, contributed to the meltdown of the East Asian economies in 1997; Malaysia escaped devastation by thumbing its nose at the privatizers and slapping on currency controls. It turns out that if there are no regulations about currency transfers, speculators take advantage of it; Surprise!)
Let's leave aside Cole's illiterate and ridiculous use of "privatizers" in the context of the Asian currency crisis (that had nothing to do with "privatization") and focus on his illiterate macro-economics.

It turns out if you attempt to maintain currency at rates that are not supportable in the market, and run up debt in forex due to that because the forex denominated debt looks cheaper than it really is on a risk adjusted basis, you will pull in "hot" short term money. The Asians were looking for FDI for private investment and got it, only too much in portfolio flows, driven by their own policies - not "Washington Consensus." One can rightly critique the calibration of IMF response, but it's just completely illiterate to say "Malaysia escaped devastationg by thumbing its nose at the privateers and slapping on currency controls."

Cole needs to learn some economics.

"Obviously, the real prize in privatization would be the petroleum industry. No other state-owned Iraqi industries are worth much, and will be difficult to sell to private owners because they are bloated bureaucracies and inefficient."

Well ain't that a glowing endorsement of the socialist economy; in fact most Iraqi state industries were money losers - great for creation of wealth you know. However, he's wrong, other industries (as you all know from my obsesions) were interesting and lots of money was being mobilized - however sell off really wasn't a good idea because of the shitty state of things and the politics.

"The prospect of the Iraqi petroleum going into foreign hands, however, impelled many Iraqis to begin sabotaging the pipelines, or to support the saboteurs."

I seriously doubt that. I seriously fucking doubt that. Prospects, vague and discussed (althought the CPA rules never overturned the Oil regs that forbid such) do not turn people to blowing up pipelines. Stupid fucking assertion.

Generalized resentment of Americans among the old Baath elite, Islamist hard core opposition, possible extent resistance plans. These make sense. And to the extent CPA in its loud mouth incompetent Bush Administration way carried a little stick and spoke in a big confused voice, yes over the top talk about privatization and resentment of having their economic world changed apparently at CPA will may have fed in.

"According to Palast, it was the Coalition Provisional Authority officials from a Big Oil background, like Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, who told Bremer "No!"

The US petroleum companies haven't been interested in owning Middle Eastern petroleum for decades. Most Middle Eastern oil producers nationalized their industries in the 1970s. The US companies moved into refining and distribution, which is plenty profitable. Trying to own the oil fields had long caused them a lot of trouble. The attempt of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossaddegh to nationalize Iranian oil in 1951-1953 had led to a US/UK boycott of Iranian petroleum and ultimately a CIA-backed coup that ended the last democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. Since that time, Middle Eastern peoples had become much more politically and socially mobilized, and popular demands for ownership of national resources became irresistible."

Let me restate this in real terms:
Getting into owning in country assets in the MENA region looks too risky, non-national hydrocarbon firms have preferred to manage this by moving up the value chain. The MENA state ownership of oil resources, a fact since the 1960s-1970s has been a fine little means for the hydrocarbon states to become utterly divorced from their populations (see Algeria, e.g.) but the rentier elites have done a good job of pimping simplistic, socialistic resource nationalism to people like Cole and the populations on the "exploitation / colonialism" line, while the rentier elite state effectively exploits the same for its own narrow interests.

Applaud this in the name of the people.

"(Max Boot, who thinks Middle Easterners are just Filipino peasant villagers circa 1902--poor, illiterate, unconnected and politically naive--exemplifies the basic Neocon fallacy. The Neocons haven't even caught up to the 1950s or read Karl Deutsch on the social mobilization of the Global South. People can't be occupied so easily once they are urbanized, industrialized, literate, connected by modern communications, and politically aware. This is why Boot and Wolfowitz did not anticipate a long-term guerrilla war in Iraq, or how savvy and effective it would be. They really think they are Lord Curzon dealing with backward WOGs)."

This is just empty stupid abuse, which I have nothing against were Cole otherwise on point here, but since he's an economic illiterate, it's not entertaining.

"So the Neoconservative/ Department of Defense plan to privatize the petroleum industry was swimming against history, and proved impossible to implement because a) the Iraqis wouldn't put up with it and b) even US Big Oil could see that it was a disaster waiting to happen."

Cole is wrong here.

Swimming against history is 30 years out of date. Throughout the region there are moves to move away from the State dominated model and return assets to the private sector (albeit usually with national investor rules to ensure some national ownership component) in order to modernize, attract new investment and try to end the Vampire State effect.

What went wrong was (i) Rational economic actors (we can call this abusively 'Big Oil' if we want, or economically literate observers) could see the risks were too much for a direct privatization move a la CPA's clumsy and gauche policies, (ii) CPA in its beautiful and stupid ignorance plunged ahead on the utterly and often fascinatingly naive idea that all would be self evident - rather than working on building local consensus among stake holders, and implicating Iraqis in the necessary reforms.

The kernel of truth in his critique is that CPA went in without any fucking idea of how to sell their ideas to actual Iraqis, without any respect for a process of transitioning Iraq on Iraqi terms to a private sector driven economy, and without any clue as to the needs of Iraqis to get on their feet for doing so. All that was absolutely criminal (and as anyone reading me in mid to late 2003 knows, was driving me up the wall): these so called "free marketeers" did, in my opinion, immeasurable damage to really getting free enterprise going in Iraq because they were not really business people or economists or related experts in emmerging markets and went in commiting a cardinal sin: they didn't fucking understand the least fucking thing about their motherfucking market. When you do that, you get fucked.

"The other thing wrong with the Wolfowitz/Perle/Feith plan to destroy OPEC via Iraq is that it cannot be done. If they thought it could be done, they are ignorant of the petroleum industry and also of basic economics."

A more ironic critique could not be made.

Well, the remainder of the post is not that bad, sounds partially cribbed from other sources.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Economist art

Something Stirs
I don’t often call articles from The Economist stupid, but this shall be an exception: the issue of 5 March article entitled “Something Stirs” rather irritated me for its easy and superficial characterizations of the current changes we’re seeing in the MENA region.

Let me take the opening paragraph as an instance: Opening by noting that since March 2003 the “Neo Con” camp has been ferociously mocked for its rather stupid pretensions re NBCs and the entirely whack idea Iraqis would be truly welcoming of an American presence in their country. (Rightly so, of course. Khayali bullshit needs to be checked.) The article follows this by contrasting this with “A lot of people in the anti-war camp predicted that the war would cause upheavals across the Middle East, fanning hatred for the West [actually the US] and tipping [US] friendly regimes into the hands of Islamist extremists.”

They then say “It hasn’t worked out that way.”

Excepting the collapse of friendly regimes into Islamist hands, a bizarre statement: objectively the image of the US is far worse 2 years on than it was in 2002 or even 2003 and actual hatred (as opposed to dislike) is also objectively up in the region.

So, fanning hatred of the US: check.

The next question is tipping regimes: well here it’s not at all clear where things are. Anti regime protests in Egypt do not mean Pro Western protests – nor are “liberals” (in the classic sense) dominant in opposition in Egypt. Lebanon, as you all know is an unclear case, but mass street protests there are not genuinely about “democracy” but sectarian power plays; the logic of maximalism and muscle flexing is clearly at play and could tip into violence at the slightest miscalculation. Iraq, a government can’t even form and ugly sounds are coming out of rising Shia and Kurd tensions. Analysis: utterly unclear, certainly nothing clearly positive in terms of US friendly regimes – see also Jordan and the rising confrontation there against a US centric regime (I note I am favorably disposed to Jordan but the reality is that it is a police state and that if popular will was expressed its policies would change drastically).

The article notes “right now much of the change seems to be pushing in a welcome direction, towards a new peace chance in Palestine and the spread of democratic ideas around the Arab world.”

This is quite simply a truly stupid sentence. False contrast and just plain stupid. The changes in the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic of course have nothing to do with the Iraq issue excluding a possible change in the US comportment for US-centric reasons tied to Iraq. Second, “spread of democratic ideas” is simple Neo Con whanking; maturation is potentially a correct way to put it, but “spread” is far too simplistic. Even maturation is more than slightly overdone insofar as so far we don’t have much evidence of democratic maturity (nor can one reasonably

There is a case to be made for the peoples of the Middle East taking the idea that maybe, just maybe the sclerotic old rentier regimes may come down, in the case of Egypt that perhaps the US backing for the Old Man is over, and for that the US deserves credit.

Further to that, the US policy since its own elections in re Iraq has begun to become rather more grounded in reality – let us leave aside the silly rhetoric about spread of democracy, that is premature and too simple – the apparent (so far) maturity in going along with the realities of Iraqi politics (that is the Shia religious domination, the probable domination of fairly non-liberal, fairly non-secular as one normally means the word political actors) is helpful. The game Allaouie is playing does raise suspicions, I have to say, that some people are trying to rig the game. But less important than that, I am returning to my earlier doubtfulness that with, the Kurd-Shia dynamic in the context of Sunni rejectionism and clear provocations from the extreme Salafine, Iraq can avoid a civil war a la Lebanon. It’s hard to see how.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wolfowitz

Wolfowitz further thoughts.

I have been kicking around my thoughts on Wolfowitz’s candidacy for the Presidency of World Bank and finally have a position.

I am against. But not because I think Wolfowitz is a bad guy (like I have said, I have met and talked with him at length a long time ago and have a soft spot for him, ex his utterly whack ideas on military and transformation), nor that his ideas as I knew them on economic development are bad, nor that he himself would be a bad guy in the position. Actually, abstracting away from what I am about to note, I would support him.

No, rather simply and sadly for the following reasons:
(i) The Bush Administration botched the naming and stupidly, clumsily and self-indulgently poisoned the well. They can win it, but winning it is likely a Pyrrhic victory – i.e. a highly negative cost-benefit balance.
(ii) Wolfowitz at present is carrying too much negative political baggage internationally for this context, and if the US wants to be truly influential, someone with the right thinking but without the baggage would be better.
(iii) For WB I would prefer the institution have a strong leader who will be able to motivate change due to personal credibility in both management terms and expertise in the field. I don’t see that with Wolfowitz. I am not impressed by the fuzzy – touchy feely culture centered rubbish that WB has gotten involved in and would prefer to see it moved back to a stronger core economic development focus. (Although as an aside, I recognize the motivation for the vaguely lefty squishy stuff had good roots – i.e. recognizing culture is a variable in economic situs)

I would say then that he could be the right guy, but it’s the wrong time. I also note that he’s not an obvious choice in regards to background in economics and emerging markets, which weakens his case a bit.

I simply don’t see the benefit in expending political capital forcing him into WB where he is likely to face serious internal opposition and where he does not have the “weight” in professional cred to motivate change.

Pity, because in this context I genuinely like the guy. He’s smart, he thinks and I can attest he really does care about the emerging market economic development issues. But his experience on applied management here as well as policy is thin, and with the political baggage….. it is not going to work. Without the political baggage he would be an unusual, perhaps a bit weak but potentially interesting choice.

Frankly, it’s likely to be better for him as well.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 17, 2005

On Wolfowitz and World Bank

I remain somewhat ambivalent about this - in this area I actually don't dislike Wolfowitz (it's his dumbass "transformative action via military force" thinking) - but the criticism about process here gets back to my issue with the Bush Administration and its sheer gratitious clutziness.

Shareholders' dismay at lack of consultation
By Alan Beattie in London and Edward Alden in Washington
Published: March 16 2005 20:49 | Last updated: March 16 2005 20:49

Surprise, and in some quarters dismay, was a common response in the World Bank's other large shareholder countries to Paul Wolfowitz's nomination.

The lack of consultation before the announcement meant that European governments - who collectively hold about 30 per cent of the votes on the bank's executive board to the US's 17 per cent - were slow to react. "There are going to be a lot of very unhappy people, but they may be as upset about the process as about the person," said one European official. "They were supposed to consult us and there was no consultation."

.....

Privately, European officials in Washington and bank staff have expressed concern that the US would put forward such a controversial candidate for the post. One concern is that his appointment would make it more difficult for the World Bank to operate effectively in the Middle East.

Many development campaigners were in no doubt. "We consider the choice of Wolfowitz utterly inappropriate to lead such a key institution," said Jeff Powell, co-ordinator of the Bretton Woods Project, a watchdog non-governmental organisation. "This appointment will only serve to confirm suspicions that the World Bank is a tool of US foreign policy."

.....

"But I fear they will grudgingly accept the nomination," she said. "There is a feeling that we have to get on with America."

One common concern was whether the White House was trying to turn the World Bank into an agency of the "war on terror", assuming a mission of democratisation and adopting political criteria for lending. If so, it may find itself with an uphill task.

.....

Fair points overall, ex Powell's although there is a valid issue on Wolfowitz and confusion in re US FP and WB policy. Does muddy waters.

I would suggest that ultimately I wouldn't be anti-Wolfowitz, but there was a right way to do this (drum up support) and wrong way (stick in the eye).

I am at a loss as to why the Bush Administration is always on the wrong way. It increases long term and even medium term transaction costs.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 16, 2005

I am, officialy, mad. [edited for coherence]

I was just bothering my assistant about getting me some analysis of the Bourse and its listings, asking her if we didn't have something recent on this.

She fowards me.... the document that I researched and wrote on it two months ago.

I am quite clearly going mad; I had no recollection of doing this - although it was quite convenient! Just what I wanted. Now I can complain to myself about my own cockamamie analysis. At least I didn't remember it.

Now, time to write some complete and utter bullshit for New York characterizing the "Middle Market" off of non-existant data. Yes, I may add, I have told them the data doesn't exists, blah blah blah, but they have this magical belief I can create data. So, I will.

Final amusing note, the Big Fat Idiot asked -in relation to an ongoing IT issue we have due to the half-assed jerry rigged network upgrade our home office chimps did- us to go to a client's office and test out the solution.

This piece of brilliance actually made me laugh out loud. Now that would be brilliant - pop over to a client (none of which particularly love us...) and say "Hey, we've fucked up our network, can I randomly hijack your office network to see if our NY office IT chimps solution doesn't work magically or not?"

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wolfowitz

Well, interesting. Proposed for WB. I have a soft spot in my heart for the man, knowing him ever so slightly, but I find it hard to imagine him at WB. Non-obvious choice, although he does have somewhat of a relevant profile.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq, Gov. Kurd-Shia

Maximalism. Not a good sign. The warm glow of the elections and ink stained fingers is going to disapoint.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 15, 2005

On Deals and falling flat

Well, we just had one fall apart right in front of my beady little eyes. Thought all was good, everyone on board. I put together a package, emailed up to London.

Then it all comes apart on some detials and second thoughts.

Up and down.

Pity I liked the guys on the other end, I think though they got itchy about the Arab World connexion in the end. Very pleasant about it, I guess I can't blame them.

_____
In other unrelated matters:

I got an email from some peeps in Jordan about a new US project to make Jordan a "Center for Financial Excellence" and help it become a competitive financial center.....

The power point is hilarious.

These dumb ass fucking USG idiots and the dumbasses they used and the dumbasses in CBoJ want to go head to head with Dubai? Dubai may be a black box, Dubai may be a freaking bubble of US proportions, but Dubai also knows how to grease wheels. One long ass power point of empty ass dumb fuck consultant blather posturing.

I particularly liked the "Safe Haven Reputation" line. Yeah, safe haven compared to its neighbors, who are all either at war, at the verge of civil conflict or spinning out of control.

Center for Financial Excellence. What's better is Arab Bank is one of the key players on this. Arab Bank which the US is trying to slam.

Fucking development blather.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Leb Land and Egypt: Pressure, Demo, Counter Demo, Escalation.

Quickly, as I have not much time, fucking disasters at work:

'Kifaya' in Egypt
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35379-2005Mar14.html

Leaving aside the other paras of little interest, the last paragraph has something right.

" While aggressively campaigning for freedom in Lebanon, the Bush administration continues to gently prod Mr. Mubarak. In a speech last week devoted mostly to Lebanon, President Bush included one sentence saying that credible elections must include "freedom of assembly, multiple candidates, free access by those candidates to the media and the right to form political parties." In addition, the administration has -- at long last -- announced that it will provide funding to six independent Egyptian civil society groups, including one that hopes to monitor the upcoming elections. But gentleness doesn't seem to be working. Mr. Mubarak's foreign minister publicly ridiculed Mr. Bush's speech and rejected his prescriptions. That suggests something about the level of pressure Mr. Bush has so far exerted on a ruler who has received more than $50 billion in U.S. subsidies during his time in office: It's not enough."

I would rewrite as "While aggressively campaigning against Syrian interest in a test of wills with Syria, and engaging in some rather poorly thought out and loose rhetoric regarding Hizbullah, ...."

Egypt is a real boil and there is real leverage - just withholding US bribe money would highlight Mubarek's whoring, better do it now than wait for the boil to burst. It will.

Re Leb Land and current developments, an anon commentator in yesterdays post on the demos said:

Too true. This is shaping up into a sectarian game of chicken.

These demonstrations don't actually have anything to do with Syria. If you listen carefully, everyone more-or-less agrees on the ostensible topic of dispute -- Most everyone is in favor of a Syrian withdrawal and Lebanese sovereignty. At most, there's a disagreement about timing and about whether the Syrians should be asked to leave nicely or imperiously.

But these are everyday questions of diplomacy that are amenable compromise. 500,000 people aren't turning out on the streets over whether the Lebanese government should express "concern" or "serious concern" over the Syrian presence. They're turning out in the streets because they want to stake their claims to power after Syria leaves.

These demonstrations are, at their cores, power plays by sectarian interests. If they can couple this to democracy (which, I'm sad to say, I doubt) things might turn out OK. Unfortunately, the logical extension of the current round of "Can you top this?" is an armed conflict.

Emphasis added.

My anon. commentator hit the nail on the head. I expressed this concern earlier - the escalation is disturbing. While I know some ahem expert blogs out there have poo pooed the idea of renewed sectarian conflict, I have a word - middle class complacency. Hard men with guns, a bomb, escalations, hardening lines. No one thought 1975 would run out of control at the time either.

An issue, I find the US is not calibrating its talk. The US is posturing too heavily, they don't know what game they are into. I prefer lingering Syrian influence in a peaceful Leb Land to extended Syrian influence in another round of sectarian strife. We're dancing toward the later. And the Sunni vs Shia tensions are not being helped by Iraq.

Lesson for you all in re Middle East - don't ever think things are going well - it's a good way to get one's hand slammed in the door. Pessimism and cynicism are so much more on point.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 14, 2005

Leb Land: Demo, Counter Demo, Escalation.

Today's big ass demo by the opposition is an interesting development. Main issue in mind - where does the pressure that is building go? What do Amal and Hizbullah do? This has some ugly potential for building up the Shia versus everyone else playbook. Ugly. I hope the deal makers sit down - I don't like the signs here.

EDITED to Quote comment:
I want to quote this comment:
Too true. This is shaping up into a sectarian game of chicken.

These demonstrations don't actually have anything to do with Syria. If you listen carefully, everyone more-or-less agrees on the ostensible topic of dispute -- Most everyone is in favor of a Syrian withdrawal and Lebanese sovereignty. At most, there's a disagreement about timing and about whether the Syrians should be asked to leave nicely or imperiously.

But these are everyday questions of diplomacy that are amenable compromise. 500,000 people aren't turning out on the streets over whether the Lebanese government should express "concern" or "serious concern" over the Syrian presence. They're turning out in the streets because they want to stake their claims to power after Syria leaves.

These demonstrations are, at their cores, power plays by sectarian interests. If they can couple this to democracy (which, I'm sad to say, I doubt) things might turn out OK. Unfortunately, the logical extension of the current round of "Can you top this?" is an armed conflict.

Emphasis added.

My anon. commentator hit the nail on the head. I expressed this concern earlier - the escalation is disturbing. While I know some ahem expert blogs out there have poo pooed the idea of renewed sectarian conflict, I have a word - middle class complacency. Hard men with guns, a bomb, escalations, hardening lines. No one thought 1975 would run out of control at the time either.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Evolution. The Dangers of Going to Bed with the Parties of God

I am a bit concerned with this type of news:

Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html

Being utterly irreligious and in fact in general vaguely hostile to religiousity, I have never particularly liked the interaction of the religious with education.(*) I positively despise this sort of movement. Throw the religious a bone where necessary but allowing them to intrude into matters not of their competence (although frankly I confess I see no particular competences...), and above in science education where the US badly trials to begin with, is dangerous to the national interest. They should be crushed.

(*: _{This brings to mind something: in an early sign of my amoral nature I have an amusing memory of playing a strategy game called diplomacy as a boy -this being in those primitive days before electronic games- which involved a great deal of deal making and breaking. An occasion which sticks in my mind of an instance where one of the others, quite religious, made me swear to God and Jesus blah blah to undertake actions X,Y and Z. I did X and Y and then fucked him over on Z. He was genuinely outraged, pity the innocent, for I had sworn to God and all that rubbish. I still get some pleasure in thinking of his face when I replied "So?" - although one should learn to be tolerant.)}

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Credit. Credit. Credit

From FT

Growing fears credit boom may implode
By Dan Roberts and David Wighton in New York and Peter Thal Larsen in London
Published: March 13 2005 21:42 | Last updated: March 13 2005 21:42

Unusually loose lending conditions have encouraged record borrowing by speculative-grade companies, with leveraged buy-outs and debt refinancing on both sides of the Atlantic generating more than $100bn of deals in the past eight months.

But last week's fall in the price of US Treasury bonds, coinciding with signs that bankers are struggling to complete riskier corporate bond issues, has added to a sense of nervousness in some quarters.

Although corporate default rates remain low, some fear the legacy of recent private equity buy-outs and hedge fund investments in distressed debt will be a swath of over-leveraged companies ill-equipped to survive in less benign conditions.

PwC, the largest corporate recovery adviser, said it was hiring insolvency specialists in sectors such as retailing, utilities and telecommunications in preparation for the expected fall-out.

Hmmm, wonder if one should become an insolvency specialist.

Last week, the Financial Stability Forum, a group of national and international central banks and regulators, pointed to the levels of liquidity as one of the main risks to the stability of the global financial system.

Following a meeting in Tokyo, the FSF said that, according to some of its members, tight credit spreads and low long-term interest rates suggested some in the market might be underpricing risks. ....

Might be underpricing risks. Frankly, I don't think anyone rational can doubt that the market IS underpricing risks. How much, well that's an emperical question, right? However, I truly do dare anyone to advance a rational argument for current pricing given the risks.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 13, 2005

Iraq, slowly, slowly, slowly we walk towards Leb 70s style bloodletting

A quick note to draw your attention to Juan Cole's comments here:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/on-ending-military-occupations-in.html
"Ash-Sharq al-Awsat reports that the clan members of the victims of the Mosul bombing, most of them Shiites, want to take revenge for the deaths of loved ones. Their clan elders, however, are attempting to calm them down, fearing the outbreak of civil war.

It also reports that the family of Ra'id Mansur al-Banna in Salt, Jordan, held a funeral for him at which they celebrated his "martyrdom." Al-Banna was the suicide bomber who killed dozens of persons at a clinic in largely Shiite al-Hilla last week. The news of this celebration has enraged Iraqi Shiites. The depth of feeling on both sides is a good reminder that if violence should break out between Sunni and Shiite Iraqis, it would almost certainly involve neighboring countries."

I have been emphasizing for a long time it is going to be very, very hard to abort this dynamic - all the more so because it only takes a minority of dedicated hard care nut job Salafi murderers among the Sunni to tip the scales - of blood for blood debt settling.

Elections have helped more than I thought in keeping Shiite leadership convinced that they should not (yet) go to war with the Sunni hard line, but this is a delicate game, an unstable game. There is no stable equilibruim, rather virtually any miscalculation can tip Iraq into open civil war.

I note that I think Cole's comments on elections and troop presence are moderately unfair - Leb Land has been 'stable' for a decade, the direct comparision between the US and the Syrians here is too early.

On the other hand, he does highlight a real PR problem for the US in MENA, as the average Mohammed, Shia or Sunni, is not going to be so understanding. Again, rhetoric, one has to watch and calibrate it not for oneself but to the situ on the ground.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 11, 2005

Similar thinking on Leb Land

Phrased differently but similar analysis to my own:
Lebanon's Next Steps
By David Ignatius
Friday, March 11, 2005; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25613-2005Mar10.html

That's why the Bush administration must be very careful as it steers around the curve of history in the Middle East. President Bush's bully-pulpit speech this week about Arab democracy unfortunately pumped the gas so much it risked flooding the engine. It threatened to make the United States the issue, rather than the Lebanese people.

Or what I call self indulgent, self regarding rhetoric.

Some further points:
The Bush administration rightly wants to keep the focus on Syria -- and the demand that the Syrians withdraw their troops from Lebanon. To accomplish that, the White House needs to cool its rhetoric and keep its allies out front in pressuring Syrian President Bashar Assad to pull out. The lead negotiator with Assad will be U.N. representative Terje Roed-Larsen; that's as it should be. Behind him is a broad coalition that includes France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other nations, in addition to the United States. That powerful alliance should deny the Syrians any port in the Lebanese storm.

Perhaps, but right, the generic face is better than Bush.

This week's events in Beirut and Damascus showed that the passage toward Arab democracy won't be a smooth, straight line of the sort Americans like but a complicated series of stops and starts, curlicues, smudges and ink blots. That is to say it will be written in the political language of the Middle East.

Or humanity.

The biggest challenge involves the Shiite militia, Hezbollah. If anyone had forgotten that this was crucial, they got a noisy reminder Tuesday when the group's leader, Hasan Nasrallah, pulled 500,000 of his followers into the streets of Beirut. Calling it a "pro-Syria" rally was a misnomer; this was a pro-Hezbollah demonstration -- a statement that Nasrallah has the ability to sabotage the democracy movement if he chooses.

A nice lesson for the know nothings out there blithering on about Syria and Hizbullah.

The remainder of the article/op ed is not bad. Ignatius, while sometimes a bit of a sucker for the smooth talkers, is a good observer and I liked hims comments on Elmer Fudd back when he rapped with him.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 10, 2005

Iraq, Gov

Here it is
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/10/iraq.government/

Hmmm, Chalabi.... still time to fuck around. Allaouie?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thank you, Bush Administration.

U.S. Quits Pact Used in Capital Cases
Foes of Death Penalty Cite Access to Envoys

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 10, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21981-2005Mar9.html
" In a two-paragraph letter dated March 7, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The United States proposed the protocol in 1963 and ratified it -- along with the rest of the Vienna Convention -- in 1969.

The protocol requires signatories to let the International Court of Justice (ICJ) make the final decision when their citizens say they have been illegally denied the right to see a home-country diplomat when jailed abroad.

The United States initially backed the measure as a means to protect its citizens abroad. It was also the first country to invoke the protocol before the ICJ, also known as the World Court, successfully suing Iran for the taking of 52 U.S. hostages in Tehran in 1979.

Petulant short sighted morons. Fucking petulant short sighted idiotic drooling know nothing morons.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Zogby Poll on Leb Situ

Very much worth reflection
7 March poll from last week of Feb 2005
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=973

Read and reflect. Divisions are severe.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Cole on Leb Land

http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/hundreds-of-thousands-of-shiites-stage.html

Let me note the following first: I think Cole is a bit too dismissive, a bit. However the point about pushing democracy only for the unpopular regimes (or those that get out of line) has a certian ring of truth. Not wholly true but perhaps a bit.

His observation re the silliness of the march of democracy narrative re Leb Land is also useful (as the idiocy re novelty of peaceful protest, Leb Land has seen peaceful protest / mass rallies in the past ten years).

In particular:
"They were a signal that the Druze, Maronites and a section of the Sunnis had agreed to try to push Syria out. It was the US who had invited Syria into Lebanon in 1976. And it was a sign that Lebanon is still deeply divided, since the Shiite plurality largely supports Syria. Given the pro-Syrian sentiment in some Sunni cities like Tripoli, it may well be that a majority of Lebanese want Syria to remain in some capacity."

I would say "appear to largely support" Syria. Certainly, as I have noted, the situ is rather more complicated than the Know Nothings have made out, to their discredit in understanding the genuine changes. However, again, I think Cole is too dismissive - American pressure and apparent willingness to countance more change in existing order have rendered things perhaps a bit more fluid. Perhaps. It is still too early to tell. It's an error to be a trader in this market, driven by the daily whipsaw. Look to the long term fundamentals. There are signs of change, but ambiguous and depending on execution of the strategy. And Execution Counts. Taking what might in theory be a good strategy and fucking it all to hell through bad execution (Iraq) is every bit as bad as doing nothing, and potentially much worse.

By the way, there is also some amusing stuff in their on Jumblatt.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On the Leb Pro Syrian Protests

Catching up in reading I went skimming about to read what kind of comments the last few days had generated out in electron land.

As usual, the commentary was stupid on both sides of the political spectrum. No surprise there.

A few obs.

(i) It's usually helpful to understand the demographics of a country before conspiracy theorizing regarding numbers - esp. in pretending the pro-Syrian demo numbers don't add up. Not that the breathless number hand waving was likely susceptible to reason (any more than an analysis based off of blog pictures).
(ii) It's probably good to know something about the electoral system and recent elections before calling Hizbullah "afraid" of democracy. Quite the contrary, Hizbullah clearly understands that demographics and sectarian voting habits are in its favor, indeed it would be more powerful without the current un-democratic sectarian balancing provisions.
(iii) Democracy does not mean pro US or pro Western. In the short run at the very least.
(iv) Every little hiccup is not the Bush Administration's fault (or in its favor either).
(v) Some credit should be extended to the Bush Administration for beginning to be ready to take some kinds of chances (e.g. Egypt), the criticism is better on execution.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Sexy Lebanese Chicas and the like

Via my dear Eerie via rakehell:
On Leb Sluts and Revolution (my title not the blog's):
http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2005/03/07/my-corrupt-western-biases/

I've commented on style before. What I found amusing here were the simple minded comments (mullahs getting upset about cheek bones etc); it's vaguely irritating to see what a skewed view most 'Westerners' have of what women and girls are wearing out here (burka.... it seriously appears as if most think that the whacko Afghani burqa is something normal to the Middle East) and the rather silly conclusions (even in the context of light heartedness) derived from Beruiti Middle Class.

I was also amused and irritated by this comment: Most people probably think of the Lebanese as “Arabs” when a better description might be “Mediteranian,” like the Greeks or Italians.

How very brilliant. Well, the brilliant commentator has just hit on .... the pedestrain observation that most Arabs as defined by Arabs are not Gulfies or Saudis or Yemanis, but of Med region descent. Brilliant. Tells you nothing of course, other than the commentator is an idiot.

Otherwise, I note from this link http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050308/481/bei11803081725 that it appears the Syria supporters can muster some Leb Slut action, although the dyed blond aspect is somewhat disappointing.

Nevertheless, the imagery to a limited extent shows something other than the usual, which while Beiruit is a bit of an odd place, rebalances things a bit.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

EDITED: US, Hizbullah, Lebanon: Why Judo is Better than Drunk Belligerant Boxing

Quoting from a New York Times article, to illustrate my analysis:

"U.S. Called Ready to See Hezbollah in Lebanon Role
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, March 9 - After years of campaigning against Hezbollah, the radical Shiite Muslim party in Lebanon, as a terrorist pariah, the Bush administration is grudgingly going along with efforts by France and the United Nations to steer the party into the Lebanese political mainstream, administration officials say.

The administration's shift was described by American, European and United Nations officials as a reluctant recognition that Hezbollah, besides having a militia and sponsoring attacks on Israelis, is an enormous political force in Lebanon that could block Western efforts to get Syria to withdraw its troops.

On Tuesday, Hezbollah showed its clout by sponsoring one of the biggest demonstrations of recent Lebanese history, bringing hundreds of thousands of largely Shiite supporters into central Beirut to support the party's alliance with Syria and, by extension, the presence in Lebanon of 14,000 Syrian troops.

Lebanon's political crisis deepened Wednesday when Parliament renominated the pro-Syrian prime minister nine days after he resigned under pressure from street demonstrations. If opposition leaders refuse to join his transitional government, tension over the rules for elections in May and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country will be high. .....

Now the United States has basically accepted the French view, echoed by others in Europe, that with Hezbollah emerging as such a force in very fractured Lebanon, it is dangerous to antagonize it right now and wiser to encourage the party to run candidates in Lebanese elections.

.....

European officials say the situation with Hezbollah is analogous to that of the Palestinian group Hamas, which has won local elections in Gaza and the West Bank and has come under pressure to moderate its views and negotiate with Israel. The United States and Europe formally label Hamas a terrorist organization.

