Roy Ho’s Blog

Nancy Pelosi (House Majority Leader) says the race should go on because of high turn out rate it is drawing in all the states.  Pressure has been on Clinton to quit as it would be divisive.  Pelosi is the first politician who acknowledges the positive benefit of a long race.  This is consistent with this blog’s philosophy (2008.04.07, 200804.23).  Why is Pelosi saying that? 

She is looking at the seats in the House of Representatives.  She wants to shake more Republican seats.  And she probably sees that the Democrats are now enlarging their base so great that they can eat into Republican base.  

Interestingly, what did Clinton say?  In the same CNN article, Clinton says it is a “civil rights” issue.  Therefore, if FL and MI will not get seated (however they will be seated), DNC, using Clinton’s idea, the civil rights of FL and MI have been violated.  Will Clinton defend their rights?  Does it mean Clinton will sue to get their rights re-installed?

This primary gets more twists and turns than Gore vs. Bush.  Want some more popcorn?

Boycotting the Beijing Olympics has become fashionable in Hollywood.  They want to make statement and be righteous.  How much difference does it make?  Can advocates have a greater influence on the outcome?  

A boycott should always be used as a last resort because once you boycott, you are no longer engaged to the issue.  You therefore lose all influence in the outcome.  If one has no influence in the first place, then a celebrity’s boycott probably is the best move since it makes to the media and the issue gets highlighted for 30 seconds in the TV box.

However, since the said celebrity has influence in the outcome in the first place, such a boycott is not a loss to Beijing anyway.  That makes the boycott more a media stunt than anything else.  

If one wishes to have positive outcome, one should start with engagement.  If a celebrity brings humanitarian aid to a specific cause, say literacy in some remote area, this celebrity now has greater influence in the education in this geographic area.  The same positive influence on the issue cannot be achieved if the said celebrity starts with a boycott.  

If engagement is not available, boycott is still a worse off alternative to bring results.  A better option is to offer an alternative to others.  Instead of boycotting a company, provide a list of companies that are competitive to the target.  Boycotting without providing alternative is useless.  Be a solution provider. 

The same can be applied to any social movement.  Upset with Wal-Mart?  Instead of boycotting, invigorate downtown business areas.  Upset with urban sprawl?  Remove the economic incentives of the urban sprawling builders by changing the property tax structure (see my blog’s article on 2008.04.28).  

However, boycott is very cost effective for the promoter: no cost and yet 30 seconds of TV advertisement.  Boycott is the last resort not only because it is the least productive method to the issue but also narcissistic.

US has a military base nearby in Thailand.  And Thai has already been cleared by Myanmar governemtn to help.  All assistance can go through Thailand, similar to how aid was sent to Afganistan or Iran.  Why does US insist on direct aid to the Myanmar government? 

Every country wants to have a better relationship with another country.  Having a direct correspondence is just a good tactic to relationship building.  However, such direct correspondence was not on the table when Iran had an earthquake.  So, why Myanmar?

Disaster of this scale require multiple countries to help.  In fact, no amount of help will be enough for disaster of this scale.  China will provide a lot of assistance.  After all, this area affects all the transportation / infrastructure China has been building in Myanmar.

It is good for Pentagon’s strategists.  China has a strong military tie with Myanmar.  China can use the seaport of Myanmar freely.  The next stop for China will be thousands of miles away, days away by ship around Singapore in the island Hainan.  To the west, Parkistan is another ally.  US wants to increase its influence on Myanmar.  Having some first step relationship building exercise is important. 

Myanmar also has rich resources.  Oil field is only part of the story.  Myanmar has a lot of minority problems.  Areas near China (norter Myanmar) has always had multiple militas.  Areas near India is another conflict prone area for either Myanmar or India.  Britain used the northern Myanmar and parts of India adjacent to Myanmar as the spring board to Tibet back in 1800’s.  Making this country available for US to place a pawn somewhere, anywhere is important to Pentagon. 

