Today's heated rhetoric in the US over the exporting of jobs and unfair trade reminds me of the so-called economic headlines in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Only then it was Japan Inc. and Japanese Yen, now it's Indian Silicon and Chinese Yuan. Only then it was automobiles and electronics, now it's software and sneakers. Only then it was insecurities over industrialism and inflation, now it's insecurities over security and dollar depreciation. Only then, that was then, and this, this is now - or is it?

Interesting enough I believe all of these issues can see their own shadow by way of contrasting the question:

why is it that in Canada it's the so-called left that most adamantly opposes so-called free trade, while in the US it's the so-called right that most adamantly opposes so-called free trade?

Seldom are these two poles of the North American political spectrum in sync; many would suggest that these two spectrums barely overlap. In the US, the Canadian left is tantamount to empirical communism, while in Canada, the US right marches to beat of Wagner. And yet on this one issue, this one ECONOMIC issue - free trade, the Canadian left and American right seem to be marching to the same apocalypse now. Why now?

In 1992 William J. Clinton defeated the incumbent George H. W. Bush because of economics. In 1991 "H" had just come off the Gulf War with approval ratings approaching a glass full of electorate, which usually translates to carry the college. Indeed "H" was well suited to the job. Not only was he a WWII veteran, but he was a storied war hero with the T-shirt and video to prove it. "H" was also the former Director of the CIA, the former US Ambassador to the UN, the former Chief Liaison in Communist China, a Phi Beta Kappa Yale grad, oh yes, and cant forget that "H" was also the Vice President for eight years and the President for four. In a nutshell, "H" was about as well qualified to be The President of The United States of America as any person since the Founding Fathers, maybe even the most qualified person to be President ever.

"J" on the other hand was a bit of a bubba. A southern twang coupled with an overly personable persona, not to mention a wife whom many perceived to be about as warm as a marble statue. Considered by many, mostly his enemies, to be a bit of slickster, Slick Willy to be exact. "J" was accused of being a draft dodger, a womanizer, and while he made no claims to being able walk on water, he did claim to being able to breathe without inhaling. Few at the time thought "H" would have anything to worry about ten months pre-inaugural, least of all any worries from some bubba. But as the saying goes: so goes the Greenback, so goes New Hampshire - or in the infamous words of James Carville: "it's the economy stupid.".

In fact "J" was able to jump onto Carville's Cajun catch crawl and ride that "H" bomb all the way down to terra firma like Slim Pickins in Doctor Strangelove. As a result, "J" became the 42^nd President of the United States doing what went against all standards of Oval decorum: "J" defeated a sitting President, and a rather qualified one at that.

Aside from the novelty of wondering who would have been number 43 had "H" actually won a second term, my question is:


will the 2004 Presidential election in US be true to economic form or take some other form?

Economics is a tricky business, at any given moment you can never really claim for certain if more or less goods and services are coming or going. Which is why safe habor statements proliferate, but no one really seems to pay attention to them. Historically one of the strongest correlations, and thus predictive lead indicators as to the outcome of a Presidential election is the state of the economic Union, specifically, the state of the Union's GNP or GDP. Recent economic indicators are truly an unprecedented hodge-podge. Massive growth only it's a jobless growth, at least to date.

To my way of thinking economics will remain the definitive indicator as to which candidate the ramparts red glare will shine upon this November. Personally, I don't think the American public will be fooled by steroid-based economic numbers that don't also translate into tangible cardiovascular fitness, AKA people, not numbers, at work in the USA. This time the Cajun two step is even more succinct:


It's jobs stupid. If the living and breathing job numbers don't keep pace with their anabolic stimuli, then it's deja vu all over again.

But there is something else lurking in the marble that paves the walkway to the inaugural address. There is a marble portrait statue in the Rotunda of the Capitol Building in Washington DC. On it are carved the busts of three influential women in American History: Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony. These women are cast immortally in stone in recognition of their efforts in the women's rights movement in the US, namely the right for women to vote. But if you look closely at the portrait monument there is an unmistakable chunk of unfinished marble jutting out in the background. Rumor has it that this fourth edifice is reserved for the first woman President of the United States.

Who knows, maybe this game of he said - he said is about to be played out like a completely predictable game of chess: "H", "J", "W", and... "R"? Or to paraphrase the infamous words once directed at "H. W's" Vice: 'W, you ain't no H' . Only in this case perhaps this time round that "H" stands for someone whose presence actually works in "W's" favor; to their mutual favor; a lady in waiting. Politics, it makes for strange bedpersons - indeed!

(And in case you doubt my economic forecast, why not check it out for yourself: http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/rotunda/suffrage_1.htm)

While driving to my family's for Christmas I passed by a full sized billboard on the side of the highway advertising for marijuana grow-op supplies. I should point out that I happen to live in Canada, British Columbia to be specific, and for better or worse BC has North America’s most liberal laws and attitude when it comes to drugs (see Forbes). Personally, I found it odd to see such a billboard, but my personal opinion is beside the point. The question that came to my mind while driving past the sign was: I wonder what most Americans would think if they saw such a sign on an I-way in the USA?

