Links
- Aging Disgracefully
- Devas Folk
- Majid Zohari
- Nima Rashedan
- Becker-Posner Blog
- The Econ Review
- EconPhD
- Blank
Archives
My personal reflections on current issues, culture, and of course economics!
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Collective Suicide
Many international observers and Iranians are in state of shock. Iranian election unfolded and to every one’s surprise, Iranians elected an unapologetic fascist and ant-Semite as the new president. Ahmadinejad’s claim to fame is his paramilitary background in the Revolutionary Guards, and the not-so-nice reputation for administering over one hundred coup de graces during 1980s purges. His record as local governor in 1990s and as mayor of Tehran over the last two years is nothing to brag about.
He has promised a lot, and in my opinion is unlikely to be able to deliver any of his election pledges. A partial list looks like:
He pledged repeatedly to reduce poverty: since his economic doctrine is state controlled command economy, he is unlikely to shore up enough support among investors to commit to long term investments required to create well paying jobs. Distribution of oil sale windfalls works in the short term (Hugo Chavez showed us recently), but does not address structural dynamics of poverty in Iran.
He has pledged to tackle unemployment: he is even less likely to succeed here. The reason is explained above. Ni investments equals no new jobs, hence more (not less) unemployment.
He portrayed himself as an anti-corruption crusader: there might be a couple of show trials, conveniently targeting political opponents. Iranian bureaucracy is deeply corrupt due to rent-seeking by bureaucrats, so it’s not hard to find some erstwhile high ranking reformers with less than squeaky clean financial records. But his campaign owes so many IOUs to hardliner semi-legal smugglers and rent-seekers that any serious attempt to rout out the corruption is a joke.
Another important outcome of this election was total political isolation of all the first generation leaders of the 1979 revolution except supreme leader, Ali Kahmenei. Rafsanjani’s defeat and Karrubi’s public resignation from all official duties essentially isolated the last remnants of the Old Guard. Open hostility to high ranking clerics who did not support Ahmadijejad showed that the new Lords do not have much respect for ulama’a (religious leaders) either. Present Lords of The Islamic Republic are a motley collection of ultra-conservative mullahs who did not participate in the revolution in ’79, commanders of the Revolutionary Guards, and street thugs and conservative bazaar merchants. They seem to be able to shore up support among the poor by playing the populist card. But I really do not see how they can deliver anything tangible.
Another important outcome of this election would be Iran vs. West relations. Core supporters of the new Mr. President are among the most rabid fundamentalist elements in Iran. He avoided participating in interviews with foreign journalists. It is hard to imagine that his administration and its supporters are more flexible than Khatami’s administration regarding the nuclear arms question. If they indeed are less accommodating towards West’s demands regarding Iran’s nuclear program, some kind of confrontation is inevitable. European trio of UK, France, and Germany can not claims that they are making progress about Iran’s nuclear program and human rights record if no one would talk to them! US would not accept a nuclear Iran. It is a truth. A nuclear North Korea is there because Seoul is just 25 miles from the DMZ. That’s not the case about Iran.
In a confrontation with the US military might, you do not need to be a genius to know who will lose.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Friday, June 17th 2005
In case of a run off election and realistically probable win for reformist candidate Moin, millions of dollars of conservative campaigning would have been in vain. We will see tomorrow.
At any rate, the visible outcome of this electoral campaign was noticeable secularization of the tone of serious contenders. Except for one long shot conservative candidate, all others ostensibly avoided religious propaganda. It is true that without exception all campaign promises were meaningless and infeasible, but it was rather refreshing to see that secular themes had the upper hand even for clerics running for the office.
Without a doubt, Iranian society is secularizing faster than anyone believed possible a decade ago. Hopefully all the political Islam mumbo jumbo will be a bad memory in a decade, at least in Iran.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Lou Dobbs Moment
This said, I noticed something very strange. Years back when I lived in Iran, I liked watching CNN's financial markets coverage by Lou Dobbs. It was go go 1990s and everyone was pro-globalization. That included Mr. Dobbs. Fast forward to 2005. I dont know about you, but every time I watch his program now, I feel like puking. This guy has turned his show from a financial markets coverage affair to a pulpit for ugliest kind of populism possible. Consider this: even President Bush called those goons who are patrolling Mexican border to catch (and then do what?) illegal immigrants, vigilantes operating beyond the scope of law. Mr Dobbs calls them concerned, patriotic, American citizens, who have had enough (of what?). I was under the impression that we live in a republic with functioning police, army, and border guards. Not according to CNN I suppose.
If you listen to him, and take him seriously, you should vote for nuclear attacks on China and India, concentration camps for Latino immigrants, and expulsion of anyone who does not consider Pat Buchanan as saint from this country. Then you should close the borders, chug a lot of bad beer, and wait until you die, I guess. I wonder whether this type of rhetoric really buys this guy any ratings. I mean lets get real, a bully pulpit for xenophobia, paranoid protectionism, and gloating over how we are all going to go down in flames and die, hardly sounds like objective journalism. Is this what CNN wants to portray itself today?