China now has to face US bases from Japan, South Korea, Central Asia and Afganistan.  Nepal receives US training in its civil war against the Maoists.  UScan very well complete its enclosure on China.  

Obama needs approximately 80 super delegates.  How much will these 80 super delegates cost him? 

There are 280 uncommitted super delegates left. 217 pledged delegates are left for contest.  Obama needs 189 to win (Clinton needs 356). 

At this stage, the answer of electability is fairly clear.  Each candidate’s core constituency is known; their turn out rate is know.  Nothing can really get “negotiated” there.  You see what you buy.  Similarly for platform.  Other than a noble cause to vote for the winnable candidate, is there something a candidate can do for a super delegate just to get one additional vote?

It goes down to the question: what will convince a super delegate to vote for a candidate?  Electability?  Policy platform?  Popular vote count? Or something else?

All these above are very legitimate criteria.  However, some super delegates may have something more urgent on their hands: their own incumbency.  If a super delegate is in a tight race, his personal interest may be more at stake.  And Obama is not naïve about this: he has been fundraising for other candidates to gather favours.  The earliest senator endorsements are of this type. 

Other trades are typical political brokering: a promise of a specific legislation or pork barrel project.  What about fundraising support for a super delegate’s 2010 governor race?  Now, we are talking about money, real money for a politician.

Political Action Committees are the only ones that can accept political donations.  And they are owned by politicians.  The owner can forward the money to another PAC.  In fact, the surplus after campaigns belongs to the candidate.  They are structured very much like a personal account.  The point of this status is for the monitoring of Federal Election Committee.  

What did McCain do after he won over Huckabee?  Help pay off Giuliani’s campaign debt.  How?  Forward the money from his PAC!  Now, why did McCain do that?  Once Giuliani is out of the picture and since Giuliani and McCain share similar constituency, McCain wants to use Giuliani to help do fundraising.  And Giuliani was too busy with his own debt.  So, a favour was made, and a favour was returned.  

If the race gets another dramatic turn, the cost of super delegate will definitely rise since the Obama’s need of super delegate will increase.  However, if Obama can win the race all by him (through pledged delegate), then there is no need for Obama to get any more super delegate.  If not, no matter how much old politics he distains, he is still not immune to realities.  

Dalai Lama representatives are meeting with Chinese counterparts.  This article serves as supplementary information for all those who care about this issue.

Location is Shenzhen.  This is good news.  Shenzhen is next to Hong Kong, far away from Beijing.  Meetings held in Shenzhen usually result in a more liberal atmosphere because the Chinese counterparts will receive less interference from ideologues.  

Chinese counterparts are the head and deputy of United Front Works Department.  The head (Zhu Weiqun) is from Sichuan department.  The deputy is Sita, a Tibetan.  This indicates Communist Party has placed Tibet as the top priority of domestic politics.  This is a good sign, at least it means Tibet gets the attention it requires, rather shuffled to the bottom of the deck.  

Zhu is from Sichuan, an area not in Tibet but has a sizable amount of Tibetan in its jurisdiction.  Enforcements of various rules tend to be more uniform and rigid in Tibet since everyone gets to be applied for the same rules, thus making officers from Tibet less negotiable.  Officers from neightbouring provinces where they have a sizable Tibetan resident make the officers more flexible and keener to listen to different ideas.  Sichuan is especially so since they also have other minorities in the rural areas of that province. 

Sita (born 1953) will continue to rise in China’s hierarchy.  And he will become more and more critical to whatever effort China will have to achieve a more diverse society.  Even an inconsequential talk will not stop his rise.  Sita is a Tibetan.  His lack of last name indicates his ancestors are of Tibetan serf.  He represents what or how common Tibetan has benefited from China: free from serfdom.  He is probably one who did not only get benefited from education, only became available after the 50’s, but also see that education is important to free Tibet from serfdom days that they were prior 1950’s.  Sita has also served Foreign Ministry, stationed in Switzerland.  He has been primed to deal with everything related to Tibet.  Sita may be sympathetic to all Tibetans in terms of human rights.  Given the family’s suffering from serfdom, Sita probably sees the institution of monastery representing serfdom.  