To my way of thinking, I suspect most – but not all, Americans would have the same gut wrenching feeling that most – but not all, Canadians feel when they see an ad for guns in the USA: oh, that’s just wrong! So who’s really right? Actually, I think there’s a much more useful issue to consider rather than debating whose got the best bud, Mr. Wizer or Mr. Reefer. And that issue is to try and understand why the other side feels the way they do.

Now I know that for hot button topics people don’t like to mix words, let alone metaphors. But it seems to me that the degree of repulsion for the other side’s position on this is not simply an abstraction, it’s an exaction. It just seems so obvious that one side - your side, is completely right on all counts on this issue – doesn’t it?

My point is that there is little to be gained simply by agreeing with yourself. Why not try to understand the other side simply by realizing that they probably feel as if your bud is encroaching on their bud. That is, even if you know in your gut that you will never – ever, buy into their argument, why not try and at least understand how it must feel – to them. If nothing else, REALLY understanding where your opposition is coming from is one of the best tools you can have if you really want to pull their rug out (brinkmanship is so 20th century (passé)).

So why not try it on again:

Canadians feel about American gun laws as Americans feel about Canadian drug laws.

And rather than default to one of these buds based upon your nationality, why not try on the other side’s bud even if it is just for a cerebral moment.

Kenichi Ohmae, a Japanese national, once wrote a book entitled, Now that I Have Seen the World, I Can See Japan Better. In times like these, when the tide toward a borderless world seems to be creating more dams than spillways, I think it’s even more important for global citizens to understand and feel where their neighbors' neighbours are coming from. In the end, you don’t have to agree, but it’s when you don't agree in the beginning that’s really worrisome. (And in case you were wondering, I’m not a big fan of bud).

Thought for Food

If nothing else, this is an interesting portrayal. A website that dynamically maps the ecosystem of various authors.

The Paradigms of Science: Einstein & Kuhn

In Science we Hedge, but in Physics we Vest
(links to a sample chapter from my book, The Wealth of Networks)

Harry Truman once submitted an RFP for an ‘economist with only one hand’, a not so subtle elbow directed at the dismal profession’s kidney that counsels like an inflamed appendix. Case in contemporary point, the eco-pundits attempt to rationalize our current gout of unprecedented fluctuations in the currency markets. But rather than attempt to stop the printing presses in the heat of an unprecedented moment, I’d much rather consider the torch that is being co-signed by a new generation of bearers; born in the JFK century, but destined to live their vestige of majority in the present. And that unsecured debt of ingratitude poses to consider the question:

what would happen if there was only one global currency?

Personally, I am convinced that many people would counter that this unilateral display of pecuniary is already in print. Since Bretton Woods the US dollar has been notarized as the international reserve currency of last retort. But the in Nixon we Trust greenbuck, that first separated quantified church from qualified state, has today reached the summit whereby the residual shareholders are stuck holding unsolicited, yet fully secured, divorce papers; indeed it’s the kids who always seem to suffer the most.

Which brings us back the pundits of Camelot and their cliometric recount as to just what is - or ought to be - the modern day recipe for equalizing monetary room temperature. Backed by their acquired confidence that all politicians will beggar their constituents’ neighbors into Chapter 11, these industrious S&D folk lords are quick to cite gold breaking through the $400 US barrier as proof positive that the good old days of specie discipline are coming back with a vengeance. Notwithstanding the frictionless entropy that comes from swapping intellectual shares of Fahrenheit for ethereal debentures of Celsius, exchanging American apples for European oranges really does effect and affect global warming.

To my way of thinking, any rhetoric to Ricardo’s attic or footnote to Gresham’s cellar in terms of gold in the 21st century, is bit like attempting to reverse engineer a red herring. Because what the history of money unequivocally supports is that the actual unit of transaction is converging into a singular, yet less and less tangible form, while the actual base or basis of that unit's Trust can, and will, never be put back into an alchemist’s bottle of AU. This is not meant to suggest that some more tangible form of real world discipline is remiss, rather it is meant to suggest that Newton’s third law will inevitably have to find another economic pendulum to cradle.

But perhaps what this current hyper-cycle of specie speculation is really exposing is a whole new wardrobe of emperor’s clothes:

- On the one side of the closet is the so-called anti-globalization activist, those people who are fighting for equal (one-to-one) Human Rights, while concurrently extrapolating that all nations - no matter their population, must also be created equal.

- On the other side of the closet is the so-called contemporary economist, those people who quote their universal cake exclusively in US dollars knowing full well that a worker in Zhengzhou (and that worker’s landlord) couldn’t tell a Benjamin from a Jackson.

My imperial point is, however, couched in a metric of utter humility. That is, if the world did in fact evolve to usury one - and only one, global currency, the class of workers most likely to be forever outsourced would be money traders. Moreover, the incentive for global multi-nationals to whimsically move jobs around the world chasing the cheapest worker would be severely curtailed, if not eliminated.


Accordingly, and as a matter of job security, these captains of industry are more than happy to let the anti-globalization activists continue with their global-Crusade, for in the absence of such egalitarian noise the landlord's premium on the pecunary would all but disappear. Thus perhaps a quote from some unnamed, two-handed money trader to all the anti-globalization activists is in order:

“Not In My Front Yard”
(translation: ‘Me thinks thou doth protest not enough.’).

Then again, perhaps this story-line is not really such a new world order; fashion, now there's a species of specie.