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Since the cat is out of the bag, then …
I do question the logic of such a tactic. Time and again, United States stresses the goal of democratizing and modernizing the Middle East. Such a policy is good for American businesses and it is good for US and Israel’s long term security. If a democratic Middle East (and the financial and security dividend implied by such a plan) is the real goal of US foreign policy, then fanning ethnic agitation in Iran looks an odd way of achieving it.
At best, such a tactic might be ineffective (since the majority of Iranians will rally behind the Islamic Republic to save the country) and at worst it may plunge a 70+ million country in a civil war. Such a war will not be contained in Iran. It can easily spill over to Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Persian Gulf states, if not Pakistan! I think by now we all know that Yugoslavian civil war taught everyone a lesson or two.
Iranians are a very nationalistic people. Think about the Irish circa 1915 and then multiply it by a factor of 100. I happen to be very lukewarm on nationalism, but that’s just me which allows me to make educated guesses on what might be the outcome. I assure you none of the likely scenarios look good. Just to give you an example: none of these ethnocentric agitators are democratic. Almost all of them are vitriolic anti-Americans (most are ex-Marxists with an ax to grind regarding the break up of the Soviet Union, or unhappy about Arab-Israeli conflict, or unhappy about other real and imagined "sins" committed by the US). The group generally considered responsible for recent unrest in Khuzestan was created and financed by Saddam Hussein up to 2003! Let’s assume that they actually manage to carve out a new Arab state after a dirty ethnic war with the non-Arab population. Then US military should worry about another safe haven for ex-Ba’athists and Jihadis launching attacks against GIs in Iraq and US Navy in the Persian Gulf, if not another 9/11 style attack at the US soil.
A far more prudent course of action will be supporting democratic elements in the Iranians society. There are many of them and they do have the numbers and the power to ask for change. They do lack organization and financial support. But US can easily provide the necessary tools covertly or overtly. Notice that if the average Iranian senses a threat to the country or the threat of civil war, he may abandon the increasingly audible demands for democratic change and support even the most obnoxious fundamentalist elements in the IR hierarchy. And after the recent events even assuring the average Iranian that US does not want a civil war in Iran may not be a bad idea.
Islamic Republic is really bereft of its once commanding popularity. But if they are given the chance to don the mantle of Iranian nationalism, they can muster an impressive number of foot soldiers. US definitely does not need that! The choice seems pretty clear to me, and CIA gumshoes are not exactly the best policy makers. I would be happy to see your feedback.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Addendum:
Anyone who has gone through US immigration system knows that regardless of how many times you declare your noble intentions, US CIS has its own (often baffling and counterintuitive) criteria.
Among them is the little advertised clause that states if you over-stay a legal entry permit or enter the country illegally (bar a few exemptions), you would not be eligible for residency legal procedures for “ten years”! So if these children’s parents do not start early enough, and most don’t, these kids are not eligible for even the review process (let alone legal residency) long after they have left college. Since employment of college graduates is more competitive and better regulated than that of unskilled workers round the corner, I can not see how this bill will help these kids! What good is a college degree when you can not use it for job search? Moreover, really how binding is a written pledge? Are you going to deny them their degree if they have not made progress on what they committed to do? Then it will be almost automatic: don't issue any degrees. They won't make any progress on becoming legal!
There are other issues:
First, it seems that the bill is essentially a vehicle to curry favor with voters (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) and is not concerned with the welfare of illegal college age teenagers; else state of North Carolina should have lobbied the CIS for a change in residency rules.
Second, since the bill targets Hispanics predominantly (other immigrants in this state tend to be legal), it is missing the point. Most so-called Hispanic kids, who are considered at risk, do not even finish high school. College is not even in the picture. The absolute majority of them are from central American origins. Contrary to what many people perceive, Hispanics are not homogeneous. You have South Americans, who are generally well-educated, relatively wealthy, and legal. You have middle class central Americans and Caribbeans who resemble South Americans in socio-economic terms. And then you have the typical “round the corner” immigrant from central America.
Here is where it gets complicated: many of these people are not even proficient in Spanish language, let alone literate! Many speak one of the native languages, do not know enough Spanish to use the bilingual services offeredin the US, and can not help their children at school. The children have the double trouble of not knowing English, AND having difficulty with Spanish! Many of them (60%+) drop out of school, many never even reach 10th grade.
For my money, the logical step would be trying to assimilate these children into the American culture by making sure that they get a quality primary and secondary education, in English. The goal should be to give them a shot at academic or professional success, not some cosmetic legislation that does not bring them any tangible benefits.
Illegal immigrants and not-so-scholarly future scholars!