Both sides of negotiators are of the same age group.  However, what Tibet was like is too far and remote to them.  There is no doubt China will have more youthful negotiators in the future.  What about the Tibetan side?  There is no younger aide at the side.  Where is their succession planning for the next round?  The Tibetan side is composed of 2 Dalai Lama loyalists.  However, Dalai Lama’s influence among overseas Tibetan is fading.  This generation gap will not make the movement coherent and sustainable.  Why isn’t the new generation of leaders being involved?  Is this difference purely ideological or an indication of power struggle?

Forbes published a few articles related to patent laws that are English friendly in the last 10 weeks.  The patent universe is likely to change very soon.  And Rumsfeld probably would not like this idea. 

The legislature has been considering patent laws reforms for the past few years.  The pressure of this reform comes from major corporations, which hold a lot of patents, have been getting sued by patent trolls, or patent speculators, for royalty fees.  Additional royalty fees of course cuts into the profit margin.  However, intellectual property suits are costly to fight simply they are so difficult to understand (and thus higher legal fees).  

For some industries, intellectual property (IP) lawsuits affect the legal fees and royalty fees.  However, for some industries, these lawsuits affect their capitalization the suit hits the news.  These are the IP-centric industries, such as IT and medical industries.  

When RIM, the maker of blackberry, got sued for patent infringement, its stock price dropped to its knees.  After all, RIM has nothing but blackberry.  And even if RIM’s patent is not void, a heavy royalty fees will seriously affect its profit.  

A key element of the reform is revolved around unique concept of American patent system: first to invent versus first to file.  The congress will remove the first to invent rule and make US to be in sync with the rest of world: first to file.  In the first to file rule, one needs not be an inventor, but just to be the first to walk into the patent office to own all rights of the invention.  

The first one to be disadvantaged is obviously the legal industry.  However, not many people will feel sorry for that.  And we will skip.

A loss to one may be a gain to another.  Here are some of those:

The second to be affected (not necessarily disadvantaged) are the medical and IT industries.  A lot of drug patents are expiring, just like the copy rights of a lot of Disney characters.  For these US giant pharmaceuticals to stay afloat, they need new patents.  They either have to invent or find other people’s invention to file before the inventor does.  So, the firms that are better industrial espionage will do better.  

Some items are affecting directly the rights of the inventor: 1) Damages will be restricted as well, a classic republican cause; 2) Challenges will be for the entire life span of the patent rather than a probation period; 3) Disclosure of invention will be required prior to granting the patent. 

Who gets the benefit out of this?  Infringers.  Infringers will be able to have a cap on the compensation to the patent owners, able to challenge the patent until the patent runs out (yes, they can), able to learn the invention before it is patented and therefore free from paying royalties fees, and no injections from the inventor to stop the infringements. 

Alright, how does it relate to Rumsfeld? 

As a defense hawk, Rumesfeld is interested at slowing the China’s economic growth.  Making it cheaper for patent violation is a big favour for the medium enterprises in China.  Inventors lobby groups probably would want to get more funding from pharmaceuticals and hire Rumsfeld to be the lobbyist for a cause that its core constituents probably does not have the funding nor the votes for.

辛巴威與贊比亞毗鄰而居，共同擁有一條漫長的邊界，他們的政治安定是唇齒相依的，如果辛國的政治不穩，贊國將會有大批難民壓境，這不光影響贊國的政治，更嚴重是影響贊國的經濟，更有甚者影響世界的資源供應。 

事緣位於非洲內陸的贊比亞是產銅國，名列全球第十位。這個被鄰國包圍的贊比亞，不論那一邊邊界的鄰國有戰亂那麼嚴重，即使有點兒風吹草動，贊國不能維持正常的生產量，銅價焉能不波動。再者贊國位於內陸，由於沒有出口港，它的銅須經肯亞(KENYA)出口，長路漫漫，交通稍有延誤，國際銅價會怎樣，自然不言而喻。幸好肯亞有良好的基礎建設、深水不涷港、政治經濟穩定，一向是東非和中非的貨物集散地、東非的金融中心，可是這個除南非以外的非洲桃源同樣面對政治危機。因此贊比亞政府真是寢食難安。