Especially since the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Lebanon on Feb. 14, France has argued that Hezbollah ought to be encouraged to concentrate on politics. At the same time, President Jacques Chirac of France has supported President Bush's call for a Syrian troop withdrawal.

There is more but my key observation is the following:
The Bush Administration was not wrong to attempt to leverage recent events to tie down Syria. As I said when this began, it, however, is a question of "how." And as I began noting in re the clumsy cowboy rhetoric, there is a lot of potential for blowback in the region if one (a) too aggressively enters the domestic fray, (b) lets one's rhetoric get ahead of reality in terms of (i) what the local "allies" of the moment want/desire/aim for, (ii) what one can actually effect, (iii) confusing one's own goals with those of one's allies.

While Bush should get some limited credit for lending weight on this - not that much per se, I add insofar as virtually any American Administration would have done more or less the same calc. - I return to my initial criticism: clumsy, self regarding rhetoric aimed as much at home as to the Leb situ. The Leb situ is and was delicate. Where the Shia eventually end up is important - the nice protests of fashionable middle class Beirutis in prior weeks did not speak to the poorer, more conservative Shias, and sadly Bush's clumsy mixing of US issues with Hizbullah (noting Jumblatt of the Druze and others immeidately parted company there), the insertion of the Israelis, and the too out in front aggressiveness contributed to pushing Hizbullah into its present stance. Further to that, the US has an unhappy history in Leb land in terms of intervention in the past, making it important to pay attention to one's rhetoric.

Now, I would not equally want to exagerate the impact of US rhetoric - certainly the Leb opposition to Syrian presence got out ahead of itself a bit (or note: don't forget the opinions of the Shia), however I would opine the US helped them get their oats one when a more cautious, yet still moderately aggressive position, a la France, would have served the US far better than the past few weeks posturing - posturing that will have to either result in armed confrontation or the appearance of a climb down.

So again, execution matters. Merely having a theoretical position is not enough.

Now, I noted that Kevin Drum had a question:
"HEZBOLLAH TURNAROUND....Is this hypocritical opportunism or mature flexibility?"
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005810.php

Strikes me as unnecessarily snide and entirely misses the point. Opportunism, mature flexibility - mere hair splitting. The Bush Admin is doing the right thing in working with reality and deserves to be applauded. The proper criticism to make is the dumbo rhetoric leading up to this, which got far out in front of the actually achievable and ends up lending an impression that the US will be making a climb down.

EDITING TO ADD
Adding these links because they are relevant to reflecting on my problems with the American Administration's clumsiness:

ZenPundit on "STRATEGIC INFLUENCE AND CULTURAL COGNITION"
rightly noting the analysis warms my heart:
"

"From these case studies we conclude that influence campaigns are highly sensitive to operational environments. Moreover, campaigns that do not take these sensitivities into account not only fail but are counterproductive"

This does not mean that cognitive and social psychology are useless for American statesmen in crafting a positive message for the Arab-Islamic World. Instead, it means not to confuse principles and devices with also having a coherent and culturally relevant script or dialogue. It also means respecting the limits of the possible in terms of aspects of American foreign policy that is perceived by Muslims as threatening their interests.

The United States is always going to have clashes of interests with other states and societies and as a rule we should try to see that our interests prevail. That being said, nothing is gained from our emphasizing to other people the stick that we are putting in their eye. Much less our extolling of why they should embrace the stick with joy. Pointless irritant and waste of our resources and time.

Our focus in strategic influence should be any existing common ground, our most attractive political memes like " democracy" and " freedom" and potential non-zero sum mutual gains from cooperation plus those instances of our relatively more altruistic gestures like tsunami aid."

Emphasis in original.

I entirely agree with these comments. As I said supra (before reading Zenpundit), principles are not enough, execution matters.

PDF of Rand Study
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG184.sum.pdf

Further edit:

I thought it useful to add this quote from The Economist:

Now for the counter-revolution
Mar 10th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Lebanese who welcome Syrian occupation confront those who abhor it
IT IS not a new question: it is, in fact, the very question that sparked the civil war that tore the country apart. A speaker at one of many giant rallies in Beirut put it simply. Is Lebanon to stand with Syria at the heart of Arabism, or is it to join what he called “the Israeli-American project”?

Well, I am not sure if one should say this "sparked the civil war" - contributed yes, sparked?

The most powerful of these by far, the Shia party-cum-militia Hizbullah, called out a demonstration that dwarfed previous displays of people power. In a rock-concert setting, with the vast throng roused by such stirring songs as “America, Mother of Terror”, Hizbullah’s charismatic leader, Hassan Nasrallah, declared resoundingly that this was not Ukraine. Lebanon would never renounce resistance to Israel.

It was a good speech by the way. His lisping did not come through that much. Still, I feel alone as the only person having identified his Elmer Fudd characteristics.

His supporters, many of them black-shirted or veiled, working-class Shias, presented a stark contrast to the young, jeans-clad and largely Christian anti-Syrian protesters who had enlivened Lebanese television screens for the previous month. Hizbullah’s turnout of 500,000 was a blunt reminder of the changing demographics that have made the once-marginalised Shias the largest of the country’s sects. And not only are they well-organised, they are armed. Hizbullah’s 20,000-strong militia was exempted from the general disarmament agreed by other parties at the conclusion of the civil war in 1990.

Emphasis added.

The key items: working class Shia. Once marginalised. Well organized.

Here is where American commentators, such as that simple minded twit Friedman, are getting things wrong. It's not the Syrian question, it is inter sect power, and the reality that the Druze and Maronites were in the drivers seat, and that has resonance. Tone deaf Americans have not understood.

Yet optimism survives. The pro- and anti-Syrian camps are less polarised than they may appear. Both declare the importance of Lebanese sovereignty. Even Mr Nasrallah accepts the need for Syrian troops to leave. Both camps say they forswear the use of force and are committed both to the principles of democracy and to the Taif Accords, the agreement that ended the war by reapportioning powers among the country’s 18 religious confessions.

In fact, only one issue really divides them. A UN Security Council resolution passed last year calls not only for Syrian withdrawal, but also for disbanding all local militias. To many Lebanese, tired of their country being an occasional punch-bag for Israel, this obviously includes Hizbullah’s “resistance” forces. But to other Lebanese who share Hizbullah’s view of Israel as a mortal threat, the maintenance of an armed deterrent is non-negotiable.
Emphasis added.
I recall very vividly hearing Christian (but not Maronite) support of Hizbullah on this very point.

Hizbullah is popular because its fighters humiliated Israel, forcing an end to its 22-year occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000. Many Lebanese share the general Arab view that Israel and America seek regional hegemony. The crushing of the Palestinian intifada, America’s Iraqi adventure, the pressure it has applied to Iran and Syria and its promotion of democracy are all seen as part of this “project”. Abandoning Lebanon’s “resistance” would thus be seen as part of a wider capitulation.

Here Judo, not clumsy charging in will be useful. Give the hard liners too much material to hang the American imperial project rhetoric on and that rhetoric will stick and will fuck your own interests.

What I want to see is the Bush Administration learn Judo.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 09, 2005

The Dog Barks

Well, we know where the organized Shia are now.

My criticism of the clumsy, self regarding rhetoric coming out of the Bush Admin was thinking of exactlely this kind of blow back. The problem with throwing the ignorant know nothings in the States red meat is that it tends to have blow back in terms of real interests. Not that the pre fooled fan drooling moron fan club will notice.

Regardless, the anty is upped. The Shia's main voice spoke in major numbers. The Maronite dilletantes in their sexy skirts have to up the ante or admit being a foreign backed game.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dubai

I had the pleasure to meet some Dubai people. There are now a few more people to connect me with me. I note further that Dubaiwala gave something of a tour of the construction that is Dubai, and conveyed Z message.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 07, 2005

Elmer Fudd

I really enjoyed Nasrallah's speech on behalf of Hizbullah yesterday. There's something about a guy with an Elmer Fudd accent giving a serious speech that amuses me endlessly. Yes, he has a tinge of evil about his, but he's so adorable when he lisps "Is wa eel" and "Sou wi ya"

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 06, 2005

Dubai-and Democracy (not actually related)

I'm in dubai. Anyone wants to get together, no promises here, email my yahoo account. You can figure it out. Small hurdle, I developed an ear infection during the flight and at present can hardly hear - it's actually quite amusing if a bit frustrating, practice for old age.

Else, I share this quote from the NYT on democratisation in the Middle East:
"Turkey, long a pliant ally under military or military-backed rule, has proved more restive under the government of a democratically elected moderate Islamic party, forcing the United States to revise its Iraq invasion plans by denying access to American troops. A fully democratic and independent Lebanon would presumably reflect the fact that many Lebanese think Hezbollah, viewed as a terrorist organization in Washington but not in Paris, is a force for good, helping the needy and resisting Israel."

A bit of sobering up for the "March of Freedom" blatherers who seem to think that democratisation means pro American.

Nevertheless, interesting movements - I remain healthily sceptical but not discounting the evolution.

Finally, my inability to get things done given the ear infection has given me more time to bounce around Dubai. Too many interesting things. Saris, jeans all that sort of thing. Even the abayat. I like dark colors after all.

Well, in any case, for the Dubai crowd, give me insight on phone and Ipaq sourcing. I have a shopping list.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 04, 2005

The Saudi Move

Now this one is truly intriguing. It adds a whole new dimension of bad for the Syrians, and suggests the Saudis see a Syrian hand in the Hariri kill.

I remain a sceptic, although one can never preclude sheer stupidity in the human condition, on the reality of the Syrian angle, but the underlying facticity of the question long ago became of theoretical value, barring real evidence.

Now, the real question here is where the Syrians back into. The elegant and intelligent solution is for them to artfully begin negotiations and start pulling back. The Wiley Druuze may really cut a deal with Hizbullah, which would be smart of them if they want to avoid nastiness.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Subsidies

Good work from the WTO for that scofflaw of free trade.... the US.

WTO judges declare US cotton subsidies illegal
By Frances Williams in Geneva
Published: March 3 2005 21:37 | Last updated: March 3 2005 21:37

World Trade Organisation appeal judges on Thursday upheld a ruling declaring illegal billions of dollars in subsidies to US cotton farmers.

Trade experts and development campaigners said the decision was likely to intensify pressure on the US and the European Union to cut farm subsidies in the current round of global trade talks, a central demand of developing nations.

What I find amusing here is how often the US postures re Europe on this issue (although EU is egregious, it is largely not pounding the free trade drum in this area - so in place of outright hypocrisy in policy it has mere rank idiocy).

A WTO panel in September backed a complaint by Brazil that US cotton subsidies violated fair trade rules by depressing world prices and breaching WTO subsidy limits.

The verdict marks a moral victory for poor African cotton producing countries, which blame US subsidies for destroying the livelihoods of millions of farmers in west and central Africa.

It could also pave the way for legal challenges to subsidies on other US products, such as soyabeans, rice, oilseeds and grains. Brazilian soyabean producers are already studying a possible complaint. A panel verdict condemning EU sugar subsidies, in a case brought by Brazil, Thailand and Australia, is currently under appeal.

And with luck Brazil et al will take the EU to the wood sheed as well.

This following of course, while politically understandable (ahem Republicans, the new party of protectinoism - steel, agri.... so who is the free trade party in the US? Mere factions within each.) is utterly morally bankrupt:
Washington, expressing disappointment with the judgment, made clear it had no intention of quickly withdrawing the offending subsidies. “We continue to believe that negotiation, not litigation, is the most effective way to address distortions in agriculture,” Richard Mills, spokesman for the US trade representative's office, said.

Translated: we prefer to keep things in stonewalled bilateral negotiations where we can strong arm the little guys rather than having the WTO intervene and cast the harsh light of transparency on our illegal subsidies, for all that we do not hesitate on our part to use the WTO stick.

To comply with Thursday's ruling, Washington will have to slash the more than $3bn a year it pays its 25,000 cotton farmers, and act swiftly to axe its costly export credit programme for cotton and certain other commodities that the WTO has judged an illegal export subsidy. Otherwise Brazil may be authorised to retaliate with sanctions against US goods.

There you go, USD 3 billion in savings off the bat to the US payer.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 03, 2005

I am Remiss: Economist and Arab Sats art from 24 Feb 05

Arab satellite television

The world through their eyes
Feb 24th 2005 | CAIRO, LAAYOUNE, QATAR AND RIYADH
From The Economist print edition
http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3690442

Subscription. Don't like it, go the to bloody library.

Very decent and servicable article.

I would add the following.

First Laayoune (al-'Ayoune in 'proper' Arabic) is not, precisely speaking, an 'Arab' city. It lies in the juncture of Hassaniyah Arabic and Chleuh Berber (among others) - and I can tell you, Hassaniyah Arabic is pretty off in the wilderness in terms of Arabic dialects. I bloody understand near zero when people speak the real deal - too much Berber influence.

Second, I think the degree to which the Arab Sats have made "formal Arabic" (aka "Classical" aka "Modern Standard" aka "Fusha" [pron. Fus ha]) more widespread is rather exagerated. TV language has always been formal Arabic, ex Egypt where dialect rules and has for a while. While the newly interesting offer in the past 10 to 15 years has probably boosted formal Arabic 'currency' at the same time dialect and lower end formal Arabic have also penetrated the broadcast media a lot more. The degree to which higher end dialect usage (more formal tending towards formal Arabic) and lower end formal Arabic usage (less formal, tending toward dialect) are more actually usable than the really stilted hyper formal Arabic that the 'classicists' prefer, that may have been boosted by the Sats, but else that line of argument in the article is silly.

The other line of argument that is a bit silly is the idea that the Arab Sats are creating a new pan Arab feeling. Stupid argument. What one can say is certain items of pan-Arab interest, e.g. the Palestinian situ, have escaped the control of the State to manipulate for purely its own usage and politics, and are in more a popular sphere. What the Know Nothings fail to understand (when they rant on about al-Jazeerah and anti-US attitudes, and sneer about Arab States exploiting the Palestinian situ ) is that there is and always was a genuine popular interest and that these kinds of issues (pan Arab interest in Iraq, pan Arab interest in the Palestinians) made good agitprop because they were not "swimming against the current." Removing them from State control is not going to magically transform discourse into a pro US policy discourse. That is naive idiocy.

Otherwise, the remainder of the article is quite good and it's a decent overall survey.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Khalaf: On Leb Land Shia

From Roula Khalaf, an excellent journo, this report:

Beirut protests leave Hizbollah with a dilemma
By Roula Khalaf in Beirut
Published: March 2 2005 19:27

The following bears careful reading

Lebanon's opposition, flush with success after forcing the collapse of the pro-Syria government, has intensified appeals to Hizbollah, the Shia Islamist movement, to join its ranks.

.....

Shia Muslims are the only large community that has not joined what the Lebanese refer to as the "intifada for independence" - the protests against Syrian dominance over Lebanon that helped topple the government on Monday. Christians, Druze and Sunni Muslims have all taken part.

"We want them [Hizbollah] to join us or be half way between us and the Syrians," Mr Jumblatt told the Financial Times.

Ah wiley Druuze. Wiley, wiley Druuze. Half way between. Not accidental that remark.

The appeals to Hizbollah have left its leadership in a quandary. The party is supported by Syria (as well as Iran) and is reluctant to turn against its backers. But it is also a popular movement in Lebanon; its guerrilla campaign drove Israeli troops out of Lebanon in May 2000, earning Hizbollah respect, including from Lebanese Christians. The party is now Lebanon's best organised political movement and has nine members in parliament.

I draw readers attention once more to my comment a few days ago re an argument between an Orthodox pro Hizbullah and a Maronite anti Hizbullah woman I recall vividly to this day.

While American conservatives have rather simple mindedly (in keeping with the majority of the American Right's sadly simplistic and provincial habits and past) have adopted the "Hizbullah Terrorists, bad, bad, bad." speech, the reality on the ground, even among Lebs in general is rather different. Their dogged, painful campaign against the Israelis won them a lot of baraka in Leb Land, esp. after the Israelis managed to alienate almost everyone, but the Maronite Fascists (i.e. the fascists among the Maronites).

Afraid of losing popular support, but unable to back the opposition, Hizbollah has tried in the past two weeks to remain neutral in the conflict between the opposition and Syria's allies in Lebanon, calling for dialogue between the two sides.

"The party is caught in a dilemma," said Nizar Hamza, a university professor in Beirut and expert on Hizbollah. "They don't want to lose the sympathy of the opposition but they are afraid of the opposition's views regarding future prospects for their party."

Let's put this a little more plainly.

All throughout recent political history, Arab Shiites have been taking it up the ass with little lube. In the past 15 years they've clawed their way into a bit of power, a bit of respect. Now they have to be afraid that the Maronites (let's not confuse Maronite interests with Xian interests - not the same kiddies) and the Sunnis and the Druuze would prefer them back in their "rightful place."

And, you know what? That's a very, very legit fear to have, since the Lebanese pie is not one that is very clearly growing.

The appeals to Hizbollah come as the opposition struggles to sustain the pressure against Syria's presence in Lebanon. Opposition leaders acknowledge that the government's demise was only the first step in a long battle to remove Syria's military and political influence.

To encourage Hizbollah, the opposition has portrayed its struggle against Syria as an extension of Hizbollah's war of liberation against Israel. Christian members of parliament have sent signals to Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah chief, suggesting that Damascus might suddenly drop its support for the party as a concession to the US, leaving it isolated.

Smart move and one Hizbullah has to think about. Recall, this is a region where... those fine phrases of realpolitik are taken to their logical extreme. No such thing as permanent friends.

"The liberation is an integral part of the independence struggle," said Nayla Mouawad, a Christian politician in the opposition. "The unity of Lebanon is Hizbollah's only guarantee."

Mohamed Afif, a Hizbollah spokesman, said the group was aware of the popular pressures. "We see the situation and the people - we are not blind," he said. But he said the party could not back UN resolution 1559, which calls for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon and the disarming of Hizbollah.

"There is a problem that is being ignored. We understand the demands for the withdrawal of the Syrians but some people [in the opposition] also want implementation of 1559, which we reject," said Mr Afif.

So, the question is, does the Lebanese state do a deal with Hizbullah that might at once give Hizbullah some breathing room and let the Syrians save face, while feeling comfortable that they're not going to get flanked?

It's possible.

He said the opposition should focus on implementation of the 1989 Taif agreement, rather than the UN resolution. The Taif accord, which underpinned the resolution of Lebanon's 1975-1991 civil war, called for the redeployment of Syrian troops to the Beka'a valley by 1992, to be followed by a timetable for withdrawal agreed between the Syrian and Lebanese governments. Despite repeated promises from Damascus, the agreement was never implemented.

Sounds like Hizbullah is thinking along those lines. Their militias are nothing to sneeze at, the issue is, do they fight if cornered? But would they. The horror of the Civil War is not that far away, but tipping back into the slide into darkness is not that hard either. A few pot shots here, a few there by the hard men with guns....

The UN Security Council included the dismantling of the guerrilla arm of Hizbollah in resolution 1559 under pressure from the US.

But Washington faces two problems. Hizbollah argues it must remain armed to liberate a parcel of land, called Shebaa farms, that it claims remains occupied by Israel, despite Israel's UN-backed withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000.

Also known in the French spelling, Chebaa. Of note, it's not just Hizbullah that makes the claim to the territory, it's the State.

A point of encouragement:
Mr Jumblatt said the UN demands could be separated, adding that the opposition's main focus remained on implementing the Taif accord. "The Americans are asking for the dismantling of Hizbollah. We want to enter into negotiations with Hizbollah about its future role in Lebanon."

Jumblatt is playing smart, very smart. And he knows how to play the American Know Nothings as well. A real Bastid, but hey, it's a hard game.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

New Month, etc.: the Usual Round Up

As always, every month I start with an open note to my readers with a general (and often abusive, but too busy to get creative at present) note on myself, you and similar matters.

Second, I share this with you (link will change in 24 hours, anyone have an idea how to post directly?)
http://www.leconomiste.com/upload/une/photo_une_6013.jpg
the dialogue by the way is on one hand Uncle Sam saying "Your human rights violations are inexcusable" ... "On the other hand, I have several detainees over here for interrogation, can I send them by?"

Sums up precisely American image in the MENA region. It also is sadly accurate.

Third, on Leb Land and Arab Media, some links:
Primo, Abu Aardvark, who I have come to enjoy, has a bunch on notes on ArabSat TV. His opinions are largely similar to my own, although more academic. Nevertheless his commentary (I believe from a US academic POV, but he clearly knows his lang.) is useful:
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/03/arab_tv_and_reg.html

As a general matter, I remain of the view that what is going on in Leb Land is far less a victory for democracy (Jumblat is no democrat) but the cynical (but smart) exploitation of several Lebanese factions of the situ to "put Syria in its place." Syrians I should say have few to blame but themselves. I agree with Cole's comments that they got too (and stupidly) attached to Emile Lahoude. I remain sceptical of an official connexion on the assasination as well, although one can never exclude pure stupidity in this world. Even with the under the road thesis, I've seen enough Leb Land corruption that I don't see a mafia angle as out of the question. Again, there's an island off shore where one can hire talent trained by a certain state that now does freelance. short motor boat ride away, and they don't hesitate to blow things up, although usually just cars.

That aside, Syria remians a good candidate, although my personal thesis would be faction inside Syrian intel.

Else, for those loinizing the old Hariri regime, I suggest they should do research on cell tenders and broken contracts.

Don't get hoodwinked by the scammers, the region and above all Leb Land specializes in this.

Else, Aardvark, being more organized and respectable than myself also has an index page on Arab Media artys he's done:
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/arab_media/index.html
I highly recommend a review.

Above all a thorough review should cure those of you (if cures are possible) who continue to think of al-Jazeerah as "state" media of your delusion. Also, interesting reflexions on MEMRI. See http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/02/pollock_in_turk_2.html

I have to say that I have entirely converted to the view of MEMRI being a pure Israeli intel op. As Aardvark pays more sustained attention to them and checking what he's checked his read is spot on, I see no other conclusion. It's a spin op, pure and simple. For those of you getting your sense of Arab media from MEMRI: caveat emptor, you're sucking down agitprop.

I also add this just because, well, it fits into my Leb Slut theme:
A courageous stand against half-naked Lebanese girls
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/03/a_courageous_st.html
Actually I only add it because I am amused. Pity so many uptight bastids have axes to grind against LBC (LebSlut Broadcasting Channel).

Luckily Abu Aardvark has an index page on this important subject:
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/nancy_ajram_culture_wars/index.html

Lest you think this is mere fluff, Aardvark has an important observation down the index a ways:
"Don't ge me wrong, I'm not going all Tom Friedman here and breathlessly declaring that a world which loves smutty music videos will surely embrace modernity, democracy, and American foreign policy. It can actually push in the other direction, at least in the short term."

The bang on Friedman is spot on, his fuzzy minded confusion of various vectors is sadly typical.

Else, I am on the road again (Istara, email me your cell again, I seem to be free Sunday) until Wednesday or so, not likely to post. The Fund thing got fucked but maybe it got rescued, who knows? No word from Mr. Kicked Out of His House or Mrs. Why Couldn't You Wait Until After Deadline.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

al-Arabiyah Online

By the way, I note that al-Arabiyah has its own online site:
http://www.alarabiya.net/Financial.aspx

I am a happy man.

I note that their default font is larger than al-Jazeerah's - thank god. Al-Jazeerah's default is headache inducing tiny. Obviously they've studied the issue of multilang browsing and font size defaults.

I also remind you all that aljazeerah.net is the proper address for al-Jazeerah, not the .com address that I see many anglophones linking to. I don't know who is behind the .com address.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 28, 2005

Leb Gov - boom.

Well, where is this going to go?

And most importantly, what are the Shia thinking?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Behind but some Media and Arabic things

I share this thanks to Istara, via a different link from Abu Aardvark:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/02/27/us_planning_arab_language_tv_broadcasts_to_europe/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News

Dumb. Very dumb.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 24, 2005

Dollar, FT Obs

Worth noting for the record, such as it is:

Dollar scare reveals fragile support
Published: February 24 2005 02:00 | Last updated: February 24 2005 02:00
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7468d91e-860b-11d9-b506-00000e2511c8.html

Crisis over? Not really. For sure, the market overreacted to reports that the Bank of Korea wanted to reduce the share of dollars in its portfolio. What the Koreans actually said was that they want to diversify out of low-yielding US Treasuries into higher yielding securities, which could include riskier US assets as well as non-US government bonds. And they intend to do so by diversifying the flow of reserves, not the $200bn (£105bn) stock. But while Tuesday's sell-off was founded on error, it nonetheless exposed the underlying weakness of the US currency. If the mighty dollar can be rocked by a single paragraph in a report to the Korean parliament something is amiss.

That something is the dependence of the dollar on a handful of Asian central banks, which between them control $2,400bn reserves. These reserves are already large relative to the size of the Asian economies, and getting bigger by the day. As they grow so does the incentive to guard against capital loss from further dollar depreciation.

More in the editorial. Useful for reminding us of the instability.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Egypt

The Washington Post, making up for a moronic editorial on Lebanon gets back in its game on this issue:

Editorial
Egypt's Brutal Answer
Thursday, February 24, 2005; Page A20
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48688-2005Feb23.html

ON MONDAY President Bush again called on Egypt to "lead the way" toward democratic change in the Middle East. Apparently Hosni Mubarak, the country's leader for the past 24 years, wasn't listening. Later that same day, Mr. Mubarak's agents renewed their "interrogation" of Ayman Nour, the imprisoned head of the liberal Tomorrow Party. Six hours later -- at 1 a.m. -- Mr. Nour, a diabetic with a history of heart trouble, was "sweating, vomiting and holding his left arm," his wife told the Reuters news agency. Authorities refused his doctor's request that he be hospitalized; instead, he was taken Tuesday to a prison clinic. The Egyptian Human Rights Organization has issued a statement warning that Mr. Nour's life is in danger. Mr. Mubarak's relationship with the United States, and the U.S. aid that props up his regime, should be in danger too.

Emphasis added
One can only hope so.

I am not a fan, as anyone who reads me knows, of long ball transformation crap.

I prefer evolutionary work. However, Egypt is a genuine abcess, and worst of all, unlike Syria, one where everyone can point its finger at the United States (and to a lesser extent, 'The West') for helping create. Mubarek is a whore, but as I noted, we ain't no kinda pimp.
..... Last fall Mr. Nour managed to legally register the Tomorrow Party; authorities may have calculated he would split the opposition without attracting a significant following. Instead, Mr. Nour almost immediately began campaigning against Mr. Mubarak's plans to reelect himself as president in an uncontested "referendum" later this year. A movement he helped to organize, popularly known by its slogan of "kifaya," or "enough," has been holding unprecedented public demonstrations. The first one in December attracted about 50 people; the fourth, on Monday at Cairo University, gathered more than 500.

Those of you who have never been to Egypt may not understand what those numbers mean. Trivial on one level, Egypt is a real police state where large gatherings get you into serious trouble. The Blue Tin Cans come around and then you get to show everyone the Circus of the Damned schtick - get bundled up all nice in the Blue Tin Cans, but you can stick your pitiful little hands out the window, and then the trucks trundle around - an obvious statement.

The charge against Mr. Nour, that he is responsible for the forgery of some of the petitions submitted to register his party, is dismissed as groundless by independent Egyptian lawyers. In truth, he is in jail because, like Rafiq Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister who was assassinated last week, he offered a fresh democratic alternative in a Middle East stirred by the votes of Iraqis and Palestinians. Mr. Nour, like most of the rest of the Egyptian opposition, is not proposing a revolution. Their demand is that Mr. Mubarak lift repressive "emergency" laws and agree to constitutional reforms that would make future elections democratic. Many Egyptian activists, like Mr. Nour, would probably agree to an extension of the president's term in exchange for his commitment to the constitutional change. The alternative, they point out, is not the "stability" Mr. Mubarak claims to offer, but merely more of the stagnation that has made Egypt a prime breeding ground for Islamic extremists, including many of the leaders of al Qaeda.

Well, leaving aside the absurd Rafiq Hariri reference (fresh?!? All one needs to do is get assasinated to get some post mortem lionization I guess).

I find the Iraqi connexion suspect, it's not a big lesson yet. It may be soon, but not yet.

The Bush administration has been relatively assertive in protesting Mr. Nour's imprisonment, but Mr. Mubarak has been provocative in his defiance. Last week Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hinted she might not attend an upcoming meeting in Egypt of the Arab League and the Group of Eight industrial nations if Mr. Nour's case was not resolved; Mr. Mubarak responded by canceling the meeting. His answer to Mr. Bush's appeal for steps toward reform has been to order a new wave of anti-American incitement in the state-run press and to have his goons rough up a man who proposes exactly the moderate, step-by-step change that Mr. Bush advocates -- and that Egypt desperately needs. Mr. Mubarak is no longer testing Mr. Bush; he is spitting in his face. It's a daring, maybe desperate act for a 76-year-old despot who would not survive without billions in U.S. subsidies. Egypt's future -- and Ayman Nour's life -- may depend on Mr. Bush's response.

Rather than Syria, Egypt. If Bush is serious, this is the place. If Syria goes to hell... well the West never was Syria's friend and the blame is not really there. Egypt....showing one is willing to put the corrupt shrimp eating fat bastard in his place would be a very good thing.

Even if it risked a serious confrontation. Mubarek is a false friend.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Really Bad Idea.

Pentagon Seeking Leeway Overseas
Operations Could Bypass Envoys
By Ann Scott Tyson and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 24, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48522-2005Feb23?language=printer

Let me say one thing: Very, stunningly bad idea. Giving Pentagon, which in my opinion shows what I would politely call limited understanding of overseas environments, freedom from CIA and DCM oversight is a very bad idea. An accident waiting to happen.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Beware of Druuze Bearing Gifts

A thought if I may.
From here:
Druze Warlord Turns NeoCon
http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2005/02/druze-warlord-turns-neocon-walid.html

Let me expand. I saw David Ignatius' column in The Washington Post and though I like Ignatius, I was underwhelmed. Arab Zaims speaking nice English. Like Allaouie.

I continue to be amused I may add by the naive loinization of Hariri. I guess it's convenient, but really kids... It's this sort of stuff that gets one fucked over.

Expanding on the thought, I see a whole bunch of American Conservos are getting all happy (a la Friedman) about a "Baghdad Spring. I suppose the easy Cold War analogies are attractive. Easy. Understandable. False.

Lebanon is not caught in an ideological conflict (excluding the Maronite Fascists with their silly "we're not Arabs, we're Phoenicians" issues), we're looking at sectarian conflict. This is as much Leb-Leb as not, and Syria is not the most dangerous point here (I add you should not be suckered either by statement they are pulling out. It's a two step, I'll bet my salary on it. Buying time, typical Shami Shyster game), the danger is a Shia-Other Leb conflict.

The Economist has a useful article to pull you all back to the reality of Leb politics (as opposed to the silly ideological readings)
Lebanon
Death of a statesman
Feb 17th 2005 | BEIRUT
From The Economist print edition
http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3672661

Okay, let's pass over the statesman appelation for the moment.

What I wished to highlight are the following:

He made enemies along the way. Many accused him of allowing Syria, whose troops and spies underpinned the peace, to tighten its hold over Lebanon. But Mr Hariri's wealth and powerful friends, such as France's Jacques Chirac, allowed him a certain independence from Syria.

How winds change.

Popular anger against Syria and its stooges has reinvigorated Lebanon's opposition. An emerging alliance of former foes from across the sectarian spectrum has taken the tragedy as an opportunity to push its agenda. Some, such as the Druze chieftain, Walid Jumblatt, now openly demand that Syria end its 27-year presence. Others have called for the resignation of Lebanon's own government. The normally quiescent Maronite church, Lebanon's largest, explicitly charged what it called Lebanon's “dictatorial regime” with responsibility for Mr Hariri's murder.

Well, the word quiescent and "Maronite Church" do not normally go together in my opinion.

Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Shia party-cum-militia Hizbullah (a key Syrian ally), respectfully describes the slain prime minister as having been the only solid bridge between the opposition and Syria.

and most importantly:
What unites Syria's allies is not simply that they have profited from Syria's presence. They also share historical resentment at the traditional sway held by the very groups coalescing against them, which now include Mr Hariri's Sunnis in addition to Druze and Maronites. Perhaps more importantly, they also fear that Lebanon's opposition represents a spearhead for American and Israeli influence. This, of course, is a view shared by Syria's sole regional ally, Iran, which offered Syria its unflinching support this week.

Read here: the always excluded, ever down trodden Shia see themselves benefiting from the Alaouite led Syrian presence, while if they leave, the Druuze and the Maronis and the Sunnis get back to their old bad habits.

