g m g D e s i g n . c o m

If you own a dog or know someone who does, then please read on. Otherwise, stop reading immediately, because this blog entry won’t interest you at all.

Pop quiz

When you walk your dog, does your dog walk in front of you? If you dog stops to sniff, do you dutifully stop with him (or her, hereonafter)? If your dog starts acting up, or gets over-excited about something, or gets aggressive with another dog or a human, do you try to console your dog, showering him with affection to calm him down?

Last question: is your idea of walking your dog consist of letting him go to the bathroom and then coming immediately back inside?

Verdict 

If you answered “yes” to any of those questions, then, frankly, you are abusing your dog. Surprised? If so, you need to read on. Not for me, but for your dog.

Domesticated wolves 

First, some history. Dogs are descendents of wolves. That’s true whether your dog is Pomeranian or a Rottweiler. Dogs were bred specifically to perform tasks; i.e., to help their human masters. Dogs are often classified as hunting dogs, working dogs, herding dogs, etc. (some dogs fit easily into several categories).

Point is this: dogs in the wild don’t play dress up with each other. They aren’t trying to look “cute” for their canine pack leaders. They don’t enjoy sitting in an air-conditioned, 3000 sq ft house for 23 hours a day. Dogs are pack animals. They want to be part of a stable pack with a strong, effective pack leader. That’s their mission in life, regardless of breed.

If you own a dog, or know someone who does, then your job is to be the pack leader for your dog. If you watch The Dog Whisperer, then you already know this and you can stop reading. Ceasar Millan does a better job of explaining this stuff than I do, but for the sake of having a common vocab, I’ll borrow his terms.

Pack leadership

Being the pack leader means that you are in control of yourself and your dog. If that sounds cruel or mean, then you’re flat-out wrong (and probably misguided by post-modern ideological crap). Dogs need to feel that they belong to a pack that is led by a strong, capable leader. Note that I did not say a tyrannical leader or an abusive leader. Pack leaders are calm-assertive. They don’t yell at their dogs; they don’t lose their tempers; they don’t hit their dogs. When people engage in this behavior, it’s just pathetic. They have neither control over their dogs or over themselves. They feel frustrated and powerless, and they take it out on their dogs. It’s sad.

It’s also sad when I see little trophy dogs that are pampered by their owner. They’re usually aggressive, though it’s “cute” when they bark and jump on strangers, isn’t it? No, it’s not. Not to someone like me who cares about dogs. When dogs bark excessively, jump on people (guests in your home, for eg), “hump” people, growl, or bite, then that’s a very bad sign. Those dogs are the pack leaders, not their human owners. As pack leaders, they feel that it’s their job to dominate other would-be pack members. They are territorial. They show their dominance as soon as guests walk in the door.

Being the pack leader is best for your dog. It relieves him of the stress of running the (human) pack is a world that is very unnatural for them. Rather than being aggressive when other people approach you and your dog, your pet will realize that you’re the pack leader, not him, and you decide if the pack is in danger, not him.

More on this topic later.

I wasn’t going to blog tonight, but then I hopped over to Thomas Barnett’s blog site & an entry he wrote summed up what’s wrong with today’s politics. Barnett’s blog post breaks down into two categories:

* Bush’s mis-characterization of Iran vis-a-vis current campaign in Iraq (and, broadly speaking, the strategic obtuseness that many have regarding Iran)

* Strategic flaws of both major candidates (Obama & McCain). Regarding McCain:

[War is] what he grew up with as a kid. It’s the environment within which he most comfortably wields power. When he lacks it, he must create it through the anger…

I.e., Barnett is worried that McCain is more likely to see Iran as a threat to be contained (like that’s working well for us) rather than a strategic opportunity to be exploited for our benefit and that of the Iranian people.

Regarding Obama, Barnett bemoans the trade protectionism and general distrust of capitalism. Summing it up:

Between Obama’s trade pandering and McCain’s war pandering, you really have to wonder if America is hell-bent on destroying an international liberal economic order that is our gift to humanity, doing so right at its moment of global apogee.