由肯亞往東南走，便是非洲第一大島，馬達加斯加(MADAGASCAR)，石油蘊藏量為二十億桶，二零零七年九月中聯石油化工國際有限公司 (簡稱「中聯石化」，股份代號：0346)取得與馬國合作開採油田工程合約、興建250個加油站，以及擁有石油產品批發、零售的專營權。

這個合約對中、馬而言都是一大喜訊。中國是貧油國，為了找尋油源而苦惱，中國不但戰略儲備油不足，最近連日用油也告急。向海外收購石油公司，也受西方國家處處掣肘，現在能與馬達加斯加合作，是用油的一大突破。至於馬達加斯加，它的油田停產了六十年，如今有中國的資金與技術，對馬島的經濟當然有裨益。

看見中國在印度洋西岸機遇處處，引起印度的不安。印度在資源方面雖不及中國的緊絀，但印度一向為南亞的第一大國，西起非洲東岸、東至大小摩洛哥群島印度裔人口最多，雖然沒有在印度洋建立殖民地，但卻以印度洋為其禁臠，如今中國涉足於此，頗叫印度坐立不安。中國現在擁有十三億人口，核子武器，更何況印度的近鄰：東北的孟加拉、西藏；東鄰的緬甸，西接的巴基斯坦與中國都有或深或淺的友誼，印度如何是好呢﹗稍後，印度有需要和中國共商印度洋的安全事務，希望兩國均能各安並事。但如此一來，將會做成中國大陸找尋資源的「不便」。

大陸的石油公司出國收購西方的石油公司時屢屢遭遇挫折，外交上又經常碰壁，大陸的石油公司有須要學會降低政治風險，而此中佼佼者不是甚麼高人、教主，而是匯豐銀行。

當年，匯豐銀行為了減低因「九七」問題所衍生出來的政治風險，雖然以第一時間遷冊加勒比海，但遷冊不能提供足夠的政治保障，匯豐才又分別在倫敦、紐約掛牌，目的是要吸納更多的英美投資者。這些英、美籍的投資者會利用不同的渠道、正式或非正式的途徑遊說政府保護他們的既得利益，匯豐看準中國大陸是一個「錢」途無限的新興市場，但又怕五十年代的歷史重演，所以把匯豐的利益與英美投資者的利益結合，融為一體，做到你中有我、我中有你，敵我不能再分時，抗拒意識便會淡化，這是另一種的和親政策。

  大陸在贊比亞有許多銅礦，倘若印度現在插手肯亞及辛巴威的事務，無異是向中國施壓，目下印度已來不及了，也犯不著在現階段挑釁大陸，但隨著中國在非洲的影響力日增，印度插手這類資源供應國事務的動機和誘因只會愈來愈大，中印的齟齬將會不絕於耳。

1,498字

original:

http://royho.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/madagascar-oil-has-gone-chinese/

http://royho.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/kenya-zimbabwe-and-your/

India held its last election in 2004 and due for another one in 2009 or earlier.  The party in power is Congress and they won primarily for their agenda for the lower castes and/or the poor.  India has been having great economic performance as well.  India still has potential to be exploited.  This potential can be achieved when the social integration of the untouchable is successful.  And investments in that area require a tacit knowledge. 

CNN made a mistake in using the word class.  It could have been a typo if class were used consistently through out its content.  However, class and caste are used inter-changeably in the content.  That seems to suggest the difference between caste and class is misunderstood.  Class can be ascribed, as Plato suggests.  Caste is innate.  

Prior to Congress’ victory, many foreigner investors considered the previous government led by BJP as more investor friendly.  This is to argue otherwise.  

BJP’s core value was Hindutva.  That was to ask: who is Indian?  That came as polarizing as Bush was to the States.  Yes the poor were ignored and that constituted as a block of votes for Congress.  However, investors need this much needed Congress for political stability is the first requirement for any investor into long term investment cycle.