As I noted elsewhere, Hizbullah is Lebanese and has a lot of Baraka left over from it's bloodying the Israelis nose. You ain't seen nothing until you've seen an Orthodox Xian Leb woman argue violently with a Maronite about how "good" Hizbullah is.

Where this goes is anyone's guess, but misreading the events in a Cold War framework is a deep error.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Credit Cards and Keyboards

A bemused note on Credit Cards and Key Boards.

First, on Key Boards, I share with you the stunning information that if you spill turkish coffee on your fancy schmancy wireless super keyboard, afterwards it ceases to work quite so well.

Second, on Credit Cards. There is a connexion. As I am soon off to Dubai and as Dubai is Gadget Land, I can replace several items (including cell phone, I share with you the observation that dropping your fancy schmancy cell phone into the sink has a decidedly negative effect on its functionality). However, one does need of course some liquidity, and of course Credit Card does indeed do that. However, my Western CC freaks out when I go to strange places unannounced. So, I have to ring them to let them know I am going to place X, Y or Z. They never fail to inform me the Bank does not really like have clients like me, i.e. expatriated ones.

However, at the same time, although I have never requested a credit line increase, they up it without fail. It really is at an absurd level now. I could, in a fit of madness, but a car on my Visa card. Of course, it would be a fit of madness but I really have to wonder about their control systems. Primarily as I am always being flagged for the spending I do undertake, never more than a few K here and there, but often in strange places (relative to the clientele they aim for) and sustained as such. I am a problem client. Yet, I am a good client. Their risk managers really should have capped off these increases some time ago since it would only take one little fit of madness and then settling down in a suspect jurisdiction to engage in a nice fat operation.

Of course, the relevance here is simply reflecting on remaining issues for Expats. It's easier than it once was, but personal finance items are getting both harder and easier from various points of view (e.g. the irritation of US Patroit Act nonsense and the stupid costs it imposes).

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 23, 2005

Asian CBs diversifying

Financial Times yesterday:

Markets fall as Asian banks move away from dollar
By Song Jung-a in Seoul and Chris Giles and Steve Johnson in London
Published: February 22 2005 20:15 | Last updated: February 22 2005 20:15

Financial markets reversed on Tuesday amid concerns that Asian central banks were diversifying out of US dollar assetsand that demand for oil would remain persistently strong.

The dollar fell sharply in foreign exchange markets, crude oil prices jumped back above $50 a barrel and stock prices declined worldwide, bringing an unwelcome shock to investors.

The dollar suffered its biggest fall since October as South Korea said it would diversify the currencies in which it holds its $200bn of foreign exchange reserves, up to 90 per cent of which may be in dollar-denominated assets.

The move reignited fears that Asian central banks may be losing their appetite for the dollar at a time when the US needs to attract $2bn of foreign capital a day to cover its current account deficit.

The dollar lost much of the ground it had gained in 2005, falling 1.3 per cent against both the euro and yen to $1.323 and Y104.10 respectively, as well as sliding 1.8 per cent to a seven-year low of Won1,005 against the South Korean currency.

........

Gold shares rose, as April gold futures surged by $7.40 to close at $435.80 an ounce in New York.

The dollar movements were triggered by a parliamentary report from the Bank of Korea that said it would increase investments in high-yielding non-government debt, such as papers issued by financial institutions and asset-backed securities, and diversify its holdings into a variety of currencies.

"We have already been reducing the portion of dollar-denominated assets while increasing that of non-dollar assets. And we will continue to do so gradually," said a BoK official. "It's a global trend that central banks diversify into non-government papers as their reserves increase." The move follows similar announcements from Thailand, Taiwan and Indonesia. It reflects Asian governments' increasing concern that a falling dollar could reduce their reserves unless they diversify their currency holdings.

........

Emphasis added.

Well, looks like we're off the new year bounce. I is very happy I moved a good portion of me dollars at the right time. Still to USD exposed, but the whiplash is not so bad.

However, the follow on:

Dollar stabilises as Korea clarifies plans
By Steve Johnson in London
Published: February 23 2005 11:49 | Last updated: February 23 2005 11:49

The US dollar clawed back a fraction of Tuesday’s sharp losses in European trade on Wednesday as South Korea clarified its plans to diversify its foreign exchange reserves and Japan said it had no plans to sell dollars.

The Bank of Korea had precipitated Tuesday’s dollar sell-off when it said it planned to diversify its $200bn of reserves, between 70 and 90 per cent of which are estimated to be in dollar-denominated assets.

However the BoK said in a statement on Wednesday that it was looking to invest more in non-government bonds and that it would not sell “current” dollar holdings for other currencies.

This, of course still left room for Seoul to re-direct new reserves away from the dollar. “This would seem to us to indicate that the BoK was specifically talking about diversifying any additional reserves that it might accrue through the coming fiscal year rather than the reserves it has already built up,” said Simon Derrick, head of currency research at Bank of New York.

Japan, which has the world’s largest forex reserves, also clarified its intentions. Masatsugu Asakawa, director of the foreign exchange market division at the ministry of finance, told Reuters that “we have no plans to change the composition of currency holdings in the foreign reserves and we are not thinking about expanding our euro holdings”. ..... .......

Also, via my only "friend" (ha.): A resume of Beeb coverage http://www.livejournal.com/community/usdollar/15891.htm

* South Korea, which has about $200bn in foreign reserves, said it plans instead to boost holdings of currencies such as the Australian and Canadian dollar.
* Compiled by Central Banking Publications and sponsored by the UK's Royal Bank of Scotland, the survey found 39 nations out of 65 questioned were increasing their euro holdings, with 29 cutting back on the US dollar.
* Concerns over the dollar's outlook, and rising oil prices pushed down US shares on Tuesday. The Dow Jones industrial average closed down 1.6%, while the Nasdaq lost 1.3%.
* Analysts, however, pointed to the dollar's inability recently to extend that rally despite positive economic and corporate data, and highlighted the fact that many of the US's economic problems had not disappeared.

The comment at starti s re the seasonality of the move. However, depending on the simple average of the past five years Euro-Dollar percent changes seems off, have to reflect for second when I have time.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Perfect

I have only this to highlight today:
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050223.html

"The key to getting bonuses is acting surprised later."

Perfect.

Otherwise, I have to get back to drawing highly suspicious conclusions to sell this damned proposal. Dirty, nope, I leased out my conscience. Sort of a buy back arrangement with a big residual value ballon.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 22, 2005

al-Jazeerah

Still swamped, next few days are rough, turning down dinner invites to move this out. Sharing with you this, more for the knee jerkers I have not frightened away:
Al Jazeera on the Zawahiri video
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/02/al_jazeera_on_t.html

I did not catch this I may add. I'm getting an LCD screen suntan. Really would be cool to get a Sat Connexion in the office, but too much of a pain.

Otherwise, had the convo with the Dev Fund folks. Not so interesting, want a reloco to some place "civilized" and no promise of reloco back to where the action is at. Sounds like they're going for the throwing darts from afar model that has worked so brilliantly so far for dev funds. (that's sarcasm by the way)

Not really my cup of tea. Well, maybe we'll have another convo.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 21, 2005

Heading out [edited to add reference] (Arab Street)

Trying to write up something coherent on potential sectoral strategies without any data. Fucking brilliant, I say. Convincing? I hope so. Get data you say, I laugh. This is MENA. Statistics department treats all current data as a state secret. You can only imagine what hell I have to go through to get a bloody Central Bank administrative reg laying out the guidelines for interest rate swaps. Theoretically public, but....

Otherwise, a few amusing round ups:

Although I know it will drive certain of my knee jerk American Pseudo Con readers crazy, I provide you with this entertaining link to Angry Arab on the Arab Sats:
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2005/02/angry-arab-guide-to-middle-east-media_19.html
I found it amusing. The core observations are useful, although the abuse he heaps on al-Arabiyah is, in my opinion way off base with the exception of his rightfully noting signs of pressure not to hit KSA, go soft. A lesson for the knee jerkers thinking "privatization" means better. Market context, know it, love it, understand or get fucked with no lube at all. As you can tell, our man has some issues with the Lebanese Xian Right. I have not bother to look into his background, but I am guessing Palestinian or Lebanese Xian, and of course quite a Lefty.

Regardless, for those of you with firing neurons, you can tease out interesting core observations from his entertaining rant. I note he gets LBC entirely right, but appears to think LebSlut Broadcasting Corp is a bad thing. Well, I do suppose some effort to be a little less vapid might make the eye candy more watchable.

I also note that his carping about quality of Arabic is pretty typical of the Arab left. I know a top economist back there (The East) who tells me he ceased to write in Arabic on economic issues for this reason. Purists. On the other hand, he has a point regarding the Lebs. But then the Egyptians speak piss poor formal Arabic and that doesn't seem to irritate him. Still, one has to be a real stick up the ass to bitch about al-Arabiyah Arabic. Else, I note his "guide" is really Sham plus Gulf. Suggests to me Palestinian. I also note I think he more or less nails al-Hurrah. The station is so lunatically poorly positioned vis-a-vis the audience that it really does feel like a con job. I should share that USG types in the feel have told me their read on it is similar.

Regardless, for the adults out there, interesting if flawed, but amusing recap.

I also share this for its pure amusement value:
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2005/02/this-arabic-website-translated-my-post.html
This Arabic website translated my post on Hariri (Myth and Reality) from below. But they translated "brothels" as "fancy beauty parlors." I was amused.

I am as well. Fancy beauty parlors. That's really priceless.

Else, this arty via our Angry Axe Grinder Arab is useful:
Why 'Mr Lebanon' had many enemies
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1418516,00.html

The key issue at the moment is no one really knows what the bomb was. I frankly am not buying quick off the cuff estimates on its sophistication or not (and given there is a little island a motor boat ride away with plenty of freelance bombers for hire, not particularly convincing as to being conclusive as to foreign intel or not).

Nevertheless, the Syrians have announced a troop pullback, which is probably a facade to let off steam, a little two step.

Let me (and I am confess this is prompted by Abu Aardvark) link to an interesting poll out of The Center for Strategic Studies, Univ of Jordan.
http://www.css-jordan.org/new/index.html

The relevant docy is Revisiting The Arab Street

I note the following: (i) I have not read this closely, actually got in ... never mind; (ii) I highly recommend the source. I know the authors personally, Fares Braizat, who is the mover behind this is a great guy and Mustafa Hamarneh is also very interesting. Full disclosure. In re Fares and Mustafa's bro, I have done / do business with them. Nothing regarding this topic though.

Regardless, although I may appear to be pimping amigos, I hold these guys in high regard. Now, of course, I have to find the time to actually read it.

Added again to give you a teaser:
Overview of Findings
The study draws seven conclusions:
1) Arabs hold coherent notions of what constitute the values of Western and Arab
societies. They associate the West with individual liberty and wealth, while they
view themselves as emphasizing religion and family.
2) Arab perceptions of Western societal and cultural values do not determine their
attitudes toward Western foreign policies.
3) Religion is not the basis of tension between Arabs and the West.
4) The Arab world does not reject the professed goals of the West�s foreign policies
toward the Arab World, but rather objects to the discrepancy between professed
ideals and perceived reality.
5) Arabs disagree fundamentally with US positions on issues such as the definition of
terrorism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and war in Iraq.
6) Despite disagreements and disillusionments, many Arabs desire stronger relations
between their countries and the West.
7) Arab dissatisfaction with US policies is unlikely to diminish in the absence of
significant US foreign policy changes.

I'll have to dig into this when I get a chance, regardless, let me reiterate, Braisat and Hamarneh are top notch in my opinion.

Added:
Final addition, I wanted to link to this amusing overview of the whacky Bawaba story:
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/02/haife_wahbi_rei.html

Nota bene, when I refer to LebSlut, this is what I am refering to. My office features these kinds of features.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 18, 2005

War Helps Recruit Terrorists [Edited]

I share this from yesterday, on

washingtonpost.com
War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told
Intelligence Officials Talk Of Growing Insurgency
By Dana Priest and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 17, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28876-2005Feb16?language=printer

My amigos of course arrived at this conclusion some time back, but processing I guess. Certainly the "Pimp" had the opinion when he came in from Baghdad.

That aside, I have to run out of town shortly, babysitting and wining and dining.

I am pleased to note my discussions with the Fund are proceeding.

EDIT
Delayed, but interesting weekend coming up, wining and dining with Central Bankers. Let's see if anything interesting happens. Big Swinging....

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 16, 2005

A Fine Understatement

From this article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20050216/ts_nm/iran_blast_dc
"This explosion basically sent chills down the spines of futures traders," said Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at Alaron Trading Corp in Chicago.

Not just the futures traders of course.

And I say, Leb securities. Don't be long.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Hariri and Idiotic Editorials

From The Washington Post
Murder in Beirut
Wednesday, February 16, 2005; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27661-2005Feb15.html

The despicable murder of Mr. Hariri benefits no one outside the rogue regime in Damascus -- and the world should respond accordingly.

Benefits no one but Damascus? What are they blithering about? There are all kinds of people this can benefit, all kinds. Of course if one has blinders on and doesn't know the region....

The worst part is this piece of idiocy:
If the assassination of Mr. Hariri -- the most plausible leader of a truly independent Lebanon -- looks like the panicked act of a cornered tyrant, the shoe snugly fits Mr. Assad.

Panicked Syria?

As for Hariri, most plausible? I have nothing against the guy, but hey WP - might want to reflect on Harriri's financial murkiness.

No, I am sorry, this is the worst part:
The Bush administration has rightly responded assertively to this act of terrorism. Yesterday the State Department announced the withdrawal of the U.S. ambassador from Syria; at the United Nations, the United States and France jointly sponsored a Security Council statement asking Secretary General Kofi Annan to investigate the bombing. Such a probe, like those of many previous Lebanese political killings, may lead nowhere, so the Bush administration should meanwhile work with France to raise the pressure on Syria to comply with Resolution 1559.

No, the French responded assertively in a well-balanced measure that did not put themselves too far out front of the facts. Of course, for good reason, while Syria or rather a Syrian faction remains a plausible candidate, the French know that Leb politics and MENA politics (and the mafia dirt connexions of Hariri) make it unwise to get too far out in front.

America - the bumbling fool. WP, the bumbling enabler.

Another comment: I am afraid I just do not support the conclusion "sophisticated bomb" = gov intel agency. People are leaping to conclusions. I think we all know what happened last time such conclusion leaping occured. Like the "rods." No, a short motor boat ride away from Beirut gets one to a place where people skilled in bombing can be hired.

Further thought:
Now, as to who did the Hariri bombing, nobody knows. My general POV is that it is very unhelpful for the US and others of official character to jump to conclusions. The French response, stern, measured but diplomatic (insisting on international inquiry, etc.) was the proper one. The US cowboy reaction, clumsy, bumbling and maladroit, was not.

Syrian intel (I very much doubt an approved op) might be behind this. But then Hariri had a lot of enemies - some of which would well profit from the Syrians getting blamed for this. It ain't a clean world, and Hariri was not a clean boy. There are lots of people out there with reason to want to blow him to fuck and back.

However, thinking this was a US OP is equally ridiculous. Nothing in it suggests US, and frankly I think the US lacks the assets to pull something like that off without the whole world knowing about it. Some comments alluded to DoD. They give DoD far too much credit to think. If there is a US angle, it is clumsily glomming on to a perceived opportunity, not making the opportunity.

So, here are the lessons for the knee jerkers (Left and Right):
(a) Not all bombs in the Middle East are genuinely political.
(b) Insofar as corruption and business involve government, (and boy do they here), Politics and Mafia can go hand in hand.
(c) This is the World Center of Scheming. The obvious is not necessarily the correct choice. See Sadaam and the NBC weapons dance.
(d) It's best to take a measured approach, facts may come out that make you look like a fucking moron if you charge ahead (See Iraq, NBC weapons, US claims; similarly, US, Lebanon, Syria, undiplomatic statements, knee jerking over-reaction on too swift a time table).

Lesson in sum: Patience and skill are needed now, the region is already a tinderbox now, I don't need this idiotic American administration making my life more dangerous, let alone harder to do business, the clumsy morons.

Added Thought:
A problem here is this has the potential to seriously escalate and could tip Lebanon back into civil war, for example. A destabilized Lebanon falling slowly back into civil war is a BAD THING, rather like squeezing lighter fluid into a open flame. Maybe it doesn't blow back, but the potential is there. The issue here is the idjits who run US MENA policy are not looking at the spectrum of risk, they're looking at their fuck up in Iraq and trying to find scapegoats (Syria, Bad Syria). Especially nice weak incompetent scapegoats (Syria, very good choice; Syrian admin can't tie its shoe laces).

Or to go back to my business analogy, the bumblers have seen a new product they want to launch, and they're just 100 percent sure it will fly, although none of the marketing data is in.

Finally a link to Cole's discussion:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/02/hariri-murder-provokes-political-split.html

A few comments on some statements:
In a sense, it does not any longer matter who precisely was behind the blast. The political opposition in Lebanon has made up its mind whom to blame. It is not that they are necessarily wrong. On any list of suspects in the killing of Hariri, the Syrians would have to rank high. They had means, motive and opportunity-- which does not, however, establish that they murdered Hariri.

Absolutely agree.

The other angle, of al-Qaeda-like groups hitting out at Saudi-related targets (Hariri had Saudi citizenship), cannot in my view be dismissed. (If, as is now being reported, the blast was in part the work of a suicide bomber, that would rule out a mafia-type business dispute). Given the 250,000 tons of missing munitions in Iraq, there are lots of very high-powered explosives on the market in the Middle East.

Here, not so agreed. I don't view the mafia-type business dispute versus politics versus religion as either/or/or. Above all given some of the folks one has to deal with in the construction industry. A suicide bomber (a real one rather than a dupe, for example) does rule out a pure mafia hit, but let's get confirmation - although the dupe scenario is of course post facto hard to confirm.

Else, I draw attention to Cole touching on the rather complicated political history of the Syrian presence and his analysis of actors.

I add finally:
The Neoconservatives in the Bush administration, like David Wurmser, have been trying to get up a US war against Syria for some time, and the death of Hariri may offer them an opening.

It is precisely that which I am worried about. Fucking dumb fuck clumsy ass bull in a China shop cowboys may tip things over.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A bit of ugliness: Iraq, Use of Force

U.S. contractors in Iraq allege abuses
Four men say they witnessed shooting
of unarmed civilians
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6947745/

Good that they spoke up. Custer Battles seems more and more like a bad player, its contracting was dubious, its execution dubious and now this.

Amateur hour in Iraq, or how one can take an opportunity and absolutely, thoroughly piss it away.

Hallmark of the sub par CEO.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 15, 2005

On Work

Leaving the fun with Syria aside, the "Visit" has been as awful as I thought it would be. I have left everything in the hands of the Local Director, who communicates terribly and has this wierd habit of making absolutely self contradictory statements, and the New York End Director. As usual they have been communicating terribly, fighting, etc. It's best for me just to watch some of the most amusing (if sometimes as well appaling) mis communication go on.

However, in a convo just now about business development, I made some statements about a line of attack, indicating X was what I thought worked. The NYED questioned, but rather because there was no understanding of what I was driving at. Then LD charges into the convo with a convoluted strange statement about clients and how we never do X, but... always do X.

It was just .... I don't know how to describe. Stupid, I think, because he simply sounded like an idiot, but then it was such a strangely convoluted statement (non-native speaker) that perhaps NYED may have not understood. Or simply dismissed as the irrelevancy it was.

Well, clowns. Clowns. Clowns.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Syria

So long as I have the occasion, I am going to tell an amusing story about Syria.

Some time back (several years ago), I was working (consulting actually, after I left the Pharma boys) on some trade arrangements that touched on Syria. As it happened the "client" was some hick Southern US forest products firm that had some long-standing business with Syria. Not the most obvious partners, but what the hell do I care?

Now, they came in Mr. Bumble and Mr. Dumble to rap about an issue they had in that the Syrians wanted to depart the usual trade financing arrangements to get an upfront deposit in hard currency. I won't go into the detials, partly because the escape me, partly because they might ID the transaction.

I would say briefly that it was pretty clear that the Syrians had money problems and were trying to fleece BumbleeDumblee, who seemed to be nice enough fellows, but not the sharpest operators. They had built up, nevertheless, a decently mid sized forest products firm, and these whacko clients had been part of that.

Now, I got out the sharp pencil and tried to sketch out for them where I thought their issues were, etc. Options, etc. Regretably the head chappie of the place came in (my place), and he was Syrian. (In retrospect, since 2001 I have been working with some dodgey people, need to break that run) He procedes to contradict everything I just said, and tells them they should just fly to Damascus and sit down and chat, and that they could absolutely trust this arrangement because Syrians are a very open people, and if you're just open and honest with them, they will treat you like their own brother(s).

I have to say the guy was slick. And he spoke English in a down home style that really played these guys well - my Snotty Educated English just was not as convincing. Their heads bobbed and off they went. I recall thinking during this, "These poor bastards, they are going to be fucked. They just have to hope for lubricant."

I think it ended up without lubricant.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Further to Bush, Idiocy, Hariri and Leb Land

While I know some of you think this is a good idea (but then some of you think Egypt is transforming. Mubarek loves peeps like you, cynical fat shrimp eating fuck that he is), I remain stunned at the idiotic clumsiness of the effort.

First, let me say that blundering is not transformative, it's simply blundering.

Second, let me say that just because we (The West or whomever) do not like a regime, that does not mean "transforming it" via blundering about, pressuring it in the most gauche and clumsy manners, and exploiting in a clumsy, ad hoc manner assasinations actually is going to produce a positive result.

Rather, one needs something like a rational cost-benefit analysis of potential outcomes. This isn't fucking day trading with some extra cash where if a trade goes bad, well oopsie. Syria is unambiguously a nasty little regime. It's also not an amigo to the West. Fine. It is also weak and unstable. Okay. It's also a potential ground for hard core Salafism. Not good. Very bad. Above all given the fuck up that is Iraq.

Now, one regional "ally" - our "friend" Israel (yes the quotes are deliberate, Israel is a friend in need of a good smacking, a nice bitch slap to let it know who's in the driver's seat, like Bush I did.) - has a strong interest for its own immediate political calculations in destabilizing Syria. Of course, from their point of view, since they're already riding a tiger, one more can't hurt. It's a dumb ass calc, but Sharon is a fat dice roller.

However, in a more rational world, Syria is simply a second rate, moderately unpopular but not really all that bad actor. It would be great to see Syria reform. However, betting the farm is not in anyone's interest, above all if it take Lebanon and throws it into chaos and violence again. That is a lose-lose.

This aside, in the world of competent and adult politics, one can see the French approach at the moment, which applies pressure without inappropriately suggesting resposibility (and making one look like an utter fool and idiot - a hint for the gung ho, one loses respect, a valuable commodity when one looks like an utter fool and idiot too often). The French (who were close to Hariri and have been interested in pressuring Syria for longer than the US on this point) appropriately called for an investigation with clumsily and inappropriately linking this to withdrawal per se. Further, looking gauche by inappriopriately exploiting a death reduces one's street cred here in the region. The US has precious little street cred to waste.

To further expand on this point, and use the business language I am familiar with, the goal of "transforming" the region is rather like having the goal of transforming a conglomerate for greater growth and return. The realistic management team knows that a conglomerate is not transformed so much as evolved. Further to that, the realistic management team also knows that setting Ra Ra Marketing (in terms of internal communications) goals should not then be mistaken for meaning Ra Ra blind execution. It's easy to achieve current growth by cannabilizing future growth. It's also easy to set up a World Com kind of atmosphere, where cowboy antics lead to "current returns and growth" in such a manner as to explode the firm.

Destabilizing Syria at present is like funding a long term project with short term notes. Sure, it looks cheap and if all goes well, hey, who cares if the tenor doesn't match the real risk? But in this region, one should never, ever count on "all going well" and the mis match is very likely to blow you up.

I may add, that if Bush is the first "CEO" President, he has shown himself to be a piss poor CEO with no sense of real management skill or values - a "bricoleur" as we would say in French. The kind of CEO who runs a firm into the ground.

Leaving this aside, I link to Cole for a moment: http://www.juancole.com/2005/02/hariri-killed-in-huge-car-bombing-in.html

I note Cole raises the Saudi connexion. Very possible, and that's the direct claim via the group on al-Jazeerah. For those that do not know, Hariri made serious dough out of his construction contrating business in KSA; a business line that is utterly corrupt in KSA. Big ticket stuff. I also note that Cole touches on what I hinted at: "It is also possible, since al-Hariri was worth $4 billion and had all sorts of shady deals going on even when he was PM, that this assassination had an economic/ mafia-type background that we are not aware of."

I've had some dealings with the Hariri world (not directly thank whatever), and advance the opinion that a political-religious-Mafia connexion is the most likely explanation. Hariri had some serious enemies - and don't forget the murkiness of the reconstruction. He rebuilt Beirut, and that was good, but transparency in the effort, although perhaps not possible given conditions, left much to be desired to say the least.

Else, I see that the nasty fucker Michel Aoun is doing his usual shit stirring, claiming a Syrian connexion. I presume the Useful Idiots in the States will start echoing this to pound the anti-Syria drum. Morons.

(PS: I obviously got out of babysitting today)

Edit to add: I see also that Salafists are denying the connexion.
Edit II to add: I went googling around to find (i) Cole has a lot of people who don't like this comments, (ii) they tend to rant about "Arabists", (iii) they tend to see Syria behind this and mistake Cole's KSA comment for saying Hariri is Saudi (ex the rare grant of citizenship), (iv) almost exclusively see "politics." They also tend to give the sense of Arabo-Islamophobes. Pity.

Edit to add: via Pantom, comments, USG pulls Ambassador.
U.S. recalls envoy from Syria
'Deep concerns' over ex-prime minister's killing in Lebanon
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 Posted: 1931 GMT (0331 HKT)
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/15/beirut.explosion/index.html

Madre de puta.

So, we're all about funding our policy with a short term revolver. Fuck the next quarter, throw some meat to the sucker analysts.

Motherfuckers.

I think they want to blow everything up, the crazy morons.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 14, 2005

Unhelpful Sabre Rattling: Lebland, Syria, US

In re the article below, I find it most unhelpful that White House chose to use the Hariri assasination for a moment of sabre rattling, which is most unhelpful reaction when nothing is known about the event. Events like this in re Lebanon have a real possibility of running away with themselves, it behooves the US not to make clumsy associations at this stage, nor simply sabre rattle about Lebanon at a delicate momment.

Bloody lunatics.

U.S. Warns of U.N. Penalties After Lebanon Killing
Politics - Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Monday it would consult with U.N. Security Council members about taking punitive measures against those responsible for the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, and to push for an end to Syrian occupation.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan stopped short of linking Syria with the car bomb that killed Hariri and at least a dozen other people in Beirut. He said Washington did not know who was responsible.

But in a thinly veiled warning to Damascus, McClellan said: "The United States will consult with other governments in the region and on the Security Council today about measures that can be taken to punish those responsible for this terrorist attack, to end the use of violence and intimidation against the Lebanese people and to restore Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and democracy by freeing it from foreign occupation."

It was not immediately clear what punitive measures the United States would propose at the United Nations (news - web sites).

"We do not know who was responsible for the attack at this point. It's premature to know that," McClellan said.

"We continue to be concerned about the foreign occupation in Lebanon. We've expressed those concerns," he added.

The Bush administration has been warning Syria for months that it may face new sanctions for allegedly supporting Palestinian militants and allowing money and arms to flow to insurgents in Iraq (news - web sites).

Last week the State Department called in Syria's ambassador, a sign a decision may be near.

McClellan condemned "this brutal attack" on Hariri, whom, he said, "worked tirelessly to rebuild a free, independent and prosperous Lebanon following its civil war and foreign occupation."

"This murder today is a terrible reminder that the Lebanese people must be able to pursue their aspirations and determine their own political future free from violence and intimidation and free from Syrian occupation," McClellan said.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Rafiq Hariri killed-Car Bombing Beirut. [edit for better code, added]

Motherfucker. The phrase "Not good, not good at all" comes to mind. The other is. Lebanese bonds. Don't be long.

Edit to add:
Depending on who did this, capacity for bad things to result is very large.

Beirut car bomb kills former Lebanon premier
By Reuters February 14 2005 12:30

A massive car bomb killed Lebanon’s former prime minister, Rafik al-Hariri, on Beirut’s waterfront on Monday, witnesses and security sources said. At least eight others, some of them his bodyguards, also died.

Hariri’s motorcade was blown up as it passed along an exclusive section of the city’s waterfront Corniche.

The explosion outside the St George Hotel gouged a deep crater out of the road, ripped facades from luxury buildings and left half a dozen cars ablaze on streets carpeted with rubble and broken glass.

Hariri, a billionaire businessman, resigned from government last October but remained politically influential. He recently joined calls by the opposition for Syrian troops to quit Lebanon in the run-up to a general election in May.

”Syria regards this as an act of terrorism, a crime that seeks to destabilise” Lebanon, Syrian Information Minister Mahdi Dakhl-Allah told Reuters by telephone.

Rescue workers clawed at piles of debris across the street from the hotel. Witnesses said at least five people had been buried there by the explosion.

It appeared to be the biggest bomb in the city since the Lebanese civil war ended in 1990. The blast could be heard even outside Beirut’s city limits and shattered windows in buildings hundreds of metres away.

Scores of firefighters doused the burning vehicles and bloodied survivors were taken away by ambulance. One fire officer said the total of dead and injured was at least 50.

Current Prime Minister Omar Karami visited the scene, surrounded by security men. Columns of dark acrid smoke rose from the site on a previously clear and unseasonably hot day.

The St George, fashionable with film stars in the 1960s, had been closed for renovation.

BLOODY HISTORY OF CAR BOMBS

Beirut was regularly rocked by car bombs throughout the civil war, when fighting among ethnic, religious and political factions all but tore Lebanon apart.

Neighbouring Syria became the ever more dominant player during the conflict, and its forces took much of the credit for bringing the war to a close.

But Lebanese voices calling for Damascus to pull out its 14,000 troops have grown louder, backed by a U.N. resolution calling for their withdrawal.

Mohammad Jihad Ahmed Jibril, 41, a military leader and son of Ahmed Jibril of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General-Command (PFLP-GC), was torn to shreds by a bomb that ripped through his car in Beirut in May 2002.

Earlier that year, a bomb killed Elie Hobeika, a key figure in a pro-Israeli Lebanese militia involved in a massacre of Palestinian refugees in 1982.

Hariri, 60, had held office for most of the past 12 years before quitting in October 2004 amid a bitter rift with President Emile Lahoud.

Born to a modest family from the southern port city of Sidon on Nov 1, 1944, the Sunni Muslim Hariri spent some 20 years in Saudi Arabia, where construction deals made him a fortune that Forbes estimated at $3.8 billion on its 2003 World’s Richest People list.

Businessmen praised him for cutting through a paralysed Lebanese state bureaucracy and rebuilding war-shattered Beirut. But hopes that economic renaissance would flower with a Middle East peace process wilted with it instead.

Palestinian authority official Jibril Rajoub said the killing of Hariri “serves the enemies of both the Palestinian people and the Lebanese people. We strongly condemn this act which threatens the stability in the region.”

Vice Premier Shimon Peres of Israel, which occupied southern Lebanon for two decades, said: “I have no idea who did this. He lived in a dangerous country and they (the Lebanese government) should have taken control over that country. Instead of this they surrendered to all kinds of terrorists.”

(Additional reporting by Lucy Fielder and Roula Najem) REUTERS

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Elections, Stupid statements.

Much confused chatter about the election results in Iraq. In my opinion, too soon to chatter. Confusing system with confusing slates, and a lot of horse trading coming up.

However this item from the NYT got under my skin:
The selection of a Kurdish president would most likely inflame the Sunnis in Iraq as well as nearly all other governments in the Arab world, which are dominated by Sunnis.

The utter confusion that seems to exist in the Western press (and the US press strikes me as particularly bad here) on Iraqi ethnicities irritates me.

The Kurds ARE LARGELY SUNNI. They simply are not ARAB.

The issue is not Sunni versus Kurd, its Arab versus Kurd.

Morons.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 13, 2005

Iraq elections

A quick note. Followed the announcement of results on the Arab Sats - very interesting. See what comes out of the Shia List. Also Giles Keppel was on al-Jazeerah. I have to say, Giles is impressive; entire commentary in quite good MSA. Good banter with the chica, without knowing his studies I would lay money on Syria and Egypt by his accent, although has some Maghrebine influences in his spoken negation.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 11, 2005

Silence & Dubai

Sorry comrades, a Big Cheese is coming into town and I have to handle. Happens to be one of the one....actually I despise them all. This one in particular is the author of comment, in response to a disastrous project that nearly lost us our client, "But have you explained our model is different?"