First I have to say the hype is greater than the reality. It seems to me that the bill just allows those children who are “born” on the US soil to exercise this privilege. I actually did not know that as US citizens, these kids could not do it! Their parents are illegal, sure enough. But the children are not. They are as much a citizen of the USA as any kid whose ancestors came with the May Flower. Some may not like this, but it is the law of this country. So it seems a bit strange that you may be a citizen, but you re not a resident in a state where you are born and/or raised.
Second, I have to say that I would have been livid if this privilege was given to “all” children of illegal immigrants. If the child is not a US citizen or legal resident, I see no reason why he/she should get a huge discount on higher education on my expense. After all these years, I “just may” qualify to get in-state tuition this year. Then why someone who has cut in the line in the first place, should get brownie points too?
Peter has a piece on this issue. I found many of his points relevant.
Third, Associate Dean Jim Leloudis recently announced that UNC would lower the weight of academic achievement in granting scholarships to under grads. After reading the article I was very puzzled. Leloudis is not a hack. He knows his business. He also knows that while the best students in the university are truly outstanding, the same is not true for the average. In fact, the 80% rule sees to this outcome. Scholarships are a means to lure the truly outstanding “scholarly” types to choose UNC. Problem is that none of these people who re-wrote the procedures have a clear idea about what they are doing. So exactly what is happening here? UNC is one of the best public universities in the US. I don't understand why administrators are knowingly lowering the standards, hence destroying a great institution. Is there a bit of "career concerns" economics going on?
Friday, April 15, 2005
Been a long time since I’ve rock n’ roll’ed …
The last two weeks have been eventful and I have been too busy to put new posts here. So here we go again:
Iran’s president made another huge mistake. While attending Pope John Paul II funeral, Israel’s Iranian born president, Moshe Katsav, shook hands with both Iranian and Syrian presidents. Katsav and Khatami are from the same city (Yazd in central Iran) so they did exchange some pleasantries and discussed their hometown. If Khatami possessed a pair of functioning “cojones”, this event could help re-establish Iranian-Israeli relationships. Alas, upon returning to Tehran, Khatami buckled under the hardliner pressure and reiterated the same old and tired anti-Israeli BS that you usually hear in all muslim countries.
While I do not go as far as Mr. Derakhshan and ask Iranians to hound Jews as potential spouses, I do think that Iran, Israel, and Turkey have very similar national security and economic interests. As a result, I do think that a close diplomatic relationship between these three countries is necessary for the balance of power and long term security of the Middle East. For my money, a very close tri-lateral alliance is the best option, but any functioning comprehensive trade, security, and diplomatic arrangement is better than the current mess.
Bluntly speaking, Palestinian question has nothing to do with Iran’s national interests. If the ethical aspect is a concern, having some leverage (through diplomatic and trade relationship) over Israeli decision making process enables Iran to do much more than what it is doing right now. Remember that you might be allies, but you do not need to support all actions taken by your partner.
On a different note, Iranian Studies Group, a (graduate) student run research outfit at MIT published the initial results of its first survey of Iranian-American community. Several issues in this survey are worthy of detailed discussion. Briefly, here is a list of issues I find interesting:
- Iranian-American community seems very well-integrated in the American society. Many of them are US citizens, have a functioning relationship with native born Americans, and feel welcome and at home here (the overwhelming majority do not feel discriminated and find few obstacles for success in the US, many speak English at home).
- Civic participation among Iranians is very low. While they are doing very well financially (look at table 6), they have not been tapped by the political machinery as campaign contributors or potential voters.
- The participants are highly educated. This might be due to selection bias in design of this poll (it was internet based). But there is a widely held belief in the Iranian community that the majority of Iranian Americans are college educated. As mentioned before, high levels of human capital seem to translate into financial success.
- It is remarkable how secular the respondents are (close to 68% do not practice religion, less than 20% discuss it with their children, close to 35% consider religion and mysticism as the least appealing aspect of Iranian culture, and close to 40% claim to be agnostic, spiritual but not religious, or atheist!).
- Iranian customs, Persian language, and Iranian history seem to be the main elements defining and binding this community together. Ethnicity, religion, and politics seem to be unimportant.
- They are a close knit community and socialize and marry inside their own community. Outside Iranian community, they prefer to socialize with Americans, Western Europeans, and Latin Americans compared to other ethnic groups.
I got to go now. Please share your thoughts with me.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
UNC Rules!
When I started graduate school here back in the day ;) , one of my dreams was to witness a UNC championship before I graduate. An ACC title would have been enough. Boy, little did I know that I will live to see a NCAA title! Chapel Hill was on fire last night!
It actually gives me bragging rights. You see, I have to go to Duke every week. It is true that grad students don't care "too much" about college sports, but still you got snide remarks every time Duke beat UNC or when heaven forbid, they went for a NCAA tourny. Now it's payback time!!!
We all love Roy's Boys! Good job Tar Heels!