Tough to disagree with that logic, but partisan politics always finds a way…

I guess the idea of getting rid of agri-subsidies is gaining some traction. Here’s an editorial on the Sacramento Bee that suggests getting rid of subisidies to a large extent, due to a large part to higher food commodity prices. Commentator blames powerful agri-drones in both parties (including House speaker Nancy Pelosi) for supporting the “farm subsidies for millionaires” (as I like to call it). Numbers are astouding: “Congress is close to approving another five-year farm bill that would cost the treasury about $300 billion.” That would be our taxpayer money at work.

I’m surprised, and pleased, that the Times has been so positive on free trade. At a time when the public is getting very iffy on trade, the Times (traditionally an outlet for “feel-good economics”) has taken a pro-trade stance.

Spoiler – here’s the concluding para from the editorial:

Blaming Nafta and other trade agreements for American workers’ pain may play well on the campaign stump. But it will not solve the country’s economic problems. It will only make them worse.

Basically, a former economic minister speaks out vociferously against Ahmedinajad (Iran’s current president). That simply wouldn’t have been possible in Iraq under Saddam or even in Russia.

Good sign for Iran, and more reason to plan for strategic dialog w/ Iran. Will that happen? Not under Bush, and not if a Republican is our next president. Maybe Clinton will start the dialog? Maybe, but I won’t hold my breath. Obama is our best shot at accords with Iran (and Cuba, while I’m on the subject).

For the record, I’m not a zombie for either party. But I do think that relations with Iran are a win-win (for us and for the Iranian people), and I happen to think Obama is the likeliest to get us that win-win scenario.

Murdoch has an essay (adapted from a speech) that’s pretty on-target, methinks. His first point is that our alliances (like NATO) should be expanded to include many countries outside of our traditional allies. He didn’t say it, but I’d throw in China and India as big-time allies that we’re simply not utilizing to their full potential. Murdoch also touches on the free trade deal in-waiting w/ Colombia. His point: failing to ratify the deal for partisan political reasons gives countries like Colombia the impression that we’re hypocrites on trade and that we’re unreliable allies.

Reasonable points.

EDIT:

Just found a better editorial by James Baker III (former sec of state under Bush senior) regarding Colombia and why a FTA is a very good idea. Very cogent. I hope Nancy Pelosi is reading this stuff (“yeah, right,” I’m thinking).

Since commodity prices are determined by economics, here’s a link to some guys who know a boatload about econ, and an opinion on commodity prices and their future.

To sum up, more people are moving into the city (now more than 50% of the world population lives in urban areas) and the world is collectively getting wealthier. However, innovation in agri-production hasn’t kept pace. Consumerism has increased, but there are not as many farmers and, more importantly, innovation on the farm (like farming in the developed world) has not made it to countries like China yet.

The estimate on MarginalRevolution is that commodity prices will max out in about a decade or so, then start plummeting.

So, you’ll hear plenty of “sky is falling” messages from media luminaries that won’t come true in the end. Then people will forget all about the problem. But I’m getting ahead of myself here…

One of the many things I like about Dr Barnett are his ability to portray big ideas in a few words… like in a recent blog post of his. It’s short, so I’ll just quote the entire thing:

Add Palestine to the long list of troubled states where we find Chinese business interests on the back side–our liability-limiting partner whether we recognize it or not.

Unless, of course, you believe diplomatic plans sans economic development work whatsoever.

So, is Big Bad China bad for the developing nations in which Chinese businesses/gov is encroaching upon? Would all those countries in Africa be tropical utopias if China would just leave them alone?

Heck no. Chinese business/gov might be acting in their own selfish interests, but others will ultimately benefit from that connectivity regardless of the motivation. Infrastructure will be one of the early beneficiaries. Transparent gov will come later, of course, but come it will.

On the Defensive, Obama Calls His Words Ill-Chosen.

But were they? No, I’m not saying I agree that guns and religiosity are closely correlated to economic disfranchisement (they’re not). But I don’t mind Obama saying what he said. If a large group feels economically disfranchised, that’s a big problem, and one that threatens the continued existence of free-marketism. Do I recommend income re-distribution? No, I don’t (and neither has Obama). But how about subsidized education for displaced workers… or any worker, for that matter? That gives the masses no excuse to be non-competitive and gives people incentives to stay academically competitive.