Different than what, and why the client should give a flying fuck as to "our model" when the project was a failure escaped and still escapes me.

Going to be a fun week of trying to limit damage as this idiot wants to meet with all the important peeps, and we definately don't want that.

Extraordinary, one has to keep one's senior people under wraps to retain clients. Super.

In any case, I will be likely rather radio silent.

However, I do note that Dubi is for the moment confirmed for the first week. Still need to do my hotel, however.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 10, 2005

Koranic duels ease terror

Found via wandering about, specifically reading here: http://www.sebastianholsclaw.com/

World > Middle East
from the February 04, 2005 edition
Koranic duels ease terror
By James Brandon | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0204/p01s04-wome.html

Interesting.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Cole on Iraq, post election

Juan Cole has a few items I wanted to echo.

First, this paragraph making the explicit reference to the Phalangistes of Lebanon. It's this sort of connexion that I think of when I made the argument that Iraq has no way of avoiding a Lebanon type situation. I am not as sure of that judgement, but I would still put good money on it.
A highly placed US official in Baghdad told the Chicago Tribune's Liz Sly that he thought the guerrilla war would go on for many years. As regular readers know, I concur. The old Sunni Arab power elite, mainly Baathists or the officer class, has not reconciled itself to the political ascendancy of the Shiites and Kurds. They still think they can destabilize the country and take back over. I would compare them to the Phalangists, the fascist Maronite Christians in Lebanon, who fought tooth and nail 1975-1989 against recognizing that Christians were no longer a dominant majority in Lebanon. Eventually they had to accept a 50/50 split of seats in parliament (which is generous to the Christians, given that Muslims are now a clear majority). That the Sunni Arab elite might be quicker studies than the Phalangists is possible but a little unlikely.

Likewise, the guerrillas in Iraq have many advantages. They were the managerial class and the officer class, so they have a great deal of organizational know-how. They clearly still have some of the loot the Baathists stole from the Iraqi people, and they know where the missing 250,000 tons of munitions are. If either ran out, there are plenty of Gulf millionnaires who would surreptitiously support a Sunni insurgency against American domination in Iraq. Money is fungible and I don't think their support could be effectively interfered with (do you know how many nouveau riche millionnaires there are in the Gulf?)

Well, the number of millionaires is not limitless, but there are plenty of ways to move money in the Gulf. Even under the USG's own nose. I have seen it done.

I do like Cole's quasi humourous take on the Sunni Arab elite not likely to be quicker studies than the Phalange. But then, the Maronites managed to hang on to more power in Lebanon than their demographics really support. Think about that lesson.

Hard men with guns, and a lot of motivation.

Finally his comment re the Kurds and the Shia was interesting re the issue of personal law, etc. However, can such a deal be done?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Foreign Aid

Reading The Washington Monthly "Political Animal" I noted this item:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_02/005623.php

A few thoughts.

First, it is appaling that Americans are so... well bloody dim when it comes to knowing where their money is actually being spent. But that is not news.

Second, I am less excercised by the level of aide than by its conception. Having direct familiarity with European aide programs, I have to say that many are clearly bribes to the country in question rather than genuine aide. The EU joint facilities in particular seem to be doted with simultaneously slow and idiotic bureaucratic rubbish rules and little to know oversight on spending. Honeypots. So, my instinct is that the good Euro numbers are somewhat inflated.

Regardless, I do believe well conceived aide can help, and even where the revolutionary benefits often promised never show up, one may have avoided a downside. The US could likely profitably move money from defence projects conceived during the Cold War to various emerging markets economic reform initiatives, in my opinion. However, how to structure is perhaps another issue. This Millenium Challenge Corporation seems interesting but I wonder if it will work. (And although 2.5 billion sounds like a lot, it's really chickenfeed).

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 09, 2005

Arab Media Market, The Error of Privatization, Articles

To continue the subject of the Arab Media market and my argument that al-Jazeerah privatization (as a politically motivated fire sale) is wrong and nothing to be happy about, I draw your attention to the following articles.

The main take away from all of them is:
(a) the image of al-Jazeerah as "jihadi" is absurd and ridiculous.
(b) the liklihood that al-Jazeerah will be snapped up by Saudi interests who will subsequently silence its criticisms of KSA is high.
(c) silencing al-Jazeerah on KSA is going US and Western interests a disservice.
(d) the current US high dungeon over al-Jazeerah is childishly short sighted, wrong headed and contrary to real interests.

The articles:

48% of households in Cairo use the Internet and 46% have Satellite TV
MENAFN Press - 26/01/2005
https://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?storyid=77965

Lebanese Reaction to the U.S. Satellite Station
Is Al-Hurra Doomed?

Paul Cochrane
Worldpress.org contributing editor
June 11, 2004
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1872.cfm

Report from Amman ...
Election Propaganda
Gordon Robison
3 January 2005
http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/39.htm

The War Inside the Arab Newsroom by S M Shapiro

January 2, 2005 NYTimes
The War Inside the Arab Newsroom
By SAMANTHA M. SHAPIRO
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&requesttimeout=500&folder=2053&paper=2069
OR
http://faculty.washington.edu/pnhoward/teaching/mms/arabnewsroom.pdf

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

FT very rich this week.

FT has been quite rich in things that concern me or simply interest. First, the Arafat coverage. Pantom mentioned this, but I should reflect on their article, I tangentially know or know of the players. Very loose, but an opp to reflect on what I used to hear.

Second Wolfe has an interesting article on aid flows, must reflect on that.

Third, US has just put out a tender for some major development programs and potential bidders are crawling all over the place. Having seen the RFP now - some of it is financial sector - I need to make some comments on the wrong headedness of it all. The short version: "The US continues to think MENA c. 2005 = E. Europe c. 1990."

Well, I suppose when you have only a hammer....

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 08, 2005

Optimism in MENA

We're on a run of good luck at present, and I am fairly happy with that. May reduce my odds of getting whacked before I become rich, but a word of warning from someone with MENA experience.

Murphy's Law was invented for this region.

Still, I am happy that we have a chance to avoid civil war.

In personal matters, a British firm got in touch with me re some potential Iraq action. It may be a sign that greedy creatures besides meself are thinking of taking another look at Iraq in the next few months. Too early to make a call, this can still go to hell (and I would lay better odds on things going wrong than right), but at least there is a potential exit.

Finally, had a lunch with a French private equity guy with a military background. Apparently he was in Beiruit back in the day. Opined the American excessive "force protection" habits he saw there are unchanged and with the same result - alienation from the populace and vicious cycle of hit, counter-hits (that go awry and breed more resentment).

Nothing new there, interesting to hear this fellow cite similar habits though in a similar situ.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Arab Bank Exits US

Arab Bank to shut down New York branch

AMMAN (JT) — The Arab Bank on Monday decided to “gradually” close its New York branch, saying that the current operation environment in the US is not in line with the financial institution's strategy.
The Jordan News Agency, Petra, quoted an Arab Bank statement as saying that the vision and strategy of the group are now focusing on operations in the region and Europe. Petra said the move would not have any significant effect on the Amman-based Arab Bank's local and international operations.

US press reports said last week that US bank regulators were scrutinizing the Arab Bank for possible links to Palestinian groups.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that prosecutors and private entities that have filed civil suits against the bank suspect it has been laundering money for Palestinian “terrorists.”

The reports said that the Arab Bank was negotiating with US authorities to settle claims in tens of millions filed on allegations of damage caused by Palestinian attacks on targets in Israel.

But the government and the Arab Bank refuted such allegations, stressing that the financial institution, as certified by the authorities in the United States, operates in accordance with international standards and measures.

Tuesday, February 8, 2005

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 07, 2005

And what do moderate muslims do?

Local intel has busted up, according to a brief report, a fraction of the Attakfire-wa-hijra group. Nasty characters. Report indicated they were turned in by the neighborhood because they were hostile and bullying, and seemed violent. That would pretty much describe AwH. Allah yaounikoum, as they say, on the neighborhood. The report comes from a good source, I give it credence.

Little stuff like this happens. You guys don't hear about it, but it happens more than you think.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Barbers, but at least not the cheesemakers

From the AP, a sad tale of Salafi extremist nutjobbery.

Islamic Radicals Hunt Barbers in Baghdad

Mon Feb 7, 2:05 AM ET

Middle East - AP

By OMAR SINAN, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Umm Ali says militants killed her son last month for the most unlikely of reasons: He trims men's beards.

AFP
Slideshow: Iraq

In Baghdad's Dora neighborhood, residents say Sunni Muslim extremists have made barbers the new hunted, accusing them of violating a strict reading of Islamic teachings that say men should keep their beards long.

Some extremists also consider Western-style haircuts an offensive symbol of the hated, secularized culture of Europe and the United States.

To them, sporting a clipped beard or a modern haircut is an infraction worthy of death.

Black banners mourning the dead were strung up in the neighborhood as the unwitting violators fell one after another to the militants' harsh brand of justice. In one month alone, five barbers were shot dead, residents said.

"He was a haircutter. He only cuts hair," Umm Ali said of her son, Sadiq Abdul Hussein. "He was handsome," she said, gazing at a photo of him.

Abdul Hussein was killed after he shrugged off a threat to stop shaving men's beards or lose his life.

A black mourning banner said only that he died due to a "regrettable incident."

Dora's streets are a battleground for rebels fighting U.S. and Iraqi forces. Drive-by shootings targeting government officials are frequent. It's a symbol of the chaos that has followed Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s ouster nearly two years ago.

Masked, gun-totting militants freely roam its streets, issuing orders and threats and meting out punishment to those who challenge them.

Among the many offenses that run afoul of Dora's new extremist gangs are men with long hair, goatees and even sideburns.

Wesam Noori, a 19-year-old art student, is careful to keep his long hair tucked under a hat.

"We are trying to hide our hair under baseball caps or ski hats," he said.

Iraqi Christians have also been targeted here by insurgents who consider them close to American and other foreign occupiers because they share the same religion. Four churches have been attacked in Dora in deadly car bombings.

Islamic militants have also publicly flogged and killed women's hairdressers in several places throughout Iraq (news - web sites).

On Jan. 27, Sadiq Abdul Hussein was cutting a customer's hair when a tall man with a scarf wrapped around his face walked through the door. He opened fire with an assault rifle, killing Abdul Hussein and wounding his customer, Imad Hammad, a 26-year-old engineer.

"I saw the flash from the gun's muzzle and after that I passed out," said Imad, who was shot in the belly.

Imad's father, Hamad al-Dulaimi blamed foreigners for the killings and said they sought to create turmoil here.

"Those Arab extremists are butchering our sons simply to create a disturbance," he said. "We will not be stopped by this sedition."

As if to illustrate his promise that life here couldn't be stopped by violence, a tranquil street scene unfolded on a recent afternoon. Barefoot children kicked around a dented Pepsi can. Mothers sat on front stoops, chatting and gesturing with hands decorated with traditional green tattoos.

But Ali Hussein, a 25-year-old barber who owns a salon in Dora, says the threat is real enough to threaten his livelihood.

Like other barbers, he's gotten the flyers from militants bearing their instructions for how to cut hair and promising death for those who violate the rules.

"They are even forbidding us to hang posters showing the most recent haircuts," Hussein said.

He now cuts customers' hair in secret inside his house.

"I don't want to be killed, but I don't want to be broke either," he said.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On al Jazeerah

From comments I refer you to this link http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/02/sharansky.html
and generally the site. It has some nice material on al Jazeerah, antidote to the ignorant posturing about the chanenl that occurs among US politicians.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 04, 2005

Returns and the oddities of long term rates

Very interesting item from FT.

Samuel Brittan: Why long-term bond yields are low
By Samuel Brittan
Published: February 3 2005 21:42 | Last updated: February 3 2005 21:42
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c0333b78-7625-11d9-8833-00000e2511c8.html

The subject matter is long tern rates, the issue behind that evoked towards the end is the question of attractive opportunities. Quoted in part.

The behaviour of bond prices is puzzling the financial markets. The US Federal Reserve has for some time been gradually raising the Federal Funds rate from the 1 per cent of a year ago towards what it regards as a more normal level, reaching 2.5 per cent this week. Yet, paradoxically, long term bond yields have continued to fall. In the US, they reached a high of 4.7 per cent last summer and have since dropped by about half a percentage point. There is little doubt that interest rates - international as well as US ones - are low for what is regarded as a recovery phase of the business cycle. Having at last abandoned their more unrealistic expectations about equities, some investors are unhappy that bonds do not offer a promising alternative.

Well, I am not sure that investors really have abandoned unrealistic expectations about equity returns, look at the wierdly distorted US debate about its Social Security system and the expectations implied in the move to change to private accounts.

Part of this grumbling merely reflects "money illusion" - the failure to take inflation into account. The high returns previously experienced in nominal terms from holding bonds were partly compensation for the fear that dollars and pounds would shrink in real value. But OECD real interest rates, obtained by subtracting an inflation index from the nominal yield, also show a pronounced long term downward trend - from about 6 per cent in the mid-1980s to 2 per cent recently. The message is confirmed by the yield on UK index-linked gilt-edged, which is now in the 1�-2 per cent range. The yield on the more recently introduced US TIPs (Treasury inflation-protected securities) is now also down towards the 1� per cent level. These low returns are all the more impressive in the light of the common belief that the dollar and sterling are both overvalued and that bond yields must contain a risk premium to allow for this.

The first point is important - money illusion is hard to shake you know, even when one knows better - but inflation adjusted returns of 1.5 percent on US dollar assets strikes me as near madness (for the buyer, if the buyer is foriegn, maybe not if domestic).

After briefly evoking technical issues such as the carry trade, we move on to more novel meat:
Yet there may be a more elementary explanation for low long-term real interest rates. Just as the price of bananas balances the supply and demand for this fruit, so the rate of interest balances the supply of savings against the demand for funds to invest. Monetary policy is important mainly at the short end and for its effect on inflation. But the important influence at the longer end is the balance of world savings and investment.

Thus, I come to the simple hypothesis that falling real interest rates reflect a growing shortage of attractive investment projects to absorb savings. The world is indeed supposed to be short of capital and we are told that we do not save enough. But what matters in this context is not the developing world projects that might be desirable but the number of projects world-wide that promise a commercial risk-adjusted return.

Emphasis added.

I am with our FT man.

Of course part of this issue is (i) perception of ability to achieve a return in an emerging market - and actually obtain the achieved return; (ii) creating the necessary vehicles to actually redirect savings profitably.

I personally believe there is a modest market failure in the capital markets at present, where opportunities for return at reasonable levels of risk are not being fully exploited in the upper end of emerging markets (not by income I mean, but by governance) due to lack of expertise and discrimination in re emerging market risk (in re direct investments). Modest.

On the other hand this also underlines that changes to create more attractive investment can capitalize on a lot of capital sloshing about looking for return. It does need, however, the proper vectors.

The reason why so much of the world's savings has gone to the US is surely just because of the dearth of such investment outlets elsewhere. In the 1930s, Lord Keynes feared that the rate of interest could not fall low enough to balance savings and investment at a reasonable level of employment. But up to now, world capital markets have worked well and interest rates have fallen enough to balance savings and investment without generating a depression.

We should, however, be grateful that governments and citizens are going slow on the exhortations of the great and the good to save more. If they did, the strain on financial markets might be too great and we really could have the much-feared Keynesian slump.

The authors of global co-ordination plans would like to avert this threat by balancing an increase in savings in the Anglo-Saxon world by a reduction in saving in east Asia and possibly the eurozone - although, of course, they do not put it in this way but talk instead of Asian currency appreciation and European economic stimulus. I noted in a previous column the lack of both knowledge and the authority to carry out this balancing act.

That is not encouraging.

There may still be a problem. .... In any case, there is no God-given rule that money invested in secure fixed interest securities should bring any particular rate of return. Keynes's "euthanasia of the rentier" could yet happen. Meanwhile, the obstinate resistance to the exhortation to save more is putting off the problem that the zero floor for interest rates might pose for monetary policy, and for which the Fed has wisely made contingency plans.

Well, we do have something of a roller coaster before us, don't we.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

When thinking of economic development

In the region, think of this:

There was a mass strike here by.... unemployed university graduates seeking government jobs. The best one interviewed was the 33 year old who claimed to still be waiting for a job "promised" ten years ago. His biggest fear. The 35 years old cut off for engagement.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A joke, as it were`

From a State amigo

Question: What do you call four fluent Foreign service officer Russian speakers ?

Answer: The visa section in Mexico City.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bank Selection

REading Volcker's report it's pretty clear this was a standard international murkiness operation. I suppose the axe grinders will continue to bay for UN/Annan blood but I'm fairly unmoved. Perhaps too cynical, but not many things in this region look nice when fully exposed to light of day.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

BNParibas

I have an urge to ring my amigos at BNP and ask how they're feeling. Maybe some divestment coming up? I'm sure the hatchet boys will be baying.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

MENA: Economic Liberalization - Political Liberalization [Edited]

First, I have identified my main objection and point of annoyance with the National Interest article. The willy-nilly confusion of economic liberalization with political liberalization, and the strangely inconsistent use of the phrase "liberal autocracy" that lumps Egypt (which other than not engaging in mass arrests hardly strikes me as meaningfully liberal in either political or economic terms) in with Tunisia, Jordan and Morocco, to cite three that immediately come to mind as meriting the phrase. Sloppiness.

Second, stemming from the conversation on al-Jazeerah and the media market, I shall advance an observation or two or three or so:

(i) Economic liberalization is more important than political liberalization.
(ii) Political liberalization in MENA depends on success in dealing with fundamental socio-economic problems that need economic growth to help cure.
(iii) Economic liberalization in MENA, to succeed, needs to have successful local models. There is not the reservoir of talent, underlying capital nor political discontent with the old economic system (as system) to support a Big Bang move. Evolutionary, market building is the sole way to procede if one wants sustainable success. See Tunisia. Of course it has to be genuine, not facade (see Egypt for the facade of economic liberalization model, bloody basket case).

Transformation is for ideologues, evolution is for the pragmatic who want to actually succeed.

{edit]

Let me suggest looking at these things not from the political point of view (which I can characterize as 'Oh my good the Middle East is scary we must change it now') to a financial or business point of view.

Put MENA in the context of a company, privately and closely held, that one has acquired. The intention is to flip it, and make a profit of course (however defined-if your goals are political the profit may be in improved political atmosphere). A classic private equity approach.

First lesson from private equity: don't rush the IPO or trade sale in a poor market. You don't maximize your gains that way and you may very well damage your ability to exit from the rest of the portfolio. Rushing with the mistaken idea that the end goal is the process leads to mistakes, it burns up your goodwill on the market and impairs your ability to maximize long term returns.

I suggest the MENA region is in this situ. It's not distressed assets being bought up on a firesale liquidation (ah steel......), it's rather dowdy largely closely held family kind of assets run in an ad hoc, not particularly efficient, but not entirely incompetent, either, manner. Buying them up and turning them around is possible, but you have to plan the process to what the market can absorb and take the time to rebuild the brands (or create them), to build value for the market. Simply flipping them on the market with the simple minded idea that "Market creates value, IPO is best"-in a kind of trader mentality- is only going to damage you.

That's how I see economic liberalization in MENA. It's a classic private equity play. You can't hold too long, but neither can you rush the process. It's the middle bowl of porridge.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 03, 2005

Trivialities, pondering my office

I really think I am sliding into lecherous Expat scum territory.

There are two office managers here (it's an insta office), one who is competent and reactive, but not that cute. Cute but not that cute. The other is not so competent (in IT issues above all), not that reactive, but very hot. I have noted that despite the available evidence that it is far more effective to call upon OM1, that I like to call upon OM2, above all since she flirts. This is sad and should be stopped. But I enjoy the game, although it's not very effective. From an office stand point that is, from other stand points of course.....

Not that I entirely mind sliding into lecherous expat scum territory, having so few hobbies after all, but ... I should make sure the work/not work seperation is clear. The potential for blow back (as well as back stabbing by certain parties) is rather severe.

However, the Leb chick who likes to wear the tight laced leather suit has taken to stopping by to ask me for silly things. That has some interesting amusement value, although the hot pink lycra pants and wierd top are rather distracting today. I have never understood Leb Slut fashion sense. Also irritating is her tendancy to change hair color. The Henna Red isn't so bad, but today's ... odd color, what brown-yellow? Not good.

And so the MENA life goes on.

Otherwise, a new option on an exit strategy has emerged with a big ass development fund. Serious dough, looking for staff for some MENA stuff. Might work. Supposed to do a video conference soon. On one hand interesting, a few billion to spend, real money, on the other hand suggested a move to Washington might be required, thus breaking by Expat Scum lifestyle.

The time frame on this is shorter than the Fund Management RFP item, I suppose I could be really scummy and just go for the exit while keeping the other option open. After all the RFP doesn't depend on me really, I'm just icing, to beautify the principals a little bit more.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

My First Thought on the National Interest Arty

Liberal Autocracy.... what's wrong with that? He says it like it is a bad thing.

Of course, I once wrote a note entitled "Democracy Sucks Eggs: The Impetus for Focus on Real Growth"

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

An Item to come back to: phantom educators, IMF bad guys

A brewing crisis item here in my stomping ground. Audits have uncovered upwards of 80,000 phantom bureaucrats, largely in education and social services. The union is squeeling, and the usual anti globo leftist posturing is being trotted out.

I need to come back to develop this a bit more, but suffice it to say, it's things like this that lead me to regard the anti-globos attacks on IMF pressures for staffing and spending rationalization in the developing world as simplistic fuzzy headed nonsense. Of course, the IMF is not perfect, but one can easily see from a spending analysis here that this poor country is pissing away a significant portion of its GDP on no show jobs that in fact hold back development.

However, this story will get distorted among the gullible little leftist twits in the anti-globalization "movement" to be the big bad capitalists forcing teachers to be fired. No show teachers, but think of the children.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Arab Media, Policy and Proper Framing, bis

If I may respond to this comment from here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/collounsbury/278136.html) (of course I may, I do whatever I bloody well want, but for appearnces):

From the comment called Clarifications a few items I wanted to highlight.

1. On Government Control of the Media
Specifically, "More to the ponit, our writer seems to have the mistaken impression that ownership is driving the presentation, rather than audience."
And, "Our commentator seems to believe, per this phrase: "It's not in the interests of the world that Arabs see only government propganda." that al Jazeerah is Qatari governmental agitprop."

I am not concerned that the BBC is the mouthpiece for the British government, or that al Jazeera is just reading statements from the Emir. The BBC has regularly clashed with the Blair government, and al Jazeera is causing friction in some of Qatar's relations. I made this point twice in our discussion

"The problem with being owned by a government as "rich as fuck" is that it allows al Jazeera to promote a propoganda agenda with no worry about feedback (other than diplomatic)."

and more clearly

"The BBC's government support shields it from market pressures, making it a unique media outlet in Britain. It's Leftist viewpoint is so built-in that even tearing out senior managers (as it did recently) probably will not correct it."

The problem is that the government is an overwhelming presense wherever it is located. Both the BBC and al Jazeera enjoy implicit promises of long-term financial support from their governments. Whatever ideological group can grab hold of the network (which is a matter of internal politics, as both government's stay out of the networks' affairs) thus enjoys substantial influence without regard to market forces. Because of the implicit promises, other voices are prevented from entering the market because they have a built-in heavily subsidized competitor.

Emphasis added at last point.

My response on this is the following:

1. In regards to the English market and BBC, and the issue of squeezing out private competitors, that is a valid issue. It is also a policy choice on the part of the British, who in gross seem to like their present state of affairs more or less. I shall not presume to lecture others on the utility value they place on modes of provision, so long as that mode of provision of services seems to be fairly efficient and not a significant dead weight loss.
2. In regards to the Arab media market, concerns of crowding out in re al-Jazeerah are entirely misplaced. The market is already saturated with State behemoths, the presence of al Jazeerah not being significant except in the context of the positive, more or less market driven example it has set over the past ten years. The degree to which a genuinely private news station can be sustained in the region strikes me, given my knowledge of the media market, highly limited, and dependant on cross subsidies. In short, given present market structure, a news station is going to require a "disinterested benefactor" to cover its loss making. The media market is simply not mature enough to support anything but a BBC or near BBC model (or a media group willing for prestige reasons to cross subsidize from its profit making division or worse, a wealthy private individual who is likely as not to be a government pass through). In ten years hopefully the issue of crowding out will be relevant and you will hear me agitating for a full sell off (or better yet, putting the deal together and not saying a peep). We're not there yet and it is futile to base policy on the mistaken presumption that one is. Realistic achievable steps.
3. In regards to the issue of ideological capture, I am sorry but frankly I think this is extremse libertarian ideologue rhetoric. In my personal view, either private or public, capture of the media outlet by is as possible. Insulation is theoretical and relative. As "market forces" left to themselves will shut down such operations, an al-Jazeerah or similar operation naturally under current market structure is insulated and could be "captured" - however insofar as the drive for market share effects both the quasi public and the private loss making entity being subsidized, there is a similar market of ideas and audience pressure.I see no reason to adopt purist reasoning for complex real world situations.

2. On Iran, Zionism, and "La La Land"
Speficially, "The accusation of being a Zionist plot is hardly a sign of being in "la la land" and to say so merely indicates you don't know the region at all; the accusation comes from the fact that al-Jazeerah does not hesitate to deal with Israel, covers Israeli issues more or less even handedly, has Israelis on for interviews, etc. etc."

The comment was in regard to a specific Tehran Times column that criticized al Jazeera's sympathetic coverage of terrorists. Through this mouthpiece, the Islamic Republic accused al Jazeera of advancing the "Zionist" plot to alienate the West from Islam.

For clarity, the sentence

"When Iran accuses an anti-American station of being a Zionist plot, it's already in la-la land."

should have been worded

"When Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, accuses an anti-American station of being a Zionist plot because of its extreme adulation of terrorism, it's already in la-la land."

There is still the opinion issue you take issue with (is al Jazeera anti-American? is it merely Arab nationalist? etc), but at least we're talking about the same things.

As I mentioned I take issue with some of your comments, but I will address those seperately in the context of these clarifications.

-Dan
http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/01/31/free_arab_media.html

Well, I think you're badly misreading the situ for lack of background.

Let me illustrate how you're misreading this by restating:
"When Iran, a state that the US accuses of sponsoring terror and the emerging backer of Shia power block in Iraq becomes displeased with al-Jazeerah's rather typical Sunni Arab blindness to Shia issues, it accusses a station Americans view as anti-American of being a Zionist plot to express it's displeasure with the station's lack of pro-Shia vioces, in terms of 'extreme adulation of terrorism' although an informed outside observer would not likely see it in those terms."

Of course al-Jazeerah is "anti American" in the sense of not being pro American. Here's a news flash, hardly anyone, in the West or not, is pro American in the news media. Left, Right and Center. Global phenomena.

Rather than having the American Right whinge on about this, when traditional pro American voices have turned negative, it's time to ask "What are we doing wrong."

Or not, if navel gazing is preferred.

So, al-Jazeerah, because of its traditional, old school Arab nationalism (Sunni Arab nationalist) predilictions is almost mechanically anti American. That does not make it ipso facto unreasonable - although it can be quite uneven I have to say. I personally prefer al-Arabiyah, but al-Jazeerah has gotten better in the past year. The competition between the two is healthy, and I think creates, in the context of other media sources, such as state TV (some of which are passably okay, most are turgid crap), other Arab Sats - and I note that in the context of competition, the real replacement of an al-Jazeerah going out of business which you so nonchalantly think is aokay, is al-Manar, a rabid and truely extremist organ.

The station is not in la la land, it's serving its prime audience - the Sunni Arab majority of its viewers.If one consumes its materials over a long period of time, one comes away with a fairly moderate station but saddled with some fairly uneven reporting from the field. That's a complex issue, partly a problem of training, partly a problem of cultural habit, partly a problem of perspectives.

The question then is what is the actual Arab media market, in news in particular as I don't believe, except for me, entertainment media is of any interest, and how to engage it?

Privatization just like that is not going to change things. The financial resources are not there, and the advertising market, due to various structural issues, is not such that it can support news channels like this: political pressure, limited adverts market, and greater popularity of entertainment channels all make news channels losers on a profit basis.

However, an al-Jazeerah right now is indeed setting, in the context of its competition with al-Arabiyah and generally, improved standards, training a new generation of journos, and generally serving as a positive example, relative to the remainder of the Arabic langauge offer. If the US does not like the message, the solution is not to pretend the message does not reflect the real situ it is dealing with, but rather to engage the medium (and not by setting up ridiculous wastes of money like al-Hurrah on the mistaken assumption that this is Eastern Europe c. 1985 and it is simply lack of media channels that is the problem).

Therefore I repeat, the forced disposal of al-Jazeerah under US political pressure is not something to cheer, but to regret. It sets a bad example (for rather clearly it comes under the rubric of "we like free expression overseas except when its anti US" - thus making the US look grossly hypocritical) and is based on the stupid presumption that something better will naturally occur in a "free market place of ideas" presumed to emerge I suppose by fiat. Quite the contrary, of course, one is less likely to see quality, but rather more likely to see things like the genuinely reprehensible al Manar that really does glorify terrorism.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 02, 2005

Quick arty ref

Found this via Kevin Drum
Issue Date: Winter 2004/05, Posted On: 12/22/2004

Close, but No Democracy
By: Ray Takeyh
Link in comments: I don't do fancy html, it bores me.

I am not familiar with the pub but an interesting article. Hopefully to come back to.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq, The Model. (Irony)

Elections Are Not Democracy
The United States has essentially stopped trying to build a democratic order in Iraq, and is simply trying to gain stability and legitimacy
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6885455/site/newsweek/

My response is, I sure bloody hope so, and about bloody time!

I long ago said that the best case scenario for Iraq was a sort of Egypt on the Euphrates.

Zakaria correctly notes:
But it is also true, alas, that no matter how the voting turns out, the prospects for genuine democracy in Iraq are increasingly grim. Unless there is a major change in course, Iraq is on track to become another corrupt, oil-rich quasi-democracy, like Russia and Nigeria.

Perhaps I am too cynical, but that is a step up from a failed state, and I am right happy about that.

I never bought this bloody democratization nonsense, and still don't.

Leaving aside that, Zakaria raises key issues, and for the rah rah simpletons, you should pay attention. Otherwise, for those who want to cry failure, I say, well, long ago this was a failure on its face, so rebenchmarking from the default downside position we had six months ago, Zakaria's scenario is an actual upside.

He notes, by the way, the following:
First, you need to avoid major ethnic or religious strife. In almost any "divided" society, elections can exacerbate group tensions unless there is a strong effort to make a deal between the groups, getting all to buy into the new order. "The one precondition for democracy to work is a consensus among major ethnic, regional, or religious groups," says Larry Diamond, one of the leading experts on democratization. This has not happened. Instead the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds are increasingly wary of one another and are thinking along purely sectarian lines. This "groupism" also overemphasizes the religious voices in these communities, and gives rise to a less secular, less liberal kind of politics.

Indeed. Indeed. More disturbing is perhaps the Egyptian story emerging from our rebuilding largess, rather quickly becoming pure bribery in his argument. I suspect that is true.

However, again, I'm looking at the realm of the possible, and the possible here tells me that this fucked up half baked result is not bad. In fact, you can even forsee making money.

Presuming civil war is avoided. A big presumption, but just barely possible.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Getting Things Right in the Middle East

I am going to depart from my usual rule of not engaging in inter-blog commentary to use an amigo of Zenpundit and perhaps a new reader as a foil in re a comment I had, and the subsequent exchange. I shall even depart from my usual take no prisoners style and apologize in advance for the harshness. However, this is illustrative of something that drives me nuts, and I think important - important because I sympathize with the goals, but I want to see success. Also, for those commenting, please do refrain..... Now, in regards to the specific subject, it is the announced Qatari intention to sell off al-Jazeerah. (See here); however the real subject is a proper understanding of where the MENA markets really are and what are the real problems one is looking at. As I have noted before, US strategy, in my opinion, badly mispecifies a lot of issues in the region, especially relative to broadcast media, although also in some contexts, in my limited knowledge of US moves here, in broader economic reform strategy. Not ultimate goals, which I agree with, but in understanding current issues and challenges. To make a one phrase summary: Present US engagement fools itself into thinking MENA is Eastern Europe c. 1990 or even worse 1985. It isn't.

Now, thanks to Zenpundit, this comment provoked this note: Free Arab Media

Qatar Advances Plans To Privatize Al-Jazeera: U.S. Has Criticized Arab TV Network," by Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post, 31 January 2005 (from Collounsbury).

Great news out of the Gulf.