Violence in the rural areas can be instigated by religion as well as by caste differences.  This is only one case that gets to the media.  

Labour upgrade is difficult because education is not as accessible to the lower castes as the upper castes, not necessarily just the untouchables.  Jobs, lending practices are sometimes not favourable to the untouchables in some areas.  

Although the federal government has strong affirmative action laws for the lower castes since the first legislature, social inequality continues.  And sometimes it can turn violent with great organizational support.  

Differences in religion can be just as problematic.  And with the separatist movement at the far corners, although calming down in recent years (or decades now), managing such a diversity requires great political skill.  

Having investments in that area requires all this local knowledge.  The current Congress is just as pro-economic growth as BJP.  In fact the current government is much better equipped than anyone else to manage growth in India.  They have a good finance minister from a major seaport of India.  They have a long history of governance.  In a country where they have strong regulation and a lot of oligopolies, this is an important asset.  The current government is also the party that can unite different castes, religion, promote peace in the region and continue its relationship building effort with its greatest perceived threat of China at the same time.  

There are reasons for both house and senate not to do anything with Bush in regard to recession (or anything else, like treaty ratification) for their personal and political gains.  However, such a delay may not be a bad thing for the country.  

A new president will be mandated by November, almost down to 6 months now.  A new administration will start operation by next January, 9 months away.  So, the good reason for not doing anything with Bush is: if legislations are passed now, then it will be the new administration that has to execute them, what if these legislations will completely contradict to the new administration’s mandate?  Is this legislative prescribing “solutions” that are going to be doomed? Or even worse sour the relationship with the new president?  

And if these legislations turned out to be successful, guess what, the outgoing president will definitely claim to be his credit years from now in his memoir just as the same time the new president will claim to be his credit.  Will any new president like such a trap?  How can any well intended legislator purposefully set such a political trap up for the new president to step on?  

We know there is no solution that would be “the only” solution.  Creating grand standing solutions right now requires an unquestionable monolithic ideological conviction that says this is the only solution to the problem.  The worse is this conviction can be misinterpreted as: arrogance. 

How can the legislators trust the new administration to execute these solutions faithfully when they just push them down the new administration’s throat?  Therefore, the delay tactic is not only for the gain of the legislature as a whole as well as individuals, but also prudent for the nation.  

Bush is complaining the Congress is delaying his every effort to get us out of recession, CNN reports.

What does he expect?  He is about to go.  Who would want to send him legacy legislations?  

Everyone should be in a transition mode and see what solutions will better fit the direction the next President will want to take.  After all, there is never one solution.  So, any legislator would think “why not wait and see?”

Any real meaningful legislation will require work from both House and Senate.  Every Joe, Dick and Harry will want to add his stamp, his pet project, pet cause, pet donor’s wishes to the legislation.  And it is much better to trade favours with a new president than an out-going president.  

All possible outcomes from this congress are items that are fiscally inexpensive and good for TV items.  This mortgage crisis cheque is a good example.  Everyone gets a few hundred bucks.  It is good for re-election.  And if the problem persists to 2009 January, then there is something the legislators can trade with the new president.  

This is just a blamemanship game. 

The political solutions usually cannot do a dent in a short run.  The effects of government fiscal policies and programs usually do not affect the economy in a matter of months.  These interventions affect the market set up and their effects are measured in years and decades.

Short term interventions require government’s active participation in the market (be it real estate or stock market or whatever else).  This kind of short term interventions are effective only when the action 1) is rare and 2) is taken shiftly.

Interest rate fluctuation is the first type, however the Fed can affect only the interest rate aspect of the economy. And that is not the solution for everything.

Shiftly is a time element.  The reaction has to be quick.  Such a quick action can only be carried out by an undemocratic institution, like the Fed.  And China’s interventions are effective because they are undemocratic.  They can shut down all stock transactions to serve whatever the political purpose is.  But we live in a democracy with freedom, right?