Staying ahead of the curve in the globalized world we live in aint’ a bad idea, in my view. Economic incentives for continual education facilitate competitiveness and ward off anti-globalizers. And I think Obama understands that, populist election-year rhetoric aside.

Choice quote:

America should worry less about keeping unskilled immigrants out — and more about keeping skilled immigrants in. Otherwise, it’ll lose the race for the most crucial resource in the knowledge economy: intellectual capital.

I completely agree with the editorial. In advanced economies, innovation is what defines the winners and losers, and we’re currently losing some of the world’s brightest minds for no good reason.

MarginalRevolution has some good Katrina recommendations (actually referencing an outside work). They sum up the plan nicely, so I’ll quote:

1. For relief and recovery efforts and ensure that its role [the private sector] is officially recognized as part of disaster protocols.

2. Decentralize government relief to local governments and non-governmental organizations and provide that relief in the form of cash or broadly defined vouchers.

3. Move the Coast Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) out of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

4. Reform “Good Samaritan” laws so that private-sector actors are clearly protected when they make good faith efforts to help.

The blog mentions that Wal-Mart did a better job than FEMA during the disaster. Surprised? I don’t find it surprising at all that a successful private sector entity is more efficient than a public sector org.

The editorial itself isn’t so shocking except for the fact that it comes from the NY Times editorial board. Check it out:

Democrats need to tell voters the truth: First, trade is good for the economy, providing cheap imports and markets for exports, spurring productivity and raising living standards. And second, while trade can drive down some wages and displace some jobs, Democrats have real ideas to help workers cope. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama should base their approach on these ideas. They would not only make sound policy, they would also provide a competitive advantage over John McCain.

And a reasonable concluding para:

Senators Clinton and Obama can offer policies that will help American workers embrace rather than fear a globalized world. American voters certainly deserve a more serious discussion about trade.

Many media pundits and assorted luminaries have complained about a “China model,” wherein the economy is capitalist but the government is “Communist.” Ignoring the seemingly obvious contradiction there and assuming they mean that China appears to be a capitalist-authoritarian blend, Dr Thomas Barnett allays those fears in his recent column. First, he breaks down various manifestations of capitalism. They are:

1. State-directed
2. Large-cap dominated
3. Oligarchical
4. Entrepreneurial

The US economy is a mix of 2 and 4 (a smart and sustainable blend, per Barnett). China’s economy is much more #1, with 4 at the fringes. For comparison, Russia’s economy is very much 3 with quite a bit of 1.

With that out of the way, what about the pundits? Are they right to be worried that China has found a way to foster capitalism and yet keep their authoritarianism? (Indeed, is their capitalism just a way of doing economically what some countries have tried to do via direct combat? I.e., are they “taking over” with their affordable products and vast exports?)

Barnett assures us (and I agree w/ him) that this is not the case:

Point being, China’s model of development constitutes more of an endorsement of American-style capitalism than an improvement –much less rejection. This strategy of “incremental change, or entrepreneurial capitalism at the margin,” allows China to gradually shift its economy toward the U.S. blend of big firms surrounded by entrepreneurial small firms.

What comes next? More and more freedom if China hopes to hold onto those entrepreneurs.

Implied in that last sentence is the strong likelihood of democracy (not necessarily by name, but in practice) of sorts. Not all “democracies” are actually very democratic by our standards; not all “Communist” countries are Communist, with China being an example of this.

Now that the Sino Bogeyman is in fact on the road to US-style capitalism and freedom/democracy, maybe the next prez will be open to true partnership with this huge potential ally.

Cubans can now stay in Cuban hotels. This is a small step by Raul, but a very good step nonetheless. Neither democracy nor capitalism will sweep into Cuba tomorrow, but with someone besides that idiot Fidel at the helm, some level of reform will trickle in. Like other socialist states before it, Cuba will gradually reform itself, esp its markets, and then become more “democratic-like” in the coming decades.

Expect a gradual process.

Unless there’s a coup or outside intervention by Cuba’s big neighbor.