The government of Qatar is pushing forward with plans to privatize al-Jazeera, the popular and controversial Arab television network that has often drawn the ire of U.S. administration officials, a network spokesman said.

al Jazeera's prominance, and the forthcoming privitization, are both fallout from theIraqi Big Bang Strategy

Details of the plan are yet to be worked out and await a feasibility report that should be completed in coming months, said Jihad Ballout, a spokesman in the Qatari capital of Doha. Al-Jazeera is highly popular in the Arab world but has repeatedly drawn criticism from the Bush administration about its coverage of the war in Iraq and other hot-button issues in the Middle East.

Pressure from U.S. officials has caused the government of Qatar, which bankrolls al Jazeera, to accelerate the spinoff, according to a report yesterday in the New York Times, which quoted an unnamed senior Qatari official.

This news is wonderful. While al Jazeera is anti-American, it also is the first news channel in the Arab world that freely criticizes everybody. We need to create real political debates in the Greater Middle East, and outlets like al Jazeera are part of this. It is problematic, however, that al Jazeera does not face market pressures and is owned by an ally. Allowing private investors, even if they are Saudi petrocrats, to run a free Arab news network is a great step forward.

In the Greater Middle East, we are the revolutionary aggressor and the dictatorial regimes that made up the status quo are the enemy. We have momentum and freedom on our side. Let's keep going.

Now, in a comment I replied that, well, no, it's not great news. To quote myself:

Ah.....

No.

Sorry, you don't know the market here.

A quick sell off of al-Jazeerah for political reasons is not going to make al-Jazeerah "face market pressures."

It will do one of two things: (a) it puts it in the hands of a non-transparent owner that may very well take it out into la la land, (b) it goes fully commercial and fails - not enough of a free advert market - or goes fully commercial and starts toeing the public line because advert dollars in the region get directed for political reasons.

The Qatari ownership - tolerance of the loss making, commitment to trying to follow a rough BBC model was the best case scenario.

You guys on the American right need to rent a clue about the region, your proscriptions are so wildly off base I really don't know how to get you on base.

Our original commentator replied (more politely than myself, one must confess, but abstracting away from that):

Thanks for the note. A move toward a free market of ideas would be a good thing. It's not in the interests of the world that Arabs see only government propganda.

You mention two possible outcomes of a privitized al Jazeera, and either are acceptable. al Jazeera is already a quixotic network, playing to popular emotions over any coherent message. When Iran accuses an anti-American station of being a Zionist plot, it's already in la-la land.

If it fails, so be it. There are other Arab stations. If no Arab station has a market, then Arab medai interest is diverted into places where there are free sources (say, blogs, whether anti-American, Islamist, Arab Nationalist, or liberal).

Your analogy to the BBC is interesting. The BBC is a Leftist anti-American government behemoth. Such a state media is hardly compatible with a liberal society, and if the "BBC model" fails both in the UK and Qatar, wonderful!

A free market of ideas, and market freedom in general are vital to democracy. Shai Iraq's lack of a functioning market is the greatest long-run threat it has (after the insurgency). While there may be some natural state sectors, media is not one of them.

Thanks again for the note. Your comments are very original and challenging.

Now initially I was going to continue this dialogue on the blog's comments but I realized my commentary was more extensive than perhaps comments permit. Thus, at the risk of annoying, a rather more public approach.

On the comment, I have one ... shall I call it a factual correction? I think so. Regarding BBC, as a long time consumer of BBC news, I find the characterization "Leftist anti-American behemoth" rather overdone, as well as the assertion State owned or backed media is incompatible with a liberal society. Rubbish, so long as media creation etc. is relatively free, and the playing field is fairly level, and the state backed broadcaster is both legally and effectively independant (by realistic standards) from the government, it is perfectly compatible. To posture otherwise is simply staking the position of an ideologue. That being said, I am not a huge fan of the model either, but I see no reason to make absurd over the top claims. In regards to BBC and leftism, the news strikes me as solidly centrist and balanced, although in trade issues and the like, it turns Left. Or anti-globalization. Anti-American? Sometimes, but not absurdly so. More to the ponit, our writer seems to have the mistaken impression that ownership is driving the presentation, rather than audience. An a priori position, and in both cases my sense is that quite the contrary, audience is driving, not ownership.

Regardless, I see no "failure" in re the model in the UK (although one might prefer alternate models, but then I point out even FT and Economist, normally great fans of privatization, do not have their axes out over BBC, whatever its shortcomings, it hardly is a failure by reasonable benchmarks. Arguably things could be better, of course, but that's another issue).

Now, regarding the characterization of al-Jazeerah as lacking a "coherent message" and being in "la la land" because Iran has accused it of being a "Zioinist plot", I have to say, sorry, you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

The station certainly has a coherent point of view: old school Arab Nationalist. Once one understands that, everything about it becomes quite understandable. The "message" in that context is quite coherent and very much in the realm of the tastes of most if not all of its viewership (which is of course international). The accusation of being a Zionist plot is hardly a sign of being in "la la land" and to say so merely indicates you don't know the region at all; the accusation comes from the fact that al-Jazeerah does not hesitate to deal with Israel, covers Israeli issues more or less even handedly, has Israelis on for interviews, etc. etc. Now, they are indeed "anti Israel" in a context of being critical, but they do indeed more or less even handedly allow Israelis to publicize their arguments, POV, and more or less even handedly cover Israeli views.

Certainly imperfect, but considering that in 1996 no one was doing this, they broke the doors open for free media. Ten years later things could move forward, but it's absurd to call them incoherent or in la la land.

So, leaving aside the BBC quibble and the characterization of al-Jazeerah ( I confess I find both irritating when I see bandied about among people who presumbly have little to no sustained direct consumer relationship with BBC), there is the issue of this "privatization."

I am squarely against this firesale type move (if it comes off as reported). It is a gross error.

Let me note, I am no lefty. In grosso modo, I am fully for free markets, private enterprise etc. I am after all in the financial sector. I have no issues at all with private media ownership, in fact in a properly regulated environment to prevent excessive concentration, I am 100 percent for it. However a does of realism is necessary.

Rather, as I noted, the present media market in the Arab World is not capable of sustaining a healthy competition in news media, and a forced, political fire sale of al Jazeerah is not going to move towards a "a free market of ideas" - in fact quite the contrary. Our commentator seems to believe, per this phrase: "It's not in the interests of the world that Arabs see only government propganda." that al Jazeerah is Qatari governmental agitprop. Quite the contrary, it rather stays away from all things Qatari, and seems entirely market driven (ex its willingness to give Israelis a voice). The voice of al Jazeerah reflects more or less what the market will bear, and shows no sign of Qatari governmental interference (with the sole exception of not covering Qatar, which given Qatar is insanely rich, moderate and teeny-weeny, is a small hiccup we can live with).

Rather, given the poor media market here, this will either become disguised government ownership (less transparent in other words) or the mouthpiece of a Saudi who is as likely to destroy the brand and its free media approach.

The idea that Arabs will turn to things like blogs and the like is risible. Please, please don't write such nonsense. First, most internet media is in roman alphabet, which a majority do not know well. Second, internet penetration is poor at best, third, there are already the Sat TV stations, and without al-Jazeerah we go back to the single choice model (this time with al-Arabiyah), meaning less competition, and the .... drum roll, real State TV stations.

The issue here is that with an immature market, largely due to structural issues that also constrain "alternative" sources. It would be great if a genuine market in media was ready in the Arab world (and believe me, I've studied this for private equity), but it is not yet. Multiple reasons I will not go into, of which regulatory is but one.

As such, one has to work within the framework of what is actually possible. Rushing ahead with the naive idea that markets will magically support or solve issues gets one in a world of hurt, as the CPA found out in Iraq.

Eventual privatization of al-Jazeerah as a genuine advert market emerges, as the concept of free media and expression gets more ground, etc. is something to plan for and hopefully will occur. A fire sale political privatization to get ill informed American critics and ill informed as well as petulant American official pressure off the Qatari government's back is not. It's likely to create a non-transparent transfer, a less competitive environment for news and actually set back the idea of free media.

In short, it's wrong headed.

Now, I noted at the start that this was an occasion to reflect on American policy in general and the problem of appropriately specifying the problems.

The comments supra reflect, and my apologies (bounded as they are) if I misread, a rather typical misreading of the situation as something like Eastern Europe, as Cold War II.

Quite simply, this is not the case. The MENA region structurally - either from an economic or a political point of view is in a quite different space. Market structures are present, simply badly developed (in most cases) and facing rather significant natural barriers (MENA region at its best has a thin natural resource base, with unstable natural environemnts). There is some significant hangover from Arab Socialism, and a history of state ownership, but there is also a history of contnuing market economies. Egypt, Syria and Algeria are the only countries that come really close to the Eastern European situation; all three are basket cases economically although the Egyptian situ is by far the most frightening.

However, the economic structural problems in gross throughout the region are ones markedly different in most respects from Eastern Europe. They range from mass illiteracy (although several Arab countries have very good rates), domination by traditional "big family" commercial groups with a rather risk adverse rent seeking profile, and a number of extreme manifestations of rather typical developing world business issues (see: here).

The political environment for change is not that of Eastern Europe throwing off its Soviet yoke, but of a resentful distrustful set of populations with memories of the (often very real, although as well oft exagerated) injustices of Western European rule and intervention, as well as the West's cynical support of dictators where convenient. Not that I have anything against cynical support of dictators per se, but one has to be realistic about the results, as well as the costs. It makes one's high flying rhetoric ring rather hollow in the ears of others.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Lounsbury Take on the Elections (Iraq)

So far, so good.

First, the process so far looks far better than my pessimism predicted. It's always good to be surprised by the upside, not the downside.

Second, keep in mind this is not a "victory" - this is a step towards a potential shift in direction, a positive step, a positive shift, but it's all potential. Don't get carried away with the simple minded rhetoric and so forth. It's clear that most Iraqis would like to see stabiltiy and peace. So did most Lebanese. However, the hard men with the guns have a way of trumping the middle.

If the US can play a savvy game (I discount this at a very, very high discount rate, let's say if the idea of the US playing a savvy game here was commercial paper, it would be junk status), then things can turn around.

I actually had a convo with my contact Sunday, worth mentioning on this subject. For some reason he thinks I know what I am talking about - frankly I kinda sorta know relative only to people not in the region; politics is not my speciality. This aside, we were rapping about the game going forward, I noted that I am sure that if the government emerging from these elections wants to maintain street cred, they have to - no question about this - ask the US to leave, and at least make noises about it being right soon. Noises, of course, are negotiable, a bargaining position. My contact opined that no way was the US not going to get bases, "of course" the Iraqis would want them. I don't think so myself - but my advice, were I an advisor to Rice, would be leave the question open to discussion when the US has some positive Baraka on the ground. Right now the feel good factor in re US troop presence is absent, in fact it's negative (and that is largely the US's own trigger happy penny wise pound foolish 'force protecting' fault - I note, and I am sure I said this in public, say on the SDMB, that my Milintel Amigos in Amman were complaining the Boys needed crash training on policing else bad things would happen. They were right, but their head honchos did not act.). You don't want to push the question when you'r hated. Merely disliked is okay, hated, no.

The savvy game was to be to keep obvious interference to a minimum, to be ready to play ball with the religious Shiites and not get hung up on the idiotic rhetoric of the Islamophobes in re "theocracy" and the like. Tehran won big influence, but in this move, playing American football style blocking only blows your game. This has to be martial arts, use the challenger's momentum, not block it like a dumb log.

Engagement, sophisticated diplomacy and pure cynicism looking for stability can actually turn this bitch around.

Stupidity, self-deception and pandering to the Know Nothing crowd in the US at the expense of doing deals that need to be done will fuck this into hell again.

So, note to my conservo readers: What's needed is not a Choir Chorus, it's barking to make sure the game is not fucked.

I prefer winning myself.

And there is always my zombie project....... I would shed tears of greedy joy if somehow these contemptible idiots got the game right.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 01, 2005

Transfering spending to Iraqi Ministries

An article of note.

U.S. Revises Iraq Rebuilding Plan
Iraqi Ministries Will Be Able to Control Some U.S.-Funded Projects
By Sue Pleming
Reuters
Tuesday, February 1, 2005; 2:18 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54333-2005Feb1.html

About bloody time. Now, do note, this means corruption, waste and the like. However, corruption and waste have to be measured against what is currently being achieved.

No decisions have been taken over which sectors will be touched this time but the $10.4 billion already obligated, or contractually agreed on, with U.S. contractors will likely not be greatly affected.

The remainder of the $18.4 billion earmarked for various sectors but not yet contractually tied up would be touched first and companies promised large amounts of work in earlier contracts would likely not reach their top values.

This means construction and engineering giants such as Bechtel, Fluor , Parsons, Perini , Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root and others with prime deals in Iraq, will not make as much as they anticipated.

Officials conceded some companies might be disappointed, but pointed out others overwhelmed by security risks in Iraq could be relieved. One firm quit at the end of last year.

"This has not been the golden egg people thought it was going to be," said one official, referring to the heady days when the U.S. government staged roadshows for eager firms.

I know the Parsons people are not going to be shedding any tears.

And those roadshows were so fantastically off base it was painful. The months of April and May were excusable, the fact (as my early journal entries note) the same idiocy was being pimped as the insurgency took off was inexcusable. (And again, American Conservatives bear a huge portion of the blame for being fucking ideo Zombies rather than fixing on the facts, a point which continues to irritate me with the new "all is good" happy talk push.)

Now here is a point of real concern:
In a bid to curb abuse, the Pentagon's Iraq Project and Contracting Office (PCO) will be responsible for paying Iraqi contractors chosen by the ministry.

Talks between the State and Defense departments have been animated over these plans, with some Pentagon staff nervous they would be held responsible for mistakes made by the ministries. "We don't want to be the fall guys," said one defense official.

The reality is that money will be wasted. I hope that fear of axe grinding does not hold things back. Better the Oil for Food bullshit (and idiotic axe grinding from the slavering gods of ideology in the American right) than the paralysis and bean counting posturing of the CPA.

One does not get things done in this region by Holier Than Thou-ism. Maybe it's real world time.

Meanwhile, I am thinking that maybe, just maybe a zombie might start twitching again.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More FT pimping: Meaning of Iraq

Another good FT piece:

Building order out of disorder in Iraq
By Noah Feldman
Published: January 31 2005 21:00 | Last updated: January 31 2005 21:00
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/30b9680a-73be-11d9-b705-00000e2511c8.html

Some extracts:
The Iraqis who braved violence to vote on Sunday in the country's first free election in 50 years were, like voters everywhere, expressing democratic belief in ownership over their political future. Well maybe, but moving along:
Many also believed, in accordance with the teaching of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the moderate Iraqi Shia leader, that voting was a religious obligation. If, as seems likely, the Shia parties associated with Mr Sistani have taken a substantial majority, elected officials who describe themselves as Islamic democrats will, for the first time, actually get the opportunity to govern after taking office.

Emphasis added. I think this is a more on spot note; much of as-Sistani's people, under another Iraqi scenario, would have been marginalized in the US plan as "Islamists" (which many are)

Now we may see how (Shia, but not theocratic in the proper sense of the term) can play ball. May. A number of things can go wrong, and indeed if history is any guide in re the American Administration's ham handed, navel gazing incompetence, they will. Largely due to US incompetence, with a fair dollop of blind Iraqi nationalist instringeance and sectarian hatred.

The author's note is spot on:
What Iraq needs is a constitution that not only specifies individual rights and reconciles democratic principles with an official role for Islam, but that will also function as a kind of peace treaty, guaranteeing the Sunni minority - accustomed to running Iraq under Saddam Hussein and before - a real role in shaping the country's future. For this to happen, the Sunnis must have representation in the negotiations over the shape of the constitution, despite their absence in large numbers from the National Assembly. Not only that, a significant number of Sunnis must be prepared to stop supporting the insurgency and swing their support behind a political resolution.

The election is an open door to a potential win, it can easily convert into an own goal.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq: British Reflection (FT)

This merits a close read and reflection.

War stories
By Carne Ross
Published: January 28 2005 17:53 | Last updated: January 28 2005 17:53
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cb9e8196-7032-11d9-b572-00000e2511c8.html

An extract:
This example illustrates how governments and their officials can compose convincing versions of the truth, filled with more or less verifiable facts, and yet be entirely wrong. I did not make up lies about Hussein’s smuggling or obstruction of the UN’s humanitarian programme. The speeches I drafted for the Security Council and my telegrams back to London were composed of facts filtered from the stacks of reports and intelligence that daily hit my desk. As I read these reports, facts and judgments that contradicted “our” version of events would almost literally fade into nothingness. Facts that reinforced our narrative would stand out to me almost as if highlighted, to be later deployed by me, my ambassador and my ministers like hand grenades in the diplomatic trench warfare. Details in otherwise complex reports would be extracted to be telegraphed back to London, where they would be inserted into ministerial briefings or press articles. A complicated picture was reduced to a selection of facts that became factoids, such as the suggestion that Hussein imported huge quantities of whisky or built a dozen palaces, validated by constant repetition: true, but not the whole truth.

It is clear from the evidence available that something similar went on with the question of Iraq’s weapons. This neither confirms nor fully refutes the “noble lie” thesis of deliberate deceit. But, rather, it suggests a more complex and subtle, and if anything more disturbing, story.

and further on

If Iraq was not a threat and not collaborating with terrorists, why did the Bush and Blair governments go to war? Several plausible explanations have been offered by others: the US administration’s need, after 9/11, to demonstrate its power - anywhere, anyhow; a “mission civilatrice” to democratise the world by force, an impulse given strength by the vigorous and forceful lobby of the Iraqi opposition. But less credible, given the record on sanctions, is the claim that the welfare of the Iraqi people was the primary concern.

Interesting materials, well worth reflection.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Further: Foreign Listings

Foreign listings in New York
Big Apple blues
Jan 27th 2005 | HONG KONG
From The Economist print edition
China's banks are the latest companies to shy away from a New York listing
http://economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3600329

Frankly, London looks very good from a number of points of view, not the least one is less likely to get mixed up in American wierdness in re WOT, SO and so forth. I frankly think with US overreaction at present, you have to be smoking crack to place there.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Meanwhile, Private Equity

Private equity
Size matters
Jan 27th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Buy-outs are all the rage
http://economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3600304

Europe is growing nicely. I have a hard time believing the mega-funds can sustain the trend however.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Citigroup: Why Shredding Can Be Important

Citigroup bond trading memo revealed
By Päivi Munter
Published: January 31 2005 22:06 | Last updated: February 1 2005 10:17
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/086cefce-73ce-11d9-b705-00000e2511c8.html

Citigroup's huge trades in the eurozone government bond market last August - which were later described as “knuckle-headed” by Chuck Prince, its chief executive - came shortly after an internal memorandum spelt out how the US investment bank could “very profitably” destabilise the market.

The memo, obtained by the Financial Times, outlines a strategy to shake up the eurozone market, where trading margins have contracted because of transparency and stiff competition.

Ahem.

Cough.

Ahem.

I believe that Citi's lawyers will be soon making special pleas.

Otherwise, hubris bad, even if one figures out how to do really neat things with the market.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Example No. 35 of Criminal Idiocy (expanded)

Again on the personal, an illustration of why this organization deserves to go belly up. Their procedures on executing anything are so criminally stupid as to be stunning.

This time, upgrading internal server to a new security level. Fine.

Except they sent the notification (the one and only notification) after they did so. Everyone over here lost all access to the network, etc. etc. etc. Boom, just like that. Lucky for them, I understood after a few moments what had happened (given the [error] message [on trying to connect]) and divined how to get us back up. Me. Not IT, me.

Drooling half-witted baboons. I work with drooling half witted baboons.

Edit

Further, their stupidity is going to make my head explode. One of the big idiots visited recently and an article appeared in the press. I translated it for them. Now, the arty was pretty positive, and it was in the generalist press, so I thought, hey, good press is good. Above all since we suck. What do I get back: request to retranslate the article because it doesn't say something they think it should say. What the fuck do they fucking think, I have a magic wand to edit the arty? It was motherfucking published, it says what it says. Instead of whinging, thank me. I'm not a motherfucking translator, I did it as a mohterfucking favor, although lord the fuck knows why I would do these incompetent cretins any favors at all. Second, they complain that the branding was properly positioned. ..... Again, what am I, the magic foreign press fucking fairy? I sent off a note saying I am usually quite happy when they get our bloody names right, complaining about "positioning" seems a bit rich.

Were I "The Overseas Marketing Department" I might feel responsible for these things, but since I am not, I don't. Above all as I wince in trying to get our services out the door, rather feeling as if all items should come with the caveat: "Yes, We Suck, and Home Office will change deliverables according to some inscrutable moronic whim of their own, and thus leave you with crap, and then they will ask me to make the case that 'our model is different'" - although why the bloody castrated fuck the client should care about our 'model' rather than the deliverable entirely fucking escapes me, and how they think I could actually stand with a straight face before the gullible morons who have had the bad luck to work with us to date and say, "Yes, the deliverable sucked and this is not really what you signed up for, but hey, our model is different."

Different from what? I would say different from competent, well run firms. We very much prefer to play off of some entirely undeserved reputation obtained I think through political corruption or something similar, perhaps bribery, and stumble around in our newest sucker markets delivering crap.

And I thought building new business would be challenging and interesting use of my talents here. Rather, it leads me to occasional bouts of near suicidal depression at how entirely stupid I was for signing up with these incompetent bumbling deranged fucking baboons, for whom to become magical talking baboons would be such an advance forward that I almost can not imagine ..... The solace is my local director feels the same way. The only thing we have in common, besides not really liking eachother, is our utter contempt for these drooling sub-moron baboon filth. It does make for interesting lunch convos. Between sniping at each other, we can sincerely commiserate over how decieved we are. At least I know it's not just me. Mass resignation is right out though.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Fine headline today on MENA policy

Translating:
"The Moderate European Vision or the American Hammer Blows?: The Arab World is Thirsty for Democracy. Is it necessary to criticize the USA for its imperialism accompanied by arrogance, or take them at their word?"

Series of articles about the Great Middle East Project the US has inserted into the G8 agenda.

I think I need to write something on miscomprehension on both sides as to policy and the like.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 31, 2005

More Upbeat

Bad day today, but it ends on a positive note. Just got a call from a group putting together a Fund and a bid on some big money. They want me to be part of the RFP. Here's to success.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

And on Media: al Jazeerah

Qatar Advances Plans To Privatize Al-Jazeera
U.S. Has Criticized Arab TV Network
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 31, 2005; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49759-2005Jan30.html

Just in time for my comments.

Let me focus on the following:

Still, in late 2003, Qatar announced it would begin exploring ways to privatize the network. Pressure from the U.S. government, the journalist said, was the final straw -- but ironic, given the Bush administration's stated desire to support democracy and free media in the Middle East.

Indeed ironic. However, it would appear free media is meant as "free pro American media."

"The same administration that is spending millions of dollars to have independent or free media in the region is participating in the potential silencing of media in the process," said the journalist, who requested anonymity because all public comments from the network are supposed to come from Ballout.

....

Although U.S. officials have appeared occasionally on the network to reach its vast audience, they have long complained that al-Jazeera's coverage is politically inflammatory and, at times, factually flawed.

So US absence from the number one or number two news source in the region is .... petulance?

I would say yes.

Powell publicly complained about al-Jazeera to the government of Qatar in April. As The Washington Post reported, after Powell had "very intense" discussions about the network with the Qatari foreign minister, Hamad Bin Jasim Thani, the minister said: "I heard with great attention what the U.S. administration had to say about it. I am not directly involved, but I will certainly deliver it to the right people in Qatar."

Ballout said that the criticism of the network by senior U.S. officials was "unprecedented" and that, far from being biased, al-Jazeera had explored taboo topics and provided an independent platform for diverse views that had been missing from the Arab media.

"The vast majority of the criticism of al-Jazeera has been politically motivated," he said.

I have to agree.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Life in MENA: Various Follow ons (edit: cleaned out XML crap)

Media II: American Media Availability

An interesting item to note. MBC, the big Middle East media group that is behind al-Arabiyah and several other ArabSat channels is launching a channel (“4” - per the adverts) focused on rebroadcasting American news magazines/newscasts.

I hope that this is a sign of cleverness on the part of the United States, and that they’re going to pull the plug on that ridiculous waste of resources that is al-Hurra and focus on exploiting channels that already have legitimacy. I have some thoughts on how “4” is being done, and I hope they’re correct.

Sexual mores in MENA

Well, this is a question that I am not sure I can answer. Certainly I am not going to give personal observations of the type I believe are being requested. I can answer on what I have observed, but with the caveat that the degree of generalizability is perhaps suspect.

On the other hand, my own first hand observations match some works that looked at sociological trends, so they are perhaps not entirely off base.

I suppose my short answer is, my sensation is that urban morals are very 1950s American Ozzy and Harriet era; quite a lot of hanky panky goes on, but on the sly, and virginity has to be maintained. I can’t speak to the countryside.

The key point to retain is age of marriage – largely due to economic constraints attached to relatively unchanged standards regarding what a young couple has to have in terms of marriage ceremony (expensive) and housing (apartment, etc.) – is rapidly rising in the Arab world, especially in urban areas. In North Africa this is in the 30-35 range for me and the 25-30 range for women.

That is easily a full decade more than the traditional ages of marriage. People being people, a decade to two decades after puberty is a long time to wait… so while the “urfi” marriage may or may not be used everywhere, I would say my sense is there are socially accepted – so long as appearances are maintained – means of getting around the issue.

Alcohol consumption in the MENA - how does it vary in the region given the Islamic prohibition
Very hard to generalize on that.

Let me say that my impression is that ex-KSA, quite a lot of tippling goes on, even down to the popular/working class level. Certainly the liquor shops in the region carry brands that I have a very hard time imagining either expats or well-heeled ‘liberal’ locals drinking, and there are not enough Xian Arabs in the pop to support such widespread distribution of piss poor mass market headache making alcohol.

Obviously clear data is not available. The best I can say on an impressionistic basis is that among Arab Muslim men an important percentage (but probably not exceeding 30 percent) engage in the odd drink, and that merely having the odd drink is not considered that big a deal except among the “Holy Roller” set. On the other hand, ordinarily one should not be known as a regular drinker, that is more clearly considered a “bad thing” outside of upper class circles. Or another way to put it, something like pot use in North America – an occasional puff in one’s youth or perhaps at a party slides without huge reaction, but one should not be seen as a regular user. Highly inexact analogy but hopefully illustrates my sense of what I see. Now, nota bene, I obviously interact much more with middle class and upper middle class – and in fact the ultra rich here – than with the lower middle class to poor. At upper middle class and above levels, morals tend to be very Euro oriented, although they will not necessarily cop to that in wider public situs.

Finally, in the context of a 1950s America style morality, women drinking is seen as much, much more sinful than men. Typical Mediterranean basin macho double standards, not unique to the Arabo-Islamic world, although the degree is a bit worse.

I would note that there is plenty of textual evidence that drinking was hardly unknown in the classical period, although I would suspect that the pattern of elite and marginal consumption is one of long historical depth.

Popular music. What do people listen to in the Arabic world?
Depends. This is quite regional. Young urban listeners in the Mashreq (Egypt and east) seem to prefer Lebanese and Egyptian Arab pop music, as well as the latest top 50 type Western music. It’s catchy at times but not that interesting, at least to my tastes. Diana Haddad, Amr Diab, Sultan are a few names that come to mind, although they are not the latest. Nancy Arjam is newer. There’s quite a lot of variability in what I call “Leb-Egypto Pop” for short. Anything from poppy pseudo rap in Arabic to very 1980s poppy groups, to somewhat more traditional sounding pop. Of course regionally or by a country basis there are country level stars – e.g. the Gulf, Gulfie pop is popular (mixed in with Leb-Egypto Pop and Western pop), and a few of their stars break out into the wider Arab music scene. Same with Sudan, although it seems to me the Sudanese pop is off in its own world and doesn’t get much pan Arab play. Too African I guess. I can’t ever recall hearing Yemani or Omani pop, but I presume there are a few groups out there.

I’d say that outside of the big urban centers, tastes move to the traditional, so you’ll hear more cassettes of (local/national/regional) neo-traditional groups, plus generic Leb-Egypto pop, far less often Western music. I suppose this is not unlike any place in the world, the break between urban and non-urban tastes.

As for the percentages, hard to say, probably most music stations play something like 60 Arab 40 Western or misc., such as Hindi pop which sometimes marks a few big hits (and is well known to the population from Bollywood films). Varies of course.

What is odd to note is the Mashreq hardly ever listens to North African music, at all, although to my ears, North African music kicks Mashreqi tunes up and down the street. As in news, the Maghreb knows more or less what is going on in the Mashreq, but the Mashreq pays less attention to the Maghreb than it does to the West or elsewhere.

As for the Maghreb, essentially you have 3 or 4 divisions. You’ve got Algerian dominated Rai – Arabic or mixed Arabic French style: see Khaled (aka Cheb Khaled), Cheb Mami, Rachid Taha for examples – leading the pack for influence, you’ve got country level variations on that or derived from the local pop (Chaabi, Chaaouiah), esp. in Morocco, you’ve got traditional music and more and more, neo-traditional music. On the last that really means modernized Berber music adapted to either the classic Arab or Western meters. I have to say the really traditional Berber music is hard on the ears. I don’t know music well enough to describe it, but let’s just say that it follows a musical form almost as different as say Vietnamese music (which a friend once described as two cats being beaten together).

The urban radio component is more or less like in the Mashreq, except sub in Rai for Leb-Egypto pop, and maybe up the dosage of local-Euro fusion coming from the Mahgrebine diaspora in Europe. Some of that stuff is truly interesting, such as the recent “Rai-n-B” fusions. The same comment goes for the country side (so that I warn you, taking a long distance mini-bus in the deep countryside of Morocco may have you listening to the very queer Chleuh or Amazighr vocal stylings, essentially female I note; it can be wearisome for the ears).

I should note that in each region, Mashreq and Maghreb, classical music remains popular – their classical music, not Western classical music. Nothing “nerdy” about listening to a classic piece in this region. However, both are quite different from each other to my ears, although apparently of similar derivation.

There you go, that’s the overview. I am afraid I am most unlearned in music, so I can’t do much better than this.

A MENA ETF (bis): Or Portfolio Investing in the Region
Let me reinterpret the MENA Exchange Traded Funds question to a more general observation.

Among the key issues for the portfolio investor in the region is the thin liquidity available in public companies. That means that even if you engage, say me, to construct a portfolio, it’s hard to do so because frankly the amount of paper actually circulating (never mind the number of public companies is also thin) is pretty minimal. Even if you can take a position large enough to be interesting, getting out is a serious problem. I should reflect more on this later.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

ArabSats Iraqi Election Coverage: Al-Jazeerah and al-Arabiyah [edit to update]

Al-Jazeerah and al-Arabiyah election coverage.

Sadly I have not been able to closely follow this, too busy, but some random comments on what I did catch yesterday (following text written at the time, too lazy to edit for time refs):

Interesting story on al-Jazeerah on Iraqi Jews in Israel wishing to vote in the Iraqi elections are going to Jordan to vote. They interviewed a good number, quite interesting and varied point of views. With one or two exceptions all interviews were in very good Arabic. A lot of emphasis on Iraqi nationalism among Iraqi Jews and a desire to return when it’s possible. Among the interesting points from the interviews – and we may have selection bias here, was the expressed view that the Americans have to leave Iraq. Very interesting – no doubt some play to the expected audience and perhaps a view to future relations, but on the other hand the affirmation of nationalist feeling by the largely older men struck me as being… well it sounded very Iraqi.

The discussion on afterwards was quite mixed. Several commentators saw it as an “Israeli interference” while several others saw it as an affirmation of the “Iraqiness” of “their former Jews” and a good thing. Interesting coverage, although trivial issue insofar as the numbers involved were so small. However, I do believe it is a point of reflection on al-Jazeerah. Certainly one can see how their point of view –their bias– is not as some idiot Western commentators have it “jihadi” but rather old school Arab nationalist.

Another item to note, it looks like advertising is picking up on the ArabSats-it may be that there has been a perverse feedback from negative US commentary on al-Jazeerah….

Otherwise, a lot of coverage of the injuries and killed kids from insurgent attacks on the voting centers: rather better for the political situation than the coverage of Americans killing people. What is needed clearly is not more Fallujahs but moving US reaction off the front pages / leads, and refocus on the insurgents. That is not going to happen, by the way, by whinging on about the bias of the ArabSats or other special pleading (which may be translated as “don’t do your job, be our agitprop organ”), but by making reaction better, smarter and more Iraqi. And not using sledgehammers (C-130 gunships) when screwdrivers (Spec forces) are needed.

Of course this has been true for a long time. The hard part is the Iraqi part.

By the way, in terms of communications, I would be remiss not to note that I have been pretty impressed with the quality of the Iraqi election promotion advert campaign. It’s been pretty good, although maybe just a bit too slick. If anything might be mistaken, I think it may be the slickness. Nice appeals to Iraqi nationalism however, and no hesitancy in using Islamic symbols (women in hijabs, etc).

I also would note that the interviews that both al-Jazeerah and al-Arabiyah have been running have been very hopeful and positive in re belief in the elections. I have been impressed. It appears that Iraqis themselves have been impressed with the way the elections came off. That’s an initial impression and it will be spun – I also warn that the feel good feeling that is pretty evident in the areas where things could come off will not last, and could turn very negative if “their” (whomever their is) party/group or whatever doesn’t do as well as expected (in their view). That is, elections are not something automatically conveying legitimacy here in the region: think to the bitterness and questions on the part of the Democrats post 2000 and even this round (noting that I grant the Democrats that they had good reason in 2000 to be upset and question the results). For the disappointed, I doubt there will be any hesitation to call into question the results, and the general population will not approach the idea of elections with the reservoir of trust that we find in the West. Rather their reservoir, their institincts, their gut as it were, is distrust, given 40 odd years of highly suspect and faked elections.

Still, I have to say I am taking away a bit of hope. There is a potential of potential to turn things around here – if first of all the Americans resist the temptation (I am not holding my breath) to clumsily and obviously screw around with the results, and similarly clumsily impose policies on the government. I refer back to the Allaouie government’s initial move to pardon almost all the resistance including those who had killed Americans if they would lay down their arms, something rather clumsily and stupidly reversed under clear American pressure.

Another item to retain in re the interviews, almost 100 percent contained some mention of getting the Americans out. This round, if it works, is not going to produce support for American troops or American oversight of the government, quite the contrary, it is pretty clear that the Iraqi street is seeing this as an opportunity to get the occupiers out.

A point of potential early conflict, the popular desire to see the trigger happy Americans off their streets and the inability of the Iraqi government to field replacements. Hard to see how this is going to be resolved. Certainly any government that does not make some kind of request / demand for the Americans to leave is going to be seen automatically as nothing more than façade number two.

Trivial note, I note that the old style flag seems to have two versions now – one with a Kufic style calligraphy and another with a kind of generic calligraphy for the Allah Akbar.

Do we all recall the idiotic fiasco with the CPA backed “new flag?” Trivial on one level but profoundly reflective of how CPA and its underlings focused on idiotic trivial political imagery, and even there got it all wrong.

Another trivial note: the al-Arabiyah announcer this afternoon had one of the strangest outfits I have seen. Essentially in the place of a blouse, she was wearing a see through lace body stocking type deal, with a sexy turtleneck style neck, underneath a right tight herringbone jacket.

Rather like office wear in my office. And people think women only dress in hijabs….. I’m not sure however that the above is a good thing (although the chick looked right good….).

[Edited]
I forgot to mention that across the talk during the day, the Shia reps had a fine little dance around the issue of the Kurds and autonomy. It sounded promising in the sense that they sounded willing to give the Kurds a bit of rope, but not too much.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Cover

My Embassy man really should have better cover. Now, I know the pose is as Econ Officer and supposedly has a Wall Street background, but his acquiantance with finance is so transparently thin I often ask myself, "Am I the only one who notices?"

Of course, recently when we were out driving and I did a bit of a .... I was driving like an expat asshole in a black german sedan to be frank, he started waxing nostalgic about his driver training course, where they learned how to do all kinds of neat things. Anti Terror of course. Oddly, it sounded exactly like the driver course my amigos on the other side of the river described.

Luckily he shows great interest in my introducing him to the hotter of the banker chics I know. Not that there is a future in that, but I derive some baraka I think, although the last one did not work out. Why he came clean as to being still hung up on his last chica I have no idea. When I observered I was remarkably free of such scruples and second thoughts he said "Yeah, I know." .... I was a bit put off by this. Either I am terribly transparent or ... well what? Hmmm, it may be transparency. Not that his cover is any better.

Still, I like the guy, but he better not burn too many chicas. Hate to get a bad rep.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More issue on banking

Personal it is, more problems with wire transfers, this time on a US-overseas wire.

The issue was destination, got flagged. US terror crap.

I am really beginning to question if having US accounts is in any way worth the enormous headaches The US of Piss in My Pants is imposing on me. Whinging motherfuckers.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 29, 2005

The Media Question

If I may, my response to the media question in the Open Q&A:

Media:

“Do Arabs currently have a free choice between FOX, CNN, Al-Jazeera and Al-Jazeera clones? If not, do you think the vast majority of them would stick to AlJ and ALJ-clones?”

I am not sure what is meant here. Free choice in what sense? Access? Ability to understand?

First, it strikes me that except in the very poorest households in the countryside, most people have satellite TV – even in shanty towns. Egypt is a bit of an exception, but to what extent depends on where you are. Situation may have changed since I last lived there.

Second, as a general matter most people watch the Arabsats, but Western channels are in general available – on ArabSat, which gives the best regional reception, there are several, EuroSat and Hotbird both carry a full panalopy of largely un-scrambled.channels, and pirated decoding is widespread.

In short, for most of the region, access to Western channels, including news channels is perfectly possible, although excepting CNN International I don’t know American ones are carried on the Sats.

Now the next the question is, can people understand them. Certainly in North Africa French is widespread enough on at least on oral basis that channels such as Euronews are fairly widely watched. The same can’t be said for the Middle East proper, but certainly the offering of English language news is there for those who have at least a modicum of oral English.

Now, if the question is are there Arabic language clones of Western channels, or American points of view, that’s entirely different. Perhaps the only free market Arabic language channel with a vaguely Western point of view is CNBC Al Arabiyah, but this is a business focused channel, a bit different.

I am not sure what is meant by “al-Jazeera clones” but what I can say is that al-Jazeera’s coverage is very much market driven and reflects local tastes. Al Arabiyah, it’s most popular competitor (it may have a better viewership numbers than al-Jazeera) certainly gets accused by USG as being anti American often enough. I frankly think this a gross misunderstanding but there it is.

The answer in short is that the ArabSat channels reflect local tastes.

This also tells you the way most Americans talk about and analyze the media issue in the Arab world (as if it was Eastern Europe 1980) is utterly wrong-headed. Thus the idiotic "Radio Sawa" and "al Hurra" - they both utterly misconstrue the problem.

“If they had democracy ( that is, the demos elects people who then vote laws ), do you think that would be better or worse for women's status?”

It depends on what you mean by women’s status.

In the short term, I would expect that formal legal status for women in areas sensitive to local mores to respond more clearly to local mores rather than elite Western desires.

“Do you think religion and politics would be more of less interwined then they are?”

No, why would one think so? Has religion disappeared from politics in the USA? After a period of time the relationship might get healthier, however.

" Would states be more or less hostile ( actively so ) than they are right now?"

Hostile to whom?

“I realise that results may vary from one country to another. If so, please indicate the general trend and the exceptions.”

Well, that goes a bit beyond the time I have available at the moment, hopefully above gave a decent view.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 28, 2005

Hedge Funds, the entertaining side

See http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a2e879b6-708f-11d9-b572-00000e2511c8.html

Includes such gems as: Hedge funds have nothing to do with hedges.
You'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise as newspaper articles on the subject are invariably illustrated with pictures of garden hedges. and Hedge fund managers spend about 80 per cent of their day staring at computer screens.
The rest of their time is spent meeting companies that are looking for investors, barking instructions to dealers and having phone conversations that go like this: "Yup. Yup. Yup. Yup. The second half looks good. Yup. Yup. Yup. Yup." and "• Hedge fund managers have many more words and phrases for losing money than for making money.
My notebook reveals that Rob and Gervais had tens of different ways to describe losses ("we got burnt on that", "we got carted", "we got pissed all over") but only really one way of describing gains ("we made a fuckload of money on that"). (ain't that true...)

I love the FT for allowing whimsy to enter its reporting.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Reprise of "New Happy Talk"

Thinking back to this: http://www.livejournal.com/users/collounsbury/269854.html

I refer you to this Sullivan comment:
http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_01_23_dish_archive.html#110688929366577681

And my comment

IRAQ'S LIBERALS: "In Iraq, the very centerpiece of the U.S. campaign to export democracy, 'democratic movements and institutions' are dying, the result of illiberalism, U.S. neglect, and, above all, sheer physical insecurity. As it grinds into its third year, the war for a liberal Iraq is destroying the dream of a liberal Iraq." That's Lawrence Kaplan's grim verdict from Baghdad. No doubt he will now be derided as a squishy left-liberal defeatist - but, in fact, Lawrence was one of the most stalwart supporters of the war against Saddam, co-authored a passionate pro-war book with Bill Kristol, and is a card-carrying neoconservative. (He's also a friend). But he's not blind; and he's not dishonest.

This last part is what I was getting at.

However this comment is just plain looney:
The failure is in part a failure to get the U.S. bureaucracy to support liberal institutions and groups; but it is also simply a failure of order and security.

I have to say that I can not figure out where the bloody fuck Sullivan is getting that from. Failure to support liberal institutions?

That makes no sense whatsoever. Rather putting namby pamby frilly building democracy idiocy before delivering saftey and basic services.

Democracy was always going to be hard in Iraq. But democracy amod chaos and violence is close to impossible. And we never sent enough troops or conducted a smart enough post-victory occupation plan to maintain order and defeat a fledgling insurgency while we still could. So we are now left to ask ordinary Iraqis to risk their lives in order to leave their homes and vote. Here's the most heart-breaking passage - an interview with the liberal deputy defense minister, Mashal Sarraf, who cannot even leave his own house, because of the chaos:

"We have to admit the terrorists have won," he says. "People cannot engage in civil society; the war has stopped progress; liberalism is over for now." Asked what, if anything, can be done to revive the liberal project, Sarraf replies, "We need an emergency government that does nothing but security. When there is stability, then liberalism will begin to emerge, but only when there is stability."

I know Paul Wolfowitz has read Hobbes. Did he forget it? CPA adviser Larry Diamond hasn't: "You can't have a democratic state unless you have a state, and the fundamental, irreducible condition of a state is that it has a monopoly on the means of violence." As John Burns has written - again no sympathizer for Saddam or cynic - that simply isn't the case in Iraq. Our predicament is that you cannot have democracy without order and you cannot have a new order without democracy. Do I want the elections to succeed? Of course I do. Only those blinded by partisanship or cynicism wouldn't. Maybe a democratic miracle can occur. But at this point it would be exactly that: a miracle. So pray, will you?

Bingo kiddies.

I personally don't believe in miracles.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Living in MENA - Open Q & A

At the suggestion of someone in comments (I forget who, but no matter), and because I am rather too engaged to finish off my second commentary on doing business in MENA, here is an open Q&A session on "Living in MENA."

Ask any questions you want. I will not promise to answer all, only those that either annoy or entertain me, but what can I say.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Last Straws: edit update

Okay, I think I have truly had it with this bunch of baboons - pity because last night we had a home run, slammed dunk a deal. First time, and despite fucking home office almost fucking us on it. They'll find a way to fuck it up.

However, more to the point, I am boiling. Some motherfucker in the home office is trying to set me up with a forged document. Stupid fuck doesn't know that I keep meticulous records and have documentary proof the document version being presented is not my final, but a crude post facto edit.

This dumb bloody fucking game is worthy of some little goddamned fucking firm here, not a US operation. What the fuck are they fucking thinking?

After slamming this down, I really need to exit. This is amateur hour. Motherfucker is going to learn not to fuck with me.

[edit]
Escalated up to the top and nailed to the wall.

I am sick of these idiots.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 26, 2005

On Psy Ops

Cole has an interesting note:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/israeli-arab-news-cycle-i-found-this.html

"So the Israeli Army has a psy-ops unit that used to be very active but has been less so recently, and is now being revived. This psy-ops unit plants articles in the Arab press about groups like Lebanon's Hizbullah, painting them as vicious terrorists. Then it comes to Israeli newspaper like Haaretz with translations, and urges that the pieces be written up for Israeli and Western audiences. .......
So is MEMRI, which translates articles from the Arabic press into English for thousands of US subscribers, in any way involved in all this? Its director formerly served in . . . Israeli military intelligence. How much of what we "know" from "Arab sources" about "Hizbullah terrorism" was simply made up by this fantasy factory in Tel Aviv?"

In the context of an earlier comment by me, I think you know my opinion of what is happening. As for MEMRI, I have long held that it is clearly an Israeli agitprop op, but this raises wierd circularity issues.

However, at the same time, one can be more or less sure that the materials were not utter khayali crap, but rather probably had relationship with reality, for versimiltude.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Sex and The Middle East

I draw your attention to this amusing article.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. Again, the space for play is not as narrow as one might think, it's just when things go wrong, the downside is rather more severe.

Paternity Suit Against TV Star Scandalizes Egyptians
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
Published: January 26, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/international/middleeast/26paternity.html?8hpib=&oref=login&pagewanted=all&position=

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Morons. Really morons

The idiotic petty cash accounting saga goes on. For all that our fucking petty cash is insignificant, motherfucking ForEx movements are far larger than any petty cash spending, but these idiot motherfucking accountants with SO or I don't know what fucking excuse are requesting we do "surprise petty cash counts" and submit a signed "audit".....

They have to be smoking crack. Might better spend their time hedging us against the dollar's plummet than worrying about USD 40 in petty cash.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dollar position, FT: Is Sullivan on crack?

I have to say I read the following on the Sullivan site and I was.... bemused I think is the best word:

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_01_23_dish_archive.html#110660871036790694
"A DOLLAR CRASH? Dan Drezner parses a recent Financial Times headline. Check his comments section too. I have to say the FT is now such an Anti-American paper, I'm beginning to wonder if its financial reporting isn't part of the bias."

What the fuck?

First, the FT is an "anti American paper"? It's certainly not a Bush Admin cheerleader (ex Amity Shlaes' Wall Street Journal impressions) but that makes it "anti American"? Is Sullivan on crack?

Second, the idea that the article in question is "biased" is silly:
Central banks shift reserves away from US
By Chris Giles
Published: January 24 2005 00:03 | Last updated: January 24 2005 00:03
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9ef63678-6d7d-11d9-9b69-00000e2511c8.html
The title could be clearer, but bloody hell, it's a title in a newspaper.

The report is unambig.: a survey of CBs willing to respond anon found a move to reducing dollar asset exposure as intended/planned/desired.

Now sure, if one is not a sophisticated reader one can misread the arty or draw too drastic conclusions, but that's not FT's fault. Where anti American comes into this utterly escapes me - I suppose an example of Right economic illiteracy and substituting politics for economic analysis in operation.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 25, 2005

What would one do?

So, got a message from one of my agency type peeps. A mutual acquaintance of ours is on TV nowadays in the US of A as an Islamic terrorism expert. The funny or odd part is we both know he's somebody's asset. Well, I presume my man knows, whereas I just "know." It makes his spin on his islamic terror .... unamusing at some level. Irritating, but what can one do?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 20, 2005

FT: Peel, his commentary, Iraq

Quentin Peel: Bush has full agenda but no ideas
By Quentin Peel
Published: January 19 2005 21:42 | Last updated: January 19 2005 21:42
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0731ae5a-6a60-11d9-858c-00000e2511c8.html
Let us start with Iraq. The only policy is a desperate hope that the elections at the end of the month will produce an Iraqi administration capable of ending the insurgency and allowing US troops to go home. The reality is that Iraq is teetering on the brink of civil war, and the country has become the biggest terrorist recruiting ground in the world. It is a disastrous policy failure, without a Plan B.

On neighbouring Iran, another member of Mr Bush's infamous "axis of evil", the administration is split and bereft of ideas. The hardliners want to intervene militarily to overthrow the mullahs, while the doves know that would be insane. The result is that Mr Bush has allowed, through gritted teeth, Britain, France and Germany to negotiate a diplomatic deal.

Washington does not believe in it. The report by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine that US special forces are on the ground in Iran seeking to identify nuclear sites as potential targets has a ring of truth, not least because the Pentagon and Iran have joined forces to dismiss it. But in reality, the US needs Iran as a stabilising force, in Iraq and Afghanistan, not as another target for "regime change".

A bit unfair the overall commentary.... well not that unfair.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Learning Arabic for spying

From my favoriate little Leb English daily....

Spies are us: interest in Arabic soars
Primary motivation for American students of the language is to land a job with a government security agency
By Benjamin Sutherland
Special to The Daily Star
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=4&article_id=11923

Well it is clear at least where the annoying accusations arise from.

A few comments on this.

PARIS: In little more than three years since the attacks that shattered the World Trade Center in New York, Arabic has imposed itself as the fastest-growing foreign language studied in the United States. It took just four months after the towers collapsed for the number of American students of Arabic to double, according to the U.S.-based Modern Language Association.

In Europe, too, more people are studying Arabic than ever before. Sergio Gazeau, a publisher in Barcelona, Spain, of Assimil language-learning manuals, says sales of their Arabic handbooks have "risen spectacularly." The company, headquartered near Paris, reports that sales of their Arabic learning series now rival sales of their German manuals.

Doubled. Hah.

Well, that is impressive, although from such a low base, it is hard to say where it is really going. That and of course my sense is most people drop out after about two years, leaving them at a still useless (but perhaps good enough for government work) level. Afterall, the piss poor French US diplos speak seems to suggest that standards in US diplo service are low.

Some Middle Easterners are taking the West's sudden interest for insult. The feeling is that European and American students are studying Arabic to get jobs spying on what they consider to be a dangerous Arab world. That perception is accurate, says the Middle East Language Resource Center, based in Provo, Utah. An extensive survey recently conducted by the center found that the number one motivation of American students of Arabic is to land a job with a government security agency. Only a small minority is chasing business opportunities.

Well, I guess I'm a real minority.

Maurice Botbol, a French expert on Western espionage agencies and editor of the Paris-based Intelligence Newsletter, says Middle Easterners are well aware that many students of Arabic are budding spooks. "It's not USAID that's hiring, it's the CIA; this is for spying and I don't see how Arab public opinion could be flattered by this sudden interest," he says. A CIA official in Langley, Virginia, told The Daily Star that the agency has stepped up hiring by 80 percent, "focusing on recruiting officers with critical language skills related to supporting the 'war on terror.'"

Ouch.

Ouch.

Ouch.

Well dammit USAID, get into the bloody act.

Intelligence agencies in Europe are scrambling to beef up their Arabist sections, too. At the time of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Italy's civil and military intelligence agencies, respectively SISDE and SISMI, employed only five Arabic-speaking agents. Government agencies on both sides of the Atlantic are still having a hard time filling job openings. Private security firms are competing for the same scarce candidates (these companies, beneficiaries of coalition outsourcing, have more personnel in Iraq than Britain's military contingent). Witness Titan Corp, a San Diego-based contractor that provides Arabic interpreters to militaries. Salaries hover around $100,000 a year, but the firm still can't meet the demand for qualified Arabists: coalition soldiers have criticized Titan for sending them unprepared immigrant cabbies and shopkeepers.

Well, besides that, interpretation is a real art.

CACI, a U.S. company that hires interrogators fluent in Arabic, recently reduced requirements from seven years of interrogation experience, to five years, then to two. Academics say the rush to learn Arabic follows a historical pattern in the West. During World War II, students of German eager to get jobs fighting Hitler poured out of American universities. During the ensuing cold war, Sovietologists learning Russian filled universities in NATO-member countries. Carol Saivetz, director of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies at Harvard, says: "Once it became clear that the new Russia was no longer our enemy there was a decline [in interest] from the government on down." In France, the ranks of Russian students have dwindled to half their cold war number, according to the Association Francaise des Russisants.

Wonder what the productivity of the education is?

Hopefully money will be poured into developing decent teaching materials for Arabic. In my day they were so piss poor I sometimes was at a loss to understand how the writers could have thought the methodology was in any way rational or reasonable.

Russians, in stark contrast to many Arabs, tend to see the West's indifference as a sad sign of their decline from a great, feared power. The most serious Western students of Arabic - often those that aspire to work in national security - are pouring into language immersion programs in Arab countries. According to Worldwide Classroom, a directory of schools worldwide based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the number of study-abroad students has jumped by 70 percent since Sept. 11. Traditionally, the bulk of European and American students have chosen schools in North Africa and Lebanon, but that's changing as increasingly resolute learners shun a region with many French - and English-speakers. Many of the new students are filling language schools in countries such as Yemen and Syria, often in spite of parents apprehensive about bombings and frosty relations between Damascus and Washington.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Business opportunity. But Syria is so fucking hard to deal with. And never mind Yemen. Oman. Oman.

A surprising number of private-language schools are popping up in the region, but educators still can't meet the demand. Mike Wittig, director of Worldwide Classroom, says that the figure of 70 percent more Americans studying abroad would be higher if the region's instructor and classroom capacity were greater. Arabic instructors in host countries often advise their students to remain discreet. Barbara Hassib, managing director of Cairo's now thriving International Language Institute, says that foreigners coveting security jobs "better learn early not to tell anybody." Phillip Rugg, a teacher at the Gulf Arabic Program in Al-Ain, U.A.E., says it appears that students at his school have gotten the message: All applicants are asked why they want to study Arabic, but not a single one has said he or she is preparing for a job in intelligence or national security. Rugg says locals regularly ask him why his foreign students are studying Arabic. A minority, Rugg says, seem "downright suspicious."
Emphasis added

I've met enough of these indiscrete little idjits. Even when they don't say it outright, it's usually painfully obvious. I suppose they'll work for DoD in the end - DoD seems to specialize in the painfully obvious brand of intel folks.

Kirk Belnap, director of the Middle East Language Resource Center, confirms that many Arabs are "nervous" about the new attention. But he believes the Arab world should be pleased. He recounts an anecdote: At a recent conference on the study of languages for defense, a U.S. military officer argued that instructors shouldn't teach recruits Arabic culture along with the language lest they become sympathetic. Belnap thinks the officer is fighting a lost battle. It's impossible to separate language from culture and "you can't learn that much about a culture and not come to have some sympathy for that culture," he says. "So all these spies and soldiers we are training are an investment in peace."
Emphasis added

See my DoD comment supra.

I do recall the most entertaining DoD Arabist/Spy I ever met. I won't share detials on him, would blow his cool (presuming it is not already blown, which is likely as he had so very little of it), but he managed near perfection in MSA, but loathed Arabs. Absolutely despised Arab culture, food, literature. Kept up his literature skills by reading translated Western novels. Refused to learn the "gutter" languages that are dialect.

As you might expect, he was fabulously clueless - might was well have been on another planet, certainly none of his analysis seemed to me to be anything but dressed up bigotry.

Sympathy is of course a relative term. But Military officers rarely understand things in those terms.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 19, 2005

A new happy talk push? [Edited ith a comment on comments]

I am suddenly seeing the idiot fringe of the conservative internet-commentary sphere pushing "things are really better than reported / Iraq doing better, reporting biased etc etc." spin again, with a bunch of (oddly simiar) cites to US Mil. types complaining about how progress is going unreported.

This is painful. Self deception is not a useful thing to indulge in when one's policy has gone off a cliff and one it tumbling down to disaster.

Iraq is not going well, that is clear. Repainting a school and indulging in ignorant prattle about how "most" of Iraq is safe (most of Iraq is also almost uninhabited.... and there's a fine correlation between population density and current problems - anyone want to draw conclusions) is NOT how things are going to get better.

This is pollyannish idiocy, enabling incompetence and further idiotic own goal efforts.

[Edit]
A note to my conservative readers, newcomers.
First, let's get this straight. My pessemism and disdain for current Iraq policy is not Left nor Liberal. Anyone who sticks around me finds I am a Financial Times kinda guy, and if you think FT is Left, well.... you need new benchmarks.

Now, I want to make a point here: I feel little desire to "prove" to people who think Iraq is going well that it is not. It's simply not worth my time, I see no net benefit insofar as the proof is what you deny. You either are a "true believer" who desperately wants Iraq to be what ideology says it should, or one is a rational analyst. One or the other.

If one is a rational analyst, it's clear that Iraq is spinning out of control. Major contractors walk away from contracts for security concerns, security eating up upwards of 35-50 percent of recon budgets, direct investors abstaining. This is not "liberal media spin" or whatever self deception you want to impose on yourself. Money talks, money walks.

I would personally be estatic if Iraq was turning around - USD 15 million estatic. However, it isn't. The proper response is not self deception, searching for some goddamned silver lining. The proper response - one that is not simply enabling incompetence and engaging in ideological excuse making - is to pressure for policy changes and resource allocation that might, just might save Iraq from being a once in a century level foreign policy disaster.

Leftist defeatism, the sort of "we're always wrong" and "war profiteering" - attack that, but engaging in self-deception is what enabled the current shitty motherfucking circumstances. Nor do you need be as pessimistic as me, maybe I'm too close, but blaming bad conditions on "liberal media bias is childish, pollyanish nonsense and part of what got things so bad to begin with, for if so called "conservatives" (who in my mind are fast becoming in the United States nothing more than Right Wing Bolsheviks (in the sense of putting ideology before reason and rationality)) had put pressure for more troops, etc., etc. etc. a year ago, instead of shooting at the messangers of reality and touting khayali wishful thinking, then we would be in a better spot (and I personally would be much richer, which is obviously the most important part of the equation.).

Yours truly

Me

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Portfolio Construction

A request if I may. Need to write something on portfolio management and portfolio construction for funds (i.e. publicly traded securities focused portfolios). From the institutional POV. Anyone have some online references on the issue to rev my juices?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 18, 2005

Princess? (updated)

I seem to have been invited to some princesses birthday party. How the bloody hell did that happen? I certainly never met her. Likely an error, but if not... then I might have to go to avoid problems. Very odd. Must be an error though.

Edit / Update
Yes it was an error.

BTW, the Princesses, the king's sisters, are nothing to get excited over.

Further, I am moderately put off that my long discourse on business issues in MENA gets pro forma notes, but the mere possibility I may have been accidentally invited to a Royal Event (in error, as it happened), incites .... well something.

Market schlock.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Poor Burberry - odd directions of consumption.

Hilarious article to draw to your attention from FT
Richard Tomkins: The wrong kind of customers
By Richard Tomkins
Published: January 17 2005 18:31 | Last updated: January 17 2005 18:31

If you are going to read this column, you first need to know what is meant by the word "chav". In Britain, it is the buzzword for a certain type of young, white, feckless low-life prone to the ostentatious display of cheap gold jewellery and logo-festooned designer clothing. The favourite pastimes of the male chav, we are told, are drinking, football, watching television and customising his clapped-out car. The female, regarded as sexually aberrant if she is not pushing a pram by the age of 15, is known for scraping her hair back into an ultra-tight, skin-tautening ponytail dubbed the Croydon facelift in honour of the desolate south London wasteland of office blocks and shopping malls that serves as chavdom's capital.

Croydon facelift. Priceless.

.....

But that is beside the point. The thing that interests me about chavs, at least for the purposes of this column, is the way in which they have adopted the distinctive Burberry check as their unofficial clan tartan (typically, a baseball cap for the males and miniskirt for the females). Last year, two pubs in the Midlands city of Leicester banned people wearing Burberry from entering their premises on the grounds that it had become the uniform of football hooligans and louts - improbably redefining not only the brand but my mother, with her matching Burberry scarf and umbrella.

The article was worth simple that line actually.

I give you this as well, though:
One possible response by brand owners to such unexpected popularity is to exploit it to the full. That is what Tommy Hilfiger did in the 1990s. Originally, the company's classic, preppy clothing was aimed at the well-heeled country club set. But when rappers adopted the brand, it did an about-turn and adopted the hip-hop look, churning out baggy clothes with huge logos at lower prices. Business boomed - only to slump when fans tired of the Tommy Hilfiger name and moved on. Now a new chief executive is trying to rescue the brand from its identity crisis.

So should brand-owners go to the opposite extreme? That appears to be Burberry's preferred strategy, and you can understand why. Hip-hop culture, after all, at least has the virtue of being cool, while chavvery is about as crass as it gets. Burberry stopped making its baseball cap in an effort to drive away its unwanted customers - though the move had little effect because most of the Burberry worn by chavs is counterfeit.

Fortunately, I have a better idea for solving Burberry's problem. First, Burberry should invite all chavs to take advantage of a special offer. To establish their eligibility, they would be asked to take a short test ("Do you use your fingers to add up? Do you know at least three schoolgirls with daughters named Chardonnay? Have you ever ordered a family bucket from KFC?"). Then, those who passed would be offered an unlimited sum to spend on Prada on condition that they they never wore the Burberry check, real or fake, again.

How much can one really do about Counterfiet Chic?

Otherwise, however, there is something appealing about the Prada solution.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 17, 2005

On business in MENA, a short comment (Edited Tues 18 Jan to add thoughts on decision making cycles)

I've owed this comment for a while, and meant to make it as part of another more ambitious item I have been working on, but time is precious so let me take this moment to fill in....

Regardless, some thoughts provoked by some recent meetings and the like that I was invited to, reflecting on the business climate here, etc. The United States is launching an enormous push on economic development for the region, and the Embassy folks are reaching out trying to get their heads around how to put into effect the new marching orders - I've shared my limited wisdom as I know the Economic sections hither and thither quite well (useful for getting things done sometime).

Let me preface these comments with two preliminary items - nothing I note here is a huge revelation, or shouldn't be, and second, no single phenomena is unique to the Arab-Islamic Med Basin, and many things I mention are indeed identifiable in the West. However, it is a matter of degree and form - we are all human and despite the idiot racialists pretensions, one race and species of lying scum with intermittent redeeming characteristics for the sheer novelty value of it.

Dominance of the Oral over the Written or Renegotiability
Among the first things one has to come to understand in doing business in the region is that the dominance of oral over written and the aversion to direct contradiction make coming to and sustaining agreements rather more work than in the developed world. This is really made so by weak and often corrupt court systems. This is a trivial observation that everyone knows, but what is harder to convey is the degree to which this is true (certainly it varies from place to place as well) and the real drags are (a) the degree to which even ordinary agreements can not be assumed to be readily enforceable - but worse (b) the degree to which ad hoc oral renegotiation on need is not only accepted by felt to be a good thing. Why feel? Why not thought? Because I am thinking of the gut feel of the businessman that creates the "ether" - the unsaid fabric of what everyone unconsciously "feels" to be "right." This regardless of what they may analytically think, because under pressure I find gut feel usually triumphs over intellectual analysis - although it might be better not. Let me illustrate with myself as an example. I know, understand very well how these things are worked out here in the region, in general. It's no shock when a supplier or service provider comes back on deadline and asks for an extension or even wants to renegotiate the price (despite there being a fixed price contract) because he or she "needs" more time and money. However, my gut feel is "bzzzzt, you're out" - I speak to situations where there are not real extenuating circumstances - I don't believe in breaking service providers knuckles if there is a genuine issue. My gut feel colors at the very least my sensation of dealing with the person - the supplier is "wrong" in my book (as well as by contract). However, in his book -oddly it is usually his book and not her book, controlling for percentages- he likely feels "right" for in the local "balance book of right and wrong" it is "right" that the wealthy party cut the poor party a break, it is right the supplier stretch out at need, the payer stretch out at need. The formalities of written documentation are not rules, they are rough guidelines that should bend in the wind of need.

One can make the argument, and it feels convincing if one has not seen the aggregate inefficiencies raised, that the personal over the impersonal is more humane, more flexible, kinder to the little guy. On a one on one basis, this is often true. The problem is that the accumulated kindnesses (if we can be a bit abusive and call them that, delays in payment, daisy chains of delays in payment) result in some very clear deadweight losses. Too much capital ends up tied up in working capital to cover payment delays, to cover contracts being informally changed. A wider margin of error has to be withheld from being put to work, for everyone's ultimate benefit, because of small kindnesses. Nevermind it is the smallest operators who also suffer the most by having the most problem with free cash, with liquidity.

My sole quasi-original observation, however, here is that despite the fine words one hears from locals who intellectually understand the problem, their gut feeling - when push comes to shove - sends most into sympathy "for the little guy" - and this same sympathy often plays (when not trumped by connections) in court, regardless of facts. Play in court of course can have a broad meaning including ultimate judgment against the "victim" but only after sympathetic hearing to the most ridiculous delaying maneuvers.

Mentality, difficult to change even after intellectually the change is well understood to be necessary.

An added thought on this; one reads from people like Naomi Klein of multinationals buying laws and courts. I will not deny this occurs, although as usual Klein and her kin focus on the "evil" multinationals as if they were the source of such practices, rather than simply playing ball like the locals. I will assert that pure cases of corruption are rare (the gains versus the downside for a multinational being unbalanced) and that no one on the international side is happy about such things - even if you can buy your way out of an issue, the uncertainty involved is quite unwelcome. Other cases, pressure such as Microsoft's for passing modern intellectual laws often strike me as Quixotic, given that the laws frequently are essentially unenforceable (at least on a consistent basis) given local law enforcement capacity (and this for ordinary crime, let alone esoteric crimes "only foreigners care about.") Potemkin village laws I like to call them.

Of course, one should not pretend that in situ it's only the locals who begin to acquire dodgey practices - I had lunch recently with an IT manager at a major bank here - a major bank which has one of the world's largest banks as a 50 percent equity partner. He amusingly told me of his recent to do when he found out some key software in the bank was in fact pirated and that the major partner, which controls their budget for these things had refused to make it right. Stupid decision, I have to say, because an operational audit will eventually uncover this and... boom, nasty liability.

Regardless, the general unpredictability of relations that should be more predictable, more rule based - clearly rule based rather vague and negotiably rule based - is a real drag on getting things done here in the region. As cited above, it means you have to hold cash back in reserve "just in case" that you might not otherwise. Of course this is not unique to MENA - one has similar challenges throughout the developing world. Certainly, however, one can say that all things being equal, MENA has probably among the most severe challenges outside of sub-Saharan Africa (and with less excuse).

Now, perhaps the most vexing part of this is the feeling part evoked above, for you holding someone's feet to the fire on delivery terms or whatever rapidly become "the bad guy" - for all that most parties will admit in the abstract late payments, late deliveries, non-respect of contractual terms on delivery and product quality ... but Abu Mohammed, my cousin is a different matter.... that is when push come to shove, gut trumps intellectual appreciation.

I would be remiss in not noting that this kind of uncertainty raises the general cost of doing business and financing (although foreign actors perversely can often access better rates and terms because... well we pay on time as a general matter, it's harder for us to escape judgments through shenanigans and generally the reputational risk is greater - again a case of where the 'flexibility' of local habits actually penalizes the locals more than it gains for them, although this penalty is rarely understood and perceived as such). Clearly, for example, on bank credits, you have to get massive extra collateral as regardless of the law, you know it will be a bitch to get a hold of it, and it will take so long that only collateral that holds its value is worth calling collateral. Sadly, local businessmen and women do not seem to grasp this - above all the issue of the time value of money aspect of the value of collateral, since one has to build in the expectation of a significant delay in seizing collateral even in the case where one wants to do that. The implicit costs there are clear, I think.

When one asks why a developing country is... well not developing, one should frequently look to the degree to which these practices are acting as a deadweight drag on the economy, locking up value. That, and of course, the empty seeking of rents, but more on that in a moment.

A last comment in this section, one of the things that makes it very difficult to work out these issues noted supra in a timely manner is the aversion to direct confrontation, coupled with an aversion to taking responsibility, that strongly marks Arab culture. I emphasize this is not unique to Arab culture, and to varying degrees it is very human. However, I do maintain that the degree to which aversion to direct confrontation (i.e. contradicting anything directly) combined with an aversion to clearly taking responsibility for 'bad' things - or something than could bring dishonor in a wide sense - is strong enough in the region to be a marked input into the "problems of doing business" in comparison with other regions. Not unique but certainly problematic.

I ask you simply to reflect on Arafat - not from a moral perspective but as an objective leader. His entire leadership of the Palestinian cause was a string of defeats, bad decisions, poor analysis. But he never admitted an error, and never showed signs of grappling with it (I note that Ibn Bush shows signs of the same mediocre leadership qualities). I personally find Arafat to be too quintessentially old school Arab for words. A stereotype almost, but nicely illustrative of a general cultural challenge. One should not exaggerate, I should add, but he is an illustration of a tendency I see across the board, although it does strike me as more a Mashreqi tribal Arab sort of thing than say North Africans, who are really in another world in many respects.

However, I'll reemphasize: among the problems of the Arab world is the weaknesses you see in Arafat style political leadership are equally evident in its business leadership. I rather suspect that this "school" of decision making, while certainly rooted in deep cultural roots, also emerged out of the combined caldron of the tail end of Turkish rule and European colonial rule. Neither of which were particularly conducive (for all my deep sympathy for the Turks and sense the Arabs continue to blame the Europeans and Turks for sins which neither created in the Arabs) to developing healthy decision making habits in the Arab elite. But here I get speculative and historical. Perhaps Tamerlane will correct me.

Tijari Culture versus Modern Entrepreneurial Culture
I dislike the abusive use of modern to mean good and even more abusively to mean "whatever are current faddish practices are" (although its even worse when dressed up as 'international best practices' when 'international faddish business crap thinking and empty minded faddish conventional thinking without real solid analytical weight' is actually meant).

Nevertheless, let me use the term modern here.

One of the items I think I have evoked here in the past, is my dismay at the incomprehension on the part of the American officials making economic policy in re MENA in regards to the underlying economic habits in the region. I frequently hear from them (largely Americans I add, even the most well traveled and educated Americans being too frequently deeply afflicted with a messianic sense of optimism and sense that inside everyone there is an American - although this comes in somewhat more and less positive forms, but may still be better than my cynicism) that Arabs / People of the MENA region, etc. are naturally entrepreneurial and economic go getters. This is in support of a naive belief that if the US can herd the MENA region into its latest project, the Middle East North Africa Free Trade Zone, that some great economic flowering will ipso facto take off.

Let me first say that I am great believer in free enterprise and free trade, and fully support the basic concept of encouraging the region to open up to more trade (although the how and the like are interesting questions, but I shall try to touch on that separately).

However, I am rather against the superstitious belief that some magical dynamism exists that will naturally make any given free market (or rather freed market) flourish. I am painfully aware that underlying habits and expectations on the part of market actors may very well, in the short and medium term, engender market failures and even collapse that can very easily discredit the idea of free markets and trade. There are many levels to the challenge evoked here, some of which are deeper rooted than others.

First, in my experience, entrepreneurial culture does not largely exist in the region, in the sense Americans and even most Europeans would mean it. There are many reasons for this, but let me plunge into what I mean precisely. At the heart of the region, and even in very large economic units, I do not believe that the concept of longer term risk taking has developed. The economic dynamism is a trader dynamism, the Tijari or Bazaari, as my old mentor who did his time in Iran before the Shah went down would put it. The trader who does not hold an open position over a period of years (not in his mind) but opens and closes his economic exposure on a transaction basis. Now, it is true that Arab Socialism never managed to destroy the Tijari (or Bazaari) instinct, which one must admit does admit commercial and free market risk taking. However, it is equally true in the region that it did limit it, and further, that because of the mode of "longer term" development (almost exclusively either in colonial and thus completely foreign at the responsible level or in the hands of the state, even in conservative countries), longer views on risk taking did not emerge. Or emerged weakly.

Now, let me add that what I am calling Tijari culture exists everywhere in the world. The Arabs and others of the MENA region are not alien freaks (although we sometimes write about 'them' as if they were - for all that my feeling after so long is that the superficial and attention grabbing differences are among the least important in terms of 'getting along'). However, what I am speaking to is the dominance of a particular approach. The six month to one year cash horizon, shall we say? A culture (even if physically transformed into a modern office or store) of the stall in the Bazaar or Souq, the Doukkan, with its wares and the aggresivity in sales limited to the prospects readily in view, with a fairly limited and conservative sense of what products to push into the market, and a more gut than not based sense of selling. I may be exaggerating but I rather think this touches the true vein of economic activity in the region.

I wish to add that there are good historical roots for these very deep seated behaviours; in a highly uncertain world without good safety nets and systems to allow one to rebound from a risky venture, it makes a great deal of sense to adopt a Tijaari outlook on risk. It is something easy for "us" in the developed world to forget - that economic behaviour "we" view as irrational or backward usually has some very solid and rational roots, even if it may have (well) outlived its usefulness. If.

The issue of launching risky ventures - I mean venture here in a semi-technical sense of the longer term business prospect with a good degree of risk attached, as in venture capital - is a complex one and it is easy to be too judgmental about this, in a negative manner, in an unhelpful manner. It's easy to say 'they' should do X. It is harder to justify rolling the dice oneself when one's own nest egg is in the same situ.

But what comes to mind is the assertion, again heard multiple times from USG officials (and ones I like I may add) that "the Arabs" (or the Iraqis or ....) are natural entrepreneurs .... and they stop at that. In some ways I agree - the degree of sheer trading experience and energy locked up in the Tijaari, the Bazaari culture in the region is amazing. I have often thought that had I a large chunk of change to risk, that I might take a group of Tujaar from say an Moroccan souq and train them in ForEx or the like, and then let the little bastids loose. Their trading instincts are killer - if they master the data and the market, knowing a short term position to take and what kind of risk they want to take on it. The issue is that is not the same set of economic habits that are necessary to make longer term value added venturing work. In fact, I would argue many of them are exactly contrary to what is needed for making a venture work.

Now, the importance here, in terms of "Western" action in economic reform to achieve "our" economic and political goals, is that the reactions anticipated are not necessarily there. I can cite a few examples. Of course there is Iraq, but it is not precisely a fair example as to be frank Iraq so rapidly went off the cliff that the difference between venture investing and Tijaari investing never had time to emerge. It would have, but it did not have time. However, what was dangerous in initial economic policy assumptions was that the Iraqis would, because of their entrepreneurial instincts, take advantage of the free market opportunities magically opening up. I expressed at the time my contempt for the simplistic misreading - although I do at the same time hold that given time to develop the right instincts that would have developed, but only over time.

If I may share an somewhat off track anecdote, to illustrate short term thinking (and my apologies in advance as I will not be very clear on details for reasons): I was working on selling a local industrialist on a financing package some time back, for a new project involving decorative stone tile production. Nice project actually, good combo of tech and labor, fit with resources available. However it needed a serious up front investment, and despite the somewhat khayali numbers, a 3-5 year glide path to clear profitability. Of course their numbers showed 1 year. I was arguing for a certain facility with a ten year tenor or term, denominated in dollars, but not an issue as sales were in Euros and Dollars. I recall the headaches I had on this, because the local entrepreneur kept insisting the rate was too high. Now as I recall the 10 year tenor was something like prime plus 6 to 8, fixed. And this emerging market. Maybe a few hundred bp in either direction, but no matter, a good deal I thought given it had an insurance wrapper etc. But no, my man kept insisting that he could do this at prime plus 1 to 2 percent, meaning he was claiming to be able to raise debt for a speculative industrial development at say 3-5 percent. We had the most ridiculous back and forth, until I switched over to his language and asked point blank, how many years. ..... 1 year. He say zero difference between financing a speculative project with essentially a revolver on the local market, and locking in a fixed term ten year with an insurance wrapper. All he saw was the sticker, and no sense of long term versus immediate horizon, or issues attached to short term financing against a project with long term capital needs, esp. in a volatile environment. There is of course more to this, but I wanted to illustrate a real issue.

Rather more on point are the two free trade agreements the United States has executed in the region, one of which is active and the other is yet to be ratified but on the table - Jordan and Morocco respectively. In both instances the American economic officials have been surprised by the lack of "entrepreneurial" response to the accords -whether in effect or in preparation. They should not have been. Had they understood that what they are calling - in no small part for marketing / agitprop purposes - entrepreneurial behaviour is simply Tijaari activity - short term, largely focused on keeping risk exposure to a transaction by transaction level, never prospecting too far beyond the known..... In Jordan historically one can see a quire extraordinary pattern of Jordanians following foreigners (who prove the model) into activities or keeping themselves to rent seeking aspects of the value chain (playing the landlord to Chinese and Pakistani textile factories exploiting the no tariff and no quote loophole - why the Muhajirine of Pakiland are such the dope risk takers I have no idea, but they are. I suppose having rolled the dice....). In the case of Morocco, although the country has been given a political gift of an FTA - which the US has ratified but the Moroccans are very typically foot dragging over (with completely idiotic and misplaced political opposition - including bizarrely stupid fears US investors are going to "take over" Morocco - a comically stupid idea), local actors have done zero prep, although the FTA would kick in almost immediately once the Moroccans (finally) get their act together, and the opportunities would be in exports to the US, not US exports to a market barely the size of the New York Metro area with a buying power of Bed Stuy (a poor fucking area in Brooklyn my peeps).

Now, as to the issue as it happens this past weekend my old mentor, who happens to be an old Citi hand in the region (Iran, Lebanon as they went to hell..., great stories although he only tells them to people like me), but then moved on to private equity with substantial experience in emerging markets, was in town. I set up a meet between him, me and Embassy since they love this kind of thing, and we all rapped. One of the items we, he and I, brought up with Embassy was they were mistaking Tijaari - or as he put it Bazaari - activity for American style venturing / entrepreneurial behaviour. The local entrepreneur/tijaar who exports to Europe can follow a lot of his old fashioned instincts. There are some ethnic circuits to follow in setting up his exports. He can do the truckload or small shipment across the Med, and although he's not truly competitive, there is enough price slack in the Euro market, and enough trans Med transport that his ad hoc export strategy, which remains a trader strategy at its heart, can work. It is not going to be brilliant, and it's progressively getting squeezed by the Eastern Europeans - who perhaps are not so different, but face an easier cost and transport structure than he does given his highly atomized and ad hoc approach - but it still works. And so long as he is getting by, he's okay in his mind, since he sees his business in terms of a per trade net result basis. Long run his game is losing the margin, but that's not directly clear from his trade by trade view where the natural noise of fluctuations obscures the trend. He feels the pain but blames it on either the moment or the "evils" of globalization. Nevermind he is not investing back in the business - retained earnings are not enough, and the size is too small to leverage effectively.

However, the other key point is the degree of atomization of the economic fabric. My first point gets to some of the reasons why, but also the Tijaari loves being his own boss, but hates the idea of formalizing this, or outsourcing any decision making. He also has a relatively limited vision of the return he wants - again the Tijaari vision is a trade by trade (deal by deal) vision. That puts real limits on what one is willing to prospect and the amount of capital that is going to be seen as acceptable to tie up.

A side comment: why the atomization? I can't answer that well. It doubtless runs deep in the sense of "at least in my affairs I am free" in societies that in living memory have been oppressive modernizers. It also doubtless has much to do with familial prejudices and as well the poorly organized legal structures available (in effect - on paper with few exceptions most of the region provides fairly adequate legal coverage).

Another issue to consider, although this is far more variable from country to country is the degree to which Big Daddy, the State is expected to hold hands. Arab Socialism, but not just Arab Socialism, also some older ideas of what the State should do for the Believers. Nevertheless, even in countries where economic activity remained largely in private hands, the idea of state guidance and assistance remains strong.

Now despite my predilection for free markets, let me say that while I am in general an opponent of 'industrial policy' I do feel that for small countries a free market oriented 'industrial policy' can have some place if well done. If.

Regardless, there is no small degree of passivity - connected to the Tijaari culture as I argued supra - in developing new activities and markets. In many ways this is rational risk aversion in an environment were property rights are fluid (not just because of state action, but also powerful private actors squeezing people out - something we can often forget in our classic liberal circles, that government is but one mode of expression of rent seeking and expropriation), but is not well adapted to seizing the moment as it were. I recently (some weeks or more ago) sat in on an investment promotion conference where local businessmen kept asking the American delegation (US Gov) what USG was doing to sell local production in their country. They sincerely and very literally expected "The Government" (USG or their own) to be opening markets for them, in a very literal sense. The fairly well spoken (and yet political appointee) American ambassador was rightly categorical -it's up to "you" - the locals - to sell yourselves. An atomized economic fabric that hates cooperating but expects its central government to hold its hand. Bloody impossible challenge in most respects, for all that some degree of governmental accompaniment is indeed necessary.

Well, given this short comment has gone on a while and I doubt there will be much commentary given the esoteric nature, I will close by suggesting that the Bush Administration has it right in focusing, as the USG people tell me, on economic development over the frilly political and social development aspects - maundering on about women's rights and political liberties - but they need to grapple with the real potential and fabric, rather than the somewhat imaginary fabric they think they are working with.

They also need to grapple with what will really bring foreign money as well as leverage local capital (which unlike sub Saharan Africa is truly substantial) into more productive investments.

I hope to get up the gumption to finish my commentary on my vision for private equity as a development lever shortly, but my closing suggestion for the region is that if the US and the Europeans want to make significant progress in reforms, it is best to put their money into public-private investment funds managed with a view to returns and good investment management to set the proper standards as well as to bring financing to 'innovative' projects. I refer readers to Drucker re the concept of innovation - I am not referring to California VC type activities.

However, there also needs to be specific action to help develop real entrepreneurial action. That is not easy. Equity funds are not enough. Entrepreneurship incubators are likely necessary. They should try to be commercial, but with a subsidized return. More on this later. Inchallah.

[Edit: Addition]

I noted I forgot to add the following section last night:

Decision Cycles: Centralization and Risk Aversion
Among the other items one notes doing business in the region is the slow decision cycle, maddeningly slow in fact. Siezing opportunities occurs where they are familiar, but in my experience, drops off markedly once the situation becomes too different or is entirely novel. Nothing surprising there, given what I noted in regards to risk aversion, and as well an economic fabric where new relationships are riskier than need be due to fluidity in enforcement of understandings. Of course, one should recognize that all new business / commercial relationships and new undertakings are risky inherently. Riskier than need be is the key phrase here. As in everything I speak to in this note, we are looking at matters of degrees and accumulated frictions that when viewed in isolation do not always seem "that" different from developed countries - however when taken in aggregate, all together, the accumulated frictions become significant.

I've touched on this before when commenting on an article some months back on the poor performance of Arab armies, an article that echoed the same things I heard from some milintel types training Arab strat staff: information hoarding, tendancy for key decisions to always ride all the way up to the highest level, for the highest level decision makers to not refer to their supporting analytical staff, but consult amongs themselves (CEOs, Generals), for the decision to be taken in private and handed down as if from Moses. Not unique to the Arab world, to be sure, but again, it is matter of degree and the accumulation of issues.

The slow decision making cycle, even relative to say my (limited, impressionistic) exposure to say Asia, is a real drag, and I think derives from the risk aversion, coupled with the extreme centralization of information and power at the top. Add to this the atomized attitude towards economic activity - the degree to which information is hoarded rather than shared (information hoarding occurs everywhere, in all cultures, so let me stress again, the degree and manner is the key here) - and you get a decision process that is slow, poorly utilizes the business' (often impoverished) analytical structures (analystis, accountants, etc) and will frequently jump over to informal networks to the exclusion of the formal networks. Now, let me note that informal networks are very important, and excessive informational ridigity from formalism is as much as error as utter ad hocness.

A point of illustration from my old fund. One of the companies in the portfolio - one with some serious investors I may add, even Citi - was in a financial death spiral. Everything was clearly broken and my research on the business model showed that the original proposition had just failed to pan out anywhere. Very clearly a case of either write off or radical remake if one believed in the management enough. Problem was, looking at what management had been doing (overspending, flitting from one "strategy" to another, having recourse to ad hoc revenue streams...., lying to me about where issues were) said, no management really had not even done that brilliant of a job with a broken business model, and had not seriously grappled with the brokenness. In my analysis, it was a clear case of pull the plug and walk away. Others in the Fund differed. Several big players, not Citi of course - I am sure they ran the same analysis I did, wanted back in, and with our drag along rights, we had an option to grab a chunk of the firm for near nothing. Of course that was an implicit 90 percent write down and really begged the question of why did we want (x% plus of what was likely zero value). The other portion of the context was I was there at the Fund because the state side investors felt the Fund was fucking up (it was as long time readers know) and needed to be made right (or pull the plug); this was an important decision point to prove rational business analysis was being imposed in the Fund. Now, the top decision makers in the Fund were really old school Arab types (the main American partner had been yanked, barely avoided getting sued I am led to understand). Theoretically the investment process required an analytical memo, and then an investment committee decision, then negotiations through an investment officer based on the decision (which might be an interim one, such as see what deal was avail).

I kept finding that the formal decision process was meaningless. Write whatever memos I wanted, the real process was the Big Cheese would then go and have personal convos with the CEO of the portfolio firm whose oral representations were put on the same level as my analyses. Oral over written, relationship over analysis. However, not 100 percent, rather the Big Cheese tried to negotiate parallel to the formal process - and in his view this was 100 percent correct. Result, no clear view emerged on what to do, contradictory information flowed or not, and the management of the portfolio company played me off against the Big Cheese, feeling (correctly) he would want to go in on his gut, regardless of how shitty the real deal was. However, at the same time, the old man also liked to keep the options open, pointlessly so. He liked to have the sense of holding court, and keeping the potentially valid options open. Like a Tujaar sitting in his corner shop, always expressing a bit of interest in the carpet provider's hints at new stock, but never taking a clear decision until the break point.

[Edit II: I wish to highlight something noted in comments - the issues I raise here are general ones and not confined to a particular social class or economic category]

[Edit III: I probably should pursue this topic further, but I will wait to see what the audience is interested in]

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Food for Oil

It may be my boundless cyncism, but I remain utterly unmoved by this faux "crisis."

Yes, of course there was corruption - given what goes on in this region I find it amusing any little virgins out there are surprised and apalled by that. Yes, Sadaam engaged in all kind of scheming. Yes, it looks like the (complex, but delberately so) process resulted in oversight gaps.

So what? I remain completely in the camp of "manufactured outrage coming from a bunch of short sighted American axe grinders who have a bizarre, ideologically driven obsession with the United Nations and equally bizarre obsession with some virginal idealized view of the posible...."

It irritates me these morons are driving this entire fiasco.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 14, 2005

Tsunami Orphans Won't Be Sent to Christian Home

Tsunami Orphans Won't Be Sent to Christian Home

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7535-2005Jan13.html

The slimebuckets who were working to single handedly discredit Western and Xian relief efforts via mass kidnapping for conversion have backed off.

"Despite these restrictions, radical Muslim activists in Indonesia have warned against the operations of some Christian relief groups, arguing that their ultimate motive is to convert the Acehnese away from Islam, which has long been a part of the province's cultural identity. Though most Indonesians do not share the radicals' extreme agenda, these concerns have resonated among many in the country, who remain suspicious of foreigners and particularly Westerners."

I think we can all agree that as a general matter, removing childen under such contexts, with a prime aim of conversion, does no credit to anyone, and is likely to augment the sensation of exploitation....

Morons.

In other news:
Foreign Adoption Resisted
Affected Countries Have Strict Rules

By Phuong Ly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7848-2005Jan13.html

I confess not being the warm family type, which may not come as a surprise, but am I far from normal in feeling the rush to adopt - grab kids from disaster zones by Westerners wanting kiddies to be a bit creepy?

Mind you, I am not comparing this to the above news (the moron conversion kidnappers), not in any way compoarable - but I am thinking of the creepiness assoc. with the Romanian, etc. situs.

Of course, who am I to point a finger, my generosity to date has been limited to a wire transfer, so let me not pretend to claim any moral high ground (except over the scum in the first arty).

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 13, 2005

Warm, Fuzzy.... idiocy; or how to inflame passions while shamelessly exploiting tragedy

Group Says It Relocated 300 Orphans
Va. Missionaries Talk of Raising Muslim Tsunami Victims in Christian Home
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 13, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5018-2005Jan12.html

A Virginia-based missionary group said this week that it has airlifted 300 "tsunami orphans" from the Muslim province of Banda Aceh to Jakarta, the Indonesian capital, where it plans to raise them in a Christian children's home.

The missionary group, WorldHelp, is one of dozens of Christian, Muslim and Jewish charities providing humanitarian relief to victims of the Dec. 26 earthquake and tsunami that devastated countries around the Indian Ocean, taking more than 150,000 lives.

Most of the religious charities do not attach any conditions to their aid, and many of the larger ones -- such as WorldVision, Catholic Relief Services and Church World Service -- have policies against proselytizing. But a few of the smaller groups have been raising money among evangelical Christians by presenting the tsunami emergency effort as a rare opportunity to make converts in hard-to-reach areas.

"Normally, Banda Aceh is closed to foreigners and closed to the gospel. But, because of this catastrophe, our partners there are earning the right to be heard and providing entrance for the gospel," WorldHelp said in an appeal for funds on its Web site this week.

The appeal said WorldHelp was working with native-born Christians in Indonesia who want to "plant Christian principles as early as possible" in the 300 Muslim children, all younger than 12, who lost their parents in the tsunami.

"These children are homeless, destitute, traumatized, orphaned, with nowhere to go, nowhere to sleep and nothing to eat. If we can place them in a Christian children's home, their faith in Christ could become the foothold to reach the Aceh people," it said.

Continued...

Let me nominate this group for the narrow minded religious scum of the earth award. Wonderful job this, simultaneously offending Muslims and casting discredit on Xian aid efforts, for a petty narrow minded goal.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 11, 2005

FDI to Developing Markets

UN reports upsurge in FDI to developing countries
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2c2ddc2c-63dc-11d9-b0ed-00000e2511c8.html

For your reflection.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 10, 2005

Iraq, a side obs [edited to add missing link]

First, I linked to this in comments, but it merits a direct link: Sullivan quoting Stratfor.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_01_09_dish_archive.html#110533168328109280

The key item for me is the following (from his quote):
"1. The United States cannot re-engineer Iraq because the guerrillas will infiltrate every institution it creates. 2. That the United States by itself lacks the intelligence capabilities to fight an effective counterinsurgency. "
That's been painfully clear for a while. Like that turn of phrase went back last year, you ain't no kinda pimp if your own whores don't want to be seen with you.

Not that I expect the current US Admnistration to be able to clearly face up to the situ and make clear headed decisions. They rather like selling their fantasies of the magic of elections, and worse yet, they believe their own agitprop.

Second, and in some way a mere detial, but interesting to an extent. Was rapping with some US Embassy peeps recently, they indicated the non US military rotations are also broken, or in their terms, USG is writing its staff promises it can not keep. It appears that Green Zone has become so dangerous that only by promising preferential rotations post Baghdad, and making the rotations short are they able to sustain non military staffing. However, this has clotted up the system as the level of rotation has continued unabated for far longer than planned.

Trivia perhaps.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 08, 2005

Bush Rejects Growing Pessimism on U.S. Foreign Policy

Bush Rejects Growing Pessimism on U.S. Foreign Policy

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 7, 2005; 11:47 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56128-2005Jan7.html

My verdict. Bush is and remains a plebian mediocrity. A dangerous plebian mediocrity because he actually believes this simple minded pablum. (Yes, the violence is concentrated in a minority of provinces, but oddly the Iraqi population is concentrated in a minority of provinces that rather closely correspond to the violence....)

Simple minded fools.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 06, 2005

The Traditional Meet the Readers Post

I almost forgot my traditional new month, new meet the readers and solicit input (which I am likely to ignore or insult, but no matter) and the like post.

Therefore, here it is.

Let me say that I have not forgotten a request to post on business practices here in the region, and am working on something interesting in that regard. But I seem to be plunging into a deeper topic than requested.

Other than that, I invite new readers to ask questions - I promise not to be too abusive - tell me how on earth you found this, and whether you think you might recognise me on the street given the little ... photos.

That of course is my paranioa speaking.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Arab Women, Fat: Pipes and Sullivan: I'm befuddled at Sullivan's credulity, Pipes' creepiness

I don't even know how to characterize this particular comment. First of all, the sheer stupid credulity of Sullivan on this annoyed me. I normally like him. Second, it rather again demostrates Pipes' bigotry.

The Horrors of Arab Women Being Fat As Oppression!!!!!

Good lord. Sometimes when I read these things, I wonder, do I live and work in the same region as what Pipes dribbles on about? I also have to wonder about the bizarre fetishizing of the poor bloody Arabs that a pedestrain issue of obesity gets spun as Arab Fat Fetish.

Well, regardless, this comes via a comment at Andrew Sullivan's blog:
FOIE GRAS AND ARAB WOMEN:
http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_01_02_dish_archive.html#110498212182395745

I will not go on about the idiocy of Sullivan's comment. All I can say is it led me to write to him for the first time.

Then there is the underlying
The Middle East Explodes with Obesity
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/395
Pipes takes a health issue and (rather like the underlying author, who gets so many things distorted I almost wept) finds an excuse to make it an Arab issue.

Whatever, Pipes, whatever.

Now, as to the underlying article, I will quote in extenso for you as this is sub only and I hardly am a fan of WSJ.

Eating Disorder: New Obesity Boom In Arab Countries Has Old Ancestry
Western Habits Fueled Weight Of Women Prized for Size; Some Girls Are Force-Fed
Ms. Mohammed Tries a Diet
By GAUTAM NAIK
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 29, 2004; Page A1

The article that follows contains some legit ponits, but is, I have to say, one shoddy piece of sensationalism.

NOUAKCHOTT, Mauritania -- Jidat Mint Ethmane grew up in a nomad family in this impoverished nation in the western Sahara. When she was 8, she says, her mother began to force-feed her. Ms. Ethmane says she was required to consume a gallon of milk in the morning, plus couscous. She ate milk and porridge for lunch. She was awoken at midnight and given several more pints of milk, followed by a pre-breakfast feeding at 6 a.m.

.....

Today, Ms. Ethmane, 38 years old, is slender because her family ran out of money to continue the force-feeding technique, known as gavage. The term stems from the French word for the process used to force-feed geese to make foie gras. Yet in a recent interview in her family's one-room house, Ms. Ethmane says she still believes in the practice. "Beauty is more important than health," she says. Her husband, Brahim, agrees: "It is thin women who are not healthy."

First, this practice of force feeding is rather extreme even in cultural context. It's a Saharan practice, and not Arab at all. The people who practice this, Hassaniyah Arabs and Berbers in Mauretania and the Western Sahara are not typical of ... well anything. It's also an elite practice, as of course most people can't afford this in Mauretania. The author calling Mauretania largely Arab merely points to his cluelessness (although Arab Mauretanias sell the idea)

Of course one can understand how a wildly distorted idea of beauty could arise in Mauretania - the place is almost entirely hamada (stone) desert and a pit. A fucking pit, but one prone still to food shortages as... well it's a bloody pit with no agriculture, just desert.

(As you can tell, I don't care for Mauretania very much, but I do note that it has the highest US Peace Corps drop out rate)

The belief that rotund women are more desirable as wives helps explain why much of the Arab world -- which stretches from the Persian Gulf in the east to Mauritania in North Africa -- is experiencing an explosion of obesity.

Leaping from an extreme fringe practice among a fringe group on the fringe, we then generalize about the entire Arab world. Beautiful logic that.

Further, there is a vast gulf between a regional preference for women with ... shall we say a bit of meat - let's say Rubenesque to highlight that it's hardly some bizarre Arab fetish - and desiring women to be human lumps as among the Arabo-Berber elite in Mauretania. Or among some of them.

Really, I think that is not hard to understand.

Is it?

About half of women in the Middle East are overweight or obese, according to the United Nations' World Health Organization. In some communities, many of which were nomadic until a few decades ago, oil wealth has dramatically improved living standards. The resulting urbanization has introduced some Western habits: high consumption of sugar, fat and processed foods and more sedentary lifestyles.

Emphasis added.

Now, two items. Overweight or obese covers a lot of fucking territory. I am not one to trivialize health issues, but let's once again put this in perspective - a real one not the oh horrors Arabs are force feeding women until they explode like Mr. Fucking Creasote fake one. Being overweight is not good, but is not the same as force feeding.

Second, rather than some mysterious Arab Male Fetish for Fat that our Arabophobes are advancing as an explanation, I rather suggest that the sedentary lifestyles newly adopted, improved living standards, outsized fondness for sweets (look up Arab world per capita sugar consumption), heavy meat consumption... are pretty fucking good explanatory factors for rising obesity.

Or perhaps I simply lack a sense of over the top sensationalistic fetishizing of Arab sexuality.

In Bahrain, 83% of women are obese or overweight, according to International Obesity Task Force, a London-based think tank that tries to persuade countries to tackle the problem. In the United Arab Emirates the figure is 74%; in Lebanon it is 75%, the groups says. By comparison, about 62% of American women are overweight or obese. The prevalence of childhood obesity in the Middle East has risen rapidly in recent years and diabetes is spreading across the region, according to WHO.

Indeed, too much fucking Turkish Delights, and Horn of Ram pasties eaten.

Even predominantly Arab North African countries without oil wealth are wrestling with the challenge, in part because of a traditional preference for larger women. Half of all women in Tunisia and Morocco are overweight or obese -- two standard measures of a person's weight -- according to a 2001 study published in the U.S.-based Journal of Nutrition.

Predominately Arab... wonder what that note is supposed to mean? I guess the 40 percent of the Berbers in these parts are not explanatory to fatness? It's the scary Arabs after all..... Shoddy goddamned reporting.

Again note the author confounds obesity with overweightedness to exagerate the issue.

And yes, I can report there is more plumpness around than there used to be here. However, it still doesn't look like North America, so I have to wonder what that breakout between overweight and obese is. I rather suspect the obesity rate is pretty small, the chubbiness rate is the likely the big one.

"We thought obesity was restricted to resource-rich countries, but it's also being reported in poor stratas," says Kunal Bagchi, a Cairo-based nutrition expert for WHO.

Mauritania is the only nation today where force-feeding of girls is systematically practiced, mostly in rural areas. Efforts by women's groups and the government to stamp it out have largely been ignored. In a land that suffers from a constant shortage of food, plump women are assumed to be both wealthy and more likely to bear healthy children. "It has long been totally acceptable for women to be not just rotund, but voluminous," says Philip James, chairman of the International Obesity Task Force.

Emphasis added.

Okay, we get to a key observation, despite the horrifying lead, you learn, buried down in the article that, yes only in fucking shit hole Mauretania is force feeding a real issue, then only in rural areas and I add only among the rural elites (show off their wealth by being able to afford fatness in the desert). Mauretania is barely 3 million people, barely. A good third or so are Toucouleur and not even Arab or Berber - this is not a big goddamned issue. But boy, we can sure make a sensationalistic creepy yellow journalism issue out of it.

After years of not acknowledging the health problems associated with obesity, Arab governments are now growing concerned about their financial impact. Obesity and associated illnesses, such as diabetes, account for an increasingly large share of the Middle East's total health costs, according to the International Obesity Task Force.

After years.... A little fucking perspective eh? There are all kinds of more pressing issues such as malnutrition, literacy... etc. that Arab governments were facing. The fact that despite low levels of income people are able to eat more or less well enough (this is not McDonalds land kiddies) to have the luxury of worrying about being fat is a success story. Perverse but there it is. This phrasing is stupidly pejorative.

The fucking problem is new, bloody hell.

Oh but look, we can go back to jumping from a somewhat pedestrain issue of rising obesity among increasingly sedentary and sugar loving human beings to bizarre fringe customs from a bizarre fringy little hell hole country:
In early December, representatives from WHO, the U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization and about 20 Middle Eastern and North African states met in Cairo for the first time to develop dietary guidelines that take into consideration local eating habits. One nutritionist noted than an anti-obesity plan would have to take into account the region's preference for rotund women, according to Jaffar Hussain, a Cairo-based WHO medical officer, who attended the meeting. He says country representatives decided to study the issue and report back in at least six months.

In few places is the clash between culture and health more pressing than in Mauritania, a predominantly Arab nation of three million people. Mauritania borders Algeria, Mali, Senegal and Western Sahara and is roughly the size of France, from which it won independence in 1960. Today the country is a closed society ruled by an authoritarian Islamic government.

Gavage in Mauritania originated decades ago at a time when many prosperous families kept slaves. Back then, men stayed lean through working while women led more sedentary lifestyles. Faced with life in a harsh desert landscape, men typically sang songs not about the beauty of nature, but the attractiveness of the large women who might bear them healthy children.

Force-feeding is usually done by girls' mothers or grandmothers; men play little direct role. The girls' bellies are sometimes vigorously massaged in order to loosen the skin and make it easier to consume even greater quantities of food.

The practice of gavage has survived even though, since the 1970s, Mauritania has suffered prolonged droughts that have led to food shortages. That situation could worsen. Earlier this year, locusts invaded Mauritania in swarms up to 25 miles long, ravaging its crops and pasture land.

There are no current data about gavage, in part because the country's isolation makes it a difficult study for international health agencies. A 2001 government survey conducted by Measure DHS, a research firm in Calverton, Md., estimated that about 22% of Mauritanian women were force-fed as young girls. Half of those girls became overweight or obese as adults and many suffer from diabetes, heart disease and gastric ailments, the survey says. Local officials say some women are so fat they can barely move.

In the survey of 7,000 adults, 15% of the women said their skin split as a result of overeating. One-fifth of women said their toes or fingers were broken to make them eat. One-third said they regretted they had been subjected to overeating. Most cited the health consequences, the difficulty of walking and the pain they endured while being force-fed. A small number said their excess weight had made childbearing more difficult.

Fine, write an article about shit hole Mauretania and the warped social customs of the Hassaniyah Arabs and Berbers (they're both). Don't mix that in with implications that the entire Arab world does this. It's grotesque. And I add most North Africans find the Hassaniyah to be wierdos.

Charlotte Abaka, a Ghanaian advocate for women's rights in Africa, says gavage also encourages women to marry young because their rapid weight gain makes them appear older.

Even in the capital city, away from the rural areas where the practice is most prevalent, many Mauritanian women appear stout. Women wear a loose wrap-around dress, known as a mehlafa, which makes it difficult to see the outlines of their bodies. But their discomfort is obvious; many struggle to keep up with their husbands. Most men in Mauritania are slim.

Oh the horrors.... Most Mauretanian women appear stout.... Well call in the bloody goddamned red cross; it's women abuse.

By the way, the wrap around dress is rather like a billowy Indian Sari in pattern style and color; essentially it's a big ass wrap of rather diaphonous nature. And I do mean diaphanous. I'll grant that most Mauretanian men are bone thin, bloody Somali looking. And yes, I also grant that most Mauretanian women are not thin.

Obviously this is a case of grave discrimination. Clearly one party is being favored at dinner and getting all the sweets..

Here is the rest of the article, all about Mauretania..... What can I say, this is some of the worst journalism I have seen.
Neya Mint Ally was force-fed for five years as a young girl. Now, 36 years old, Ms. Ally is about 5 feet tall and weighs more than 160 pounds. She finds it difficult to walk and suffers from gastric problems. "It was painful," recalls Ms. Ally. "But as a child I wanted to be fat to be beautiful."

One year ago, Ms. Ally founded a volunteer organization to help stamp out the practice and traveled to remote areas to publicize the health consequences of being overweight. Another group, the Mauritanian Association for Women's Promotion, known by its French acronym, AMPF, shows videos about gavage-related health problems in nine youth centers around Nouakchott. About four years ago, the Mauritanian government, alerted to the health risks of gavage, launched a radio and television campaign to put an end to it.

The anti-gavage campaign has been slow going, in part because about 65% of Mauritanian women are illiterate. That can stymie educational efforts. "If we encourage girls to go to school they will realize that gavage isn't good for them," says Mariem Bint Ahmed Aicha, who became the country's first female minister in the early 1990s when she was put in charge of women's affairs. She also sits on the ruling party's executive committee and is the founder and president of AMPF.

Wanton overeating has virtually disappeared among Mauritania's educated classes, Ms. Aicha says. Ms. Aicha's mother tried to get her to put on weight when she was young, but was overruled by her father, a teacher.

Ms. Aicha's daughter, a 19-year-old law student and mother of a 2-year-old baby, is slender even by Western standards. She says exposure to Western TV shows and magazines convinced her it's healthier to maintain a middling weight. "I don't want to be too fat, but I don't want to be too thin either," she says.

Other changes are more subtle. "Nowadays, many parents don't use physical force as much as psychological force to get their daughters to gain weight," says Ahmed Ould Isselmou, chief of the Mauritanian Department of Social and Demographic Statistics, a government agency. He helped design the government's 2001 survey. Ms. Isselmou adds that some girls now make a personal choice to overeat because they think it increases their chances of finding a husband.

Ms. Ethmane, who grew up in the nomad family, says her family is too poor to force-feed their three daughters. She had considered sending their oldest daughter, Mariam, to a relative who would force-feed the girl for a fee, but the family couldn't raise the money. Mariam, a slender 19-year-old, regrets her parents' decision not to fatten her up. "My friends went through this process," she said. "Now I don't like hanging out with them because I'm too thin."

One recent night, at the Pharmacy of Everlasting Beauty in downtown Nouakchott, the owner displayed four popular drugs that are sold as appetite enhancers. The most expensive, sold under the brand name Tres Orix, was priced at a hefty 2,070 ougyuia, the equivalent of about $8. The annual per capita gross domestic product in Mauritania is about $1,800. Nonetheless, business in the drugs is brisk. "It's mainly women who buy them," said the pharmacist. "They're very popular."

Oum Kelthoum Mint Mohammed, who lives on the outskirts of Nouakchott, was a lithe 13-year-old when she got married in 1999. She says her parents had previously tried to make her overeat but she rebelled and they didn't force her. "I couldn't see any reason to be fat," she said.

But months after her wedding, Ms. Mohammed began to eat voraciously, worried her new husband might leave her for a chubbier woman. She didn't own a set of scales and frequently visited shops in the city center to check her weight. Her husband, who doesn't have a preference for stout women, objected to her new regimen.

Recently, Ms. Mohammed weighed in at about 200 pounds. Her bones hurt and she found it increasingly painful to move or walk. To alleviate her pain, she has since set herself a new weight goal: 190 pounds. "I've eaten enough," she says. "Now I'm on a diet."

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Iraq: When your only tool is a helicopter gunship....

From our man Cole
http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/mysterious-us-strike-in-irbil.html
http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=6029

"Kurdistan Interior Minister Kerim Sinjari condemned the operation. Al-Zaman says he complained that several innocent civilians were killed by US forces in the course of it, including one woman. He said that such actions could jeopardize Kurdistan-US relations."

I sometimes wonder if our main objective is not to alienate all possible allies.

And to continue a theme, I also wonder if we are ever going to learn that using air power in such circumstances is penny wise, pound foolish?

Is it any wonder the insurgency grows by apparent leaps and bounds (although our sad agitprop has had the US turning the corner on the insurgency every month for the past year - at some point, to use market speak, one has to take a view on the viability of the communications.)?

In other news, Industry minister has checkmated us, although oil ministry is still on board. Why am I still interested? I dunno, even greed is not a good explanation. Boredom?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dodged bullet (navel gazing for a moment)

Found this by accident:
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/000293.php

Thank goodness this does not seem to have driven people here and blown my cool. On the other hand, I am still puzzled over whether this very "special" commentary on me is positive or negative.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 05, 2005

Dollar up, happy dance

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/72ce6eea-5f0d-11d9-8cca-00000e2511c8.html

My bet on the post 1 Jan direction spot on, time for my happy dance.

Won't last of course, but a bit of a correction in the next week.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 04, 2005

Frontier Investing

An item to draw attention to

In search of a golden egg
Dec 29th 2004
From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3521037

(And yes, for the cheap bastids out there, this is non sub. Still, sub up you cheap gits.)

The key item in my mind:
"Investing in emerging stockmarkets could also pay off handsomely over the next decade. The average p/e ratio in emerging markets, based on future expected profits, is around ten, not much more than half of Wall Street's. To be sure, they are a risky bet: although in 18 of the past 20 years one of these markets has topped the global investment league, the same market has often collapsed the next year. Over the past 20 years, emerging markets as a group have underperformed Wall Street, with an average total return of 10.9%. But if governments can maintain their current, sounder economic policies, growth should be more stable in the years to come—and returns should be higher and less volatile."

While not for the weak of heart, my dears I think emerging market securities is not as risky as perceived, if done right. And in the right places, preferably perceived as risky but having made a genuine transition to more stable systems. Ahem, North Africa.

But then I am betting rather all on that being true, so perhaps you should pay no attention to me.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On the Economist arty on Iraq

I was going to write something but having gone over to this James Wolcott's journal by reference from comments, I was sufficiently amused to simply share this with you for the moment:
http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/01/kind_of_a_shame.php

My favorite observations are
There's a Peter Cook-Dudley Moore routine, one of their woolgathering dialogues, where Dud asks Pete, "So would you say you've learned from your mistakes?" and Pete replies: "Oh yes, I'm certain I could repeat them exactly."

That seems to have been the Bush administration's approach to Iraq. Take the mistakes of Vietnam and repeat them exactly.

And at that you can't say they haven't succeeded.

and

The last grafs of the report recount a big whoopy-do operation in the smugglers' haven of Baij involving a convoy of 1000 troops supported by Apache attack helicopters targeting three houses that had been linked to Zarquawi's [sic] terrorist band, according to a local informant.

There was no one in the houses except women and children. Rather than return to base empty, they pay homage to the last reel of Casablanca and round up the usual suspects.

"...they detained 70 men from districts indentified by their informant as 'bad.' In near-freezing conditions, they sat hooded and bound in their pyjamas. They shivered uncontrollably. One wetted himself in fear. Most had been detained at random; several had been held because they had a Kalashnikov rifle, which is legal. The evidence against one man was some anti-American literature, a meat cleaver, and a tin whistle. American intelligence officers moved through the ranks of detainees, raising their hoods to take mugshots: 'One, two, three, jihaaad!' A middle-tier officer commented on the mission: 'When we do this,' he said. 'We lose.'"

Actually the underlying article in The Economist is rich and necessary reading. It is rather painfully clear that the US forces are scoring own goal after own goal.

I still have some vague glimmer of hope that elections might, contrary to my read, have some positive effect and open up the Steel business issue for me; but it's painful clinging on to that contra factual. Only my greed allows me to. The holding pattern continues as US forces achieve more or less the opposite of what they should.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 03, 2005

Tsunami as Middle East politics

I have not commented on this subject since of course I have nothing of interest to say.

However, I did note the following at Cole's site:
Middle Eastern Contributions to Tsunamic Relief in Context
http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/middle-eastern-contributions-to.html

Sometimes one does get a headache from our boundless human capacity to be idiotically petty. And I always get a headache from people blithering on about the Middle East in total ignorance. Cole's comment is in re stupid (and false) comparisons btw US and Gulf contribs.

Headaches.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Pipes: you wanted evidence he's a bigot? (Updated)

I direct you to this article. If anyone has any respect for the man afterwards, please do let me know.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2309

[Edited to link as well to Cole]

http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/middle-eastern-contributions-to.html

Now the question is, are the... I have to find a key phrase for this and stick with it, KneeJerk Section of American Conservatives going to admit that in this case the Left (and in fact anyone the least bit informed about the MENA region) hostility to Pipes was, in this case, well placed and deserved? The bigot is a proto fascist and should be removed from the US Institute of Peace.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Think Again: Middle East Democracy

This article, brought to my attention by Zenpundit deserves some comment. I largely agree with the analysis and thrust, with a few quibbles here and there.

Think Again: Middle East Democracy
By Marina Ottaway, Thomas Carothers
Foreign Policy
November/December 2004

Set up as a series of questions and responses, highly useful questions above all.

“The Middle East Is the Last Holdout Against the Global Democratic Trend”
No. The Middle East is on the wrong side of the global democratic divide, but unfortunately it does not lack company. As Russia slides into authoritarianism, the former Soviet Union is becoming a democratic wasteland with only a few shaky pockets of pluralism, such as Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova. Central Asia is no better off than the Arab world in terms of democracy. A depressingly large swath of East and Southeast Asia—from North Korea and China down through Vietnam, Laos, and Burma to Malaysia and Singapore—is a democracy-free zone that shows few signs of change.

Ah, well, I guess our man Putin rather pulled the mask off of the little faux democracy game, although Ukraine just might exit the prison. Just might although I would not count on that.

On Putin, I recently had a lunch with some State people - including a fellow I might add who has him and Repubie big wig pics, i.e. not a 'liberal' - where they mocked Bush for his Putin comments. Apparently he says similar things behind closed doors. Well, as my Big Wig man says, he voted for Bush holding his nose.

Skipping ahead.

Today, political reform is percolating again in the region, amid growing public frustration over chronic corruption, poor socioeconomic performance, and a pervasive sense of stagnation. The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks also created pressure for reform—from both the United States and some Arabs who began to question why their societies were so widely viewed as dangerous political cesspools. Talk about political reform and democracy is rife even in the Gulf monarchies where such issues had been taboo. The steps taken thus far in most countries, however, are modest. Although the Arab world is not impervious to political change, it has yet to truly begin the process of democratization.

Emphasis added.

I am not sure that 11 September changed that much within the Arab world... Well, let me rephrase, the above, I think is accurate but I hate the sensation of overplaying the degree of 11 September influence - a push in a direction that was already present. Leaving my quibbling aside, the underlined text: chronic corruption, poor socioeconomic performance, pervasive sense of stagnation are oddly in my opinion also the drivers of Islamism. I noted these three points of frustration as far back as 92, it was already evident that the combined issues of maladapted educaitonal systems, poor economic performance from the State driven economies, deeply corrupt rent seeking elites was producing a radical backlash.

Pressures for change - but what kind of change, and how and when.

I've expressed my suspicion in the past that there may be no way around much of the region going through quasi Iranian revolutions. At the very least, the tabou has to be broken such that Islamists have a chance at power and a chance at failure.

“Democracy in the Middle East Is Impossible Until the Arab-Israeli Conflict Is Resolved”
Wrong. Arab governments curb political participation, manipulate elections, and limit freedom of expression because they do not want their power challenged, not because tension with Israel requires draconian social controls. When the government of Kuwait refuses to give women the right to vote, it does so out of deference to the most conservative elements of its population, not out of fear that voting women will undermine the country’s security. Fear of competition, not of a Zionist plot, leads the Egyptian ruling party to oppose competitive presidential elections. When it comes to democratic reform, the Zionist threat is merely a convenient excuse.

Yet failure to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict prevents the United States from gaining credibility as an advocate of democracy in the Middle East. Liberal Arabs perceive claims by the United States that it wants democracy in the Middle East as hypocritical, pointing to what they see as American indifference to the rights of the Palestinians and unconditional support for Israel. For their part, many Arab governments do not take U.S. pressure to democratize their region seriously, believing that the need for oil and fear of upsetting regimes that recognize Israel will trump Washington’s desire for democratic change. U.S. credibility in the Middle East will not be restored—and the unprecedented level of anti-American resentment will not abate—until the United States makes a serious, balanced effort to tackle the conflict. Without such credibility, Washington’s effort to stimulate democratization in the region will be severely constrained.

Emphasis added. This comment is, I think, a near perfect description of the role of the I-P conflict.

The real role of the I-P conflict is undermining US street cred., giving something of an excuse for Arab govs - not directly which Marina unfortunately implies but indireclty as in, "they wants us to do X but look they allow Y to go by in Palestine." Logical? Not really in a strict sense, but let's be realistic and frank, popular politics works this way. Not only in the Arab world, but elsewhere as well.

Leaving this aside that issue, the underlined text is the most important. The key problem is not the Arab side problem - Arab popular interest in the issue and the popular view of the US as enormously hypocritical exists independant of any Arab government agitprop (and indeed has a basis in reality) - the core problem and key is on the degree to which it undermines US legitimacy and leverage. Of course other items do so as well.

“The United States Wants Democracy in the Middle East”
Up to a point. The democratic transformation of the Middle East emerged as a central objective of U.S. foreign policy during the Bush administration. This new policy is a sharp reversal of several decades of steadfast support for many autocratic regimes in the region, such as those in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. It reflects the new post-9/11 conventional wisdom that Middle East democracy is the best antidote to Islamist terrorism.

Although this desire for democracy may be heartfelt, the United States has a lengthy laundry list of other priorities in the region: access to oil, cooperation and assistance on counterterrorism, fostering peace between Israel and its neighbors, stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and preventing Islamist radicals from seizing power.

The newfound U.S. enthusiasm for democracy competes for a place in this mix. Fighting Islamist militants and safeguarding oil still compels the United States to cooperate with authoritarian regimes. People in the region watched as the United States took a tough line against Iran and Syria while failing to push Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, or other friendly tyrants very hard. The Bush administration launched new diplomatic endeavors and aid programs to support positive change, such as the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative and the Middle East Partnership Initiative. But they consist of mild, gradual measures designed to promote democratic change without unduly challenging the authority of incumbent governments.

Moreover, despite the president’s conviction that democratic change in the Middle East is necessary, a great deal of ambivalence remains within the U.S. policy bureaucracy about the prospect of any rapid political openings in the region. This sentiment is particularly true of the State Department and the intelligence community. Some experts worry that, given the political mood of most Arab citizens—who are angry at the United States and sympathetic to political Islam—free and open elections could result in some distinctly unfriendly regimes.

Emphasis added. Of the various comments by Ottaway, I believe this is perhaps the one that is incomplete. The comment on the intel and State communities draws my atteniton, as well as a bit of distaste as I think it feeds into the Know Knothings' unfair attacks on my amigos in State and Agency. Unfair as the skepticism I think is not rooted in the simplistic idea of "the Arabists" not believing democracy is possible, but the sensation in informed circles that the issues are far more complex than the simple minded NeoCon vision of "transformation" a la that idiot Ledeen at the National Review, which fundamentally misunderstands the ability of the US to leverage change and force it - as well as the real consequences of their ideas on how to effect change.

Now, in regards to the nations cited supra, KSA is an understandable one: the US does not have real leverage with KSA to force change. It simply does not, and if there is one country where change is most dangerous and likely to be negative, it's KSA. In re Egypt, one can be forgiven for throwing up one's hands - how to effect change in the case of Egypt short of a bloody revolution, I have no idea. Sadly, we're playing a losing hand propping up Mubarek, but pulling away from him and his corrupt clan of rent seekers is not easy either. Catch 22. Tunisia, however, is a more hopeful case, where pressure might well be useful - yet the fear of the Islamists immobilizes. Certainly Tunisia is at a stage - decent economic progress, excellent macro-economic policy, economic fabric that is capable of responding to change, well-educated populace and knows it is getting wealthier - where political liberalization would be a very good thing to attack some of the problems cropping up, sclerosis in internal governance, corruption (although not bad, could be better), engaging the future.

Tunisia, in the end, is a real possible beacon of hope. However, it could also go very badly wrong.

“The War in Iraq Advanced the Cause of Democracy in the Middle East”

Not yet. The U.S.-led war in Iraq removed from power one of the most heinous, repressive dictators in the region and opened up the possibility that Iraq will one day have a pluralistic political system held together by consensus rather than violence. The actual achievement of democracy in Iraq, however, remains distant and uncertain. The path to that goal will be measured in years rather than months.

The war’s political effects in the rest of the region—especially the way it exposed the hollowness of Saddam Hussein’s regime—has contributed to increased calls for political reform in many Arab countries. Real progress toward democracy, however, is minimal. In addition, the war provoked some Arab governments, such as Egypt, to limit the already constrained political space they allow as a defensive gesture against public protests and as an excuse for prosecuting opponents.

Regrettably, President George W. Bush’s repeated justification of the war as a democratizing mission has discredited some Western-oriented Arab democrats in the eyes of their fellow citizens. Many Arabs have come to view democracy itself as a code word for U.S. regional domination. The unpopularity of the war and the abuses against Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison have further tarnished the reputation of the United States and fueled Islamist extremism.

Proponents of democratic contagion argue that if Iraq holds successful elections in early 2005, this example will resound loudly in the Arab world. But much of the Arab world will likely view such elections, even if they come off well, as highly flawed. Some parts of the predominantly Sunni areas of Iraq are not expected to participate in the elections, and many Arabs will inevitably accuse the United States of manipulation, because the elections will be held under U.S. occupation. Few Arabs will be dazzled into holding a new view of democracy on the basis of one election. Many countries in the region already hold elections of varying degrees of seriousness and importance, including one in Algeria earlier this year, which a Western observer described as “one of the best conducted elections, not just in Algeria, but in Africa and much of the Arab world.”

Promoting democracy throughout the Middle East will require doing away with fantasies of a sudden U.S.-led transformation of the region and taking seriously the challenge of building credibility with Arab societies. Moreover, if the United States is to play a constructive supporting role, it must seriously revise its cozy relations with autocratic regimes, show a sustained ability to apply nuanced diplomatic pressure for political change at key junctures, and back up this pressure with well-crafted and well-funded assistance. Washington must prepare to accept emboldened political forces, and eventually new governments, that are uninterested in doing the United States’ bidding. Embracing Middle East democracy in principle is easy; truly supporting it remains an enormous challenge.

Emphasis added. This paragraph is easily the most important of the entire piece.

In particular, the authors highlight here in the sections I have highlighted the idiocy of the "Transformation" view - which is based on wishful thinking and a simplistic, ignorant view of the Middle East: I suppose from a half-understood sense of the history and a underlying false analogy with Eastern Europe.

That being said, the issue of the challenge in actually effecting democratization - or rather helping democratization over the period of time actually needed, and potentially in conflict with other equally pressing, and more pressing in the short term, interests. Further, doing that in a context where even the generally pro-Western view the US in a highly skeptical light, if not in complete distrust. Expecting an election in Iraq to have some magical and mystical - the words are truly merited here - effect is dangerously ignorant, naive and self defeating.

“Islamists Are the Main Obstacle to Arab Democracy”
Think again. The standard fear is the “one person, one vote, one time” scenario: Islamists would only participate in elections to win power and put an end to democracy immediately. Hence, the argument goes, they should not be allowed to participate.

True, the commitment to democracy of even moderate Islamists is uncertain and hedged by the caveat that democratic governments must accept Islamic law. However, the chances of an overwhelming electoral victory that would allow Islamists to abrogate all freedoms at once is remote in the Arab world. During the last decade, Islamist parties and candidates have participated in elections in eight Arab countries (Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, and Yemen), always with modest results. (These elections suffered from various degrees of government interference, but there is no indication that the Islamists would have won in a more open environment.) And Turkey, a country where an Islamist party took power with a large majority, is becoming an encouraging example of democratic success.

Although the prediction that Islamist electoral victories would lead to democracy’s demise in the Middle East have so far proved unfounded, the possibility cannot be ruled out. Fear of such takeovers remains in many Arab countries and the United States. Many Arab regimes use this fear to justify meddling in elections and placing restrictions on political participation. The presence of Islamist parties thus complicates the process of democratization.

But Islamist parties are also integral to democratization because they are the only nongovernmental parties with large constituencies. Without their participation, democracy is impossible in the Middle East. The future of democracy in the region depends on whether a sufficient number of such parties moderate their political views and become actors in a democratic process, rather than spoilers in the present autocratic states, and whether incumbent governments stop hiding behind the Islamist threat and accept that all their citizens have a right to participate.

This is a harder judgement call.

First, I largely agree that there will be no democracy or successful democratization if Islamists (by which we mean the spectrum of opinion in the [Sunni] Islamic world that desires a distinct reference in politics to religion, ranging from something not that different from Christian Democracy in a 19th century sense to something bordering on theocracy) are categorically excluded. The Islamist trend is a substantial one in the Arab world, and has a variety of sources, and much attraction comes from perfectly legitimate complaints (as well as some less so and not at all). Categorically shutting off an entire spectrum of opinion - above all one that is expressing a very legitimate frustration with the sclerotic old order - is dangerous and sure to fail, as the underlined section states.

Second, it is dangerous in the immediate term - one vote one time is a potential outcome. However, without some degree of participation, real participation and not stacked participation, democracy is a dead letter. So, risky route or failure. I add, however, that the Turkish case I think is in no way applicable to the Arab situation.

“Arab Countries Have a Historic Propensity Toward Authoritarianism”
Yes. But so what? Most societies have lived under authoritarian rule for some time, often for a long time. Democracy is a relatively recent historical phenomenon. Even in the United States and Europe it was only consolidated through universal suffrage in the last century. ..... [omitted] ....

To ascribe the lingering Arab absence of democracy to some unique historic affinity for authoritarianism, stemming from Arab culture, Islam, or anything else is thus factually incorrect. It is also politically defeatist, attributing a quality of inevitability that belies the experience of political change in other parts of the world.

Nothing to add here other than a good sense of history.

Now the next piece really required Marina Ottaway to write, as it is rather politically incorrect, but I entirely agree:
“Promoting Women’s Rights Is Crucial for Democratic Change”
False. This myth, a favorite of women’s organizations and Western governments, reflects the combination of correct observation and false logic. No country can be considered fully democratic if a part of its population (in some cases, the majority) is discriminated against and denied equal rights. But efforts to change the status quo by promoting women’s rights are premature. The main problem at present is that Arab presidents and kings have too much power, which they refuse to share with citizens and outside institutions. This stranglehold on power must be broken to make progress toward democracy. Greater equality for women does nothing to diminish the power of overly strong, authoritarian governments.

Arab leaders know this truth all too well. Many autocrats implement policies to improve women’s rights precisely to give themselves reformist credentials and score points with Western governments, media outlets, and nongovernmental organizations. These efforts, however, often amount to a trick of smoke and mirrors designed to disguise the governments’ refusal to cede any real power. In the last few years, several Arab states have appointed women to high positions and hurriedly implemented or proposed reforms concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance, and other personal status issues. These are welcome steps, but they do not address the core issue of promoting democracy: breaking the authoritarian pattern of Arab politics.

Emphasis added.

As in a number of other secular reform moves, the reforms are part facade, part dupery and sadly because of this playing to Western liberalism, tend to bring discredit on themselves.

In many ways, because of the manner in which they are taken the reforms are not in fact welcome steps because in the long run one ends up with liberal values becoming discredited by association with cynicical grasping for power.

“Arab Democrats Are the Key to Reform”
Paradoxically, no. All Arab countries boast a small number of Westernized liberals who advocate respect for human rights, freedom of thought and speech, and democratic change. But democratic transformation requires more than the ideological commitment of a few individuals. In Western societies, a small democratic cadre sufficed in the distant past, when political participation was the preserve of public-minded intellectual elites and wealthy property owners. But the Arab world of today is not the United States or Europe of the 18th century. The political elite faces a growing challenge by Islamist movements, which are developing a popular support base. As a result, democratic transformation also requires broad-based political parties and movements capable of transforming abstract democratic ideals into concrete programs that resonate with a public whose main concern is survival.

Arab democrats have so far shown little capacity—and less inclination—to translate abstract ideas into programs with mass appeal. Because they talk to Western organizations and each other more than to their fellow citizens, opposition political parties with a liberal agenda find themselves unable to build broad constituencies. This failure leaves the field open to government parties, which can build a following on the basis of patronage, and to Islamist parties, which build their following in the best tradition of mass parties, with a mixture of ideological fervor and grassroots social services.

Government repression and, at times, co-optation have also undermined Arab democrats’ effectiveness. Some regimes—notably Saudi Arabia’s—move quickly to clamp down on any nascent liberal debate. Others are more tolerant, giving liberals some intellectual space to write and discuss issues openly, as long as their talk is not followed by action. Arab democrats in countries such as Egypt are not a persecuted group. Rather, they tend to be professionals comfortably ensconced in the upper-middle class. Therefore, they are hesitant to demand genuine reforms that might lead to a hard-line takeover and content to advocate democratization from the top.

Under such conditions, it would be a serious mistake for U.S. and European democracy advocates to focus on Arab democrats as the key to political change. These individuals will play a role if democracy becomes a reality. But during this period of transition, they have neither the inclination to push for reform nor the political clout to do so successfully.

Emphasis added.

Those who've been reading me for a while have caught my acerbic comments regarding, for example, Friedman's reliance on such people in forming his opinions. My disdain comes from precisely the emphasized connection. Now, Arab liberals make up a very large portion of my personal circle, but one has to understand

“Middle East Democracy Is the Cure for Islamist Terrorism”
No. This view is rooted in a simplistic assumption: Stagnant, repressive Arab regimes create positive conditions for the growth of radical Islamist groups, which turn their sights on the United States because it embodies the liberal sociopolitical values that radical Islamists oppose. More democracy, therefore, equals less extremism.

History tells a different story. Modern militant Islam developed with the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1920s, during the most democratic period in that country’s history. Radical political Islam gains followers not only among repressed Saudis but also among some Muslims in Western democracies, especially in Europe. The emergence of radical Islamist groups determined to wreak violence on the United States is thus not only the consequence of Arab autocracy. It is a complex phenomenon with diverse roots, which include U.S. sponsorship of the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s (which only empowered Islamist militants); the Saudi government’s promotion of radical Islamic educational programs worldwide; and anger at various U.S. policies, such as the country’s stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the basing of military forces in the region.

Moreover, democracy is not a cure-all for terrorism. Like it or not, the most successful efforts to control radical Islamist political groups have been antidemocratic, repressive campaigns, such as those waged in Tunisia, Egypt, and Algeria in the 1990s. The notion that Arab governments would necessarily be more effective in fighting extremists is wishful thinking, no matter how valuable democratization might be for other reasons.

The experience of countries in different regions makes clear that terrorist groups can operate for sustained periods even in successful democracies, whether it is the Irish Republican Army in Britain or the ETA (Basque separatists) in Spain. The ETA gained strength during the first two decades of Spain’s democratization process, flourishing more than it had under the dictatorship of Gen. Francisco Franco. In fragile democratic states—as new Arab democracies would likely be for years—radical groups committed to violence can do even more harm, often for long periods, as evidenced by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, or the Maoist rebels in Nepal.

Here I a gree again, although I think the issue is a multipart one. "Draining the swamp" as it were requires political and economic evolution, and the process is long term, immediate payoffs not found.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack