Here we go

It's already starting.  Russia is mad.  There is a necessary question:  why has the US pushed so hard, all of the sudden.  Many accounts claim Mr. Bout was very useful to the US during invasions in the last decade with transporting supplies to the Middle East.  Both Russia and the US have been said to use him to provide arms to various militias that the countries couldn't officially back.  So in a way, Russia's anger is much more understandable than the US's insistence on extradition and penalization.

Mr. Bout is said to have armed the Colombian rebels--not to mention countless other groups around the world.  Did his moral, ethical, and legal transgressions finally get to the point where they outweighed any possible benefit to the US?  Or is the possibility of learning Russian secrets too enticing?

Sitting in my cubical, I clearly don't know the answer.  But frankly watching this unfold has been more exciting than this season of Dexter.  And I've actually been enjoying this season of Dexter!

It's finally happening...

Let's hope that Victor Bout's imminent extradition reveals how this underworld of international weapons trafficking truly worked.  When viewed dispassionately, Mr. Bout's weapons, transport, and trade empire was unbelievably impressive.  The horrors attached aside, learning the inner workings will be fascinating.  Furthermore, a close eye should be kept on how Russia responds, as they seem to have been protective of possible secrets involving Mr. Bout.  Will this effect Russo-Thai relations?  Was there a deal made between the US and Thailand?  Is there actually anything to tell at all?  Tune in next time...

Transparency International

Transparency International has posted its new Corruption Perception Index.  I've heard from both insiders and news articles that these rankings, while widely read and used as fodder, are more subjective than many would hope.  But more data is becoming available that will eventually lead to more objective means for calculating corruption.  Due to new laws in the US and abroad, many of the world's largest companies will be forced to disclose every dime "donated" to governments and their officials.  Until then, however, let's enjoy these rankings, which are constructed based on surveys of experts and international business people.

Enjoy!

Oh, and you all know how I love maps.

When do we trust? When they offer $60 billion.

We've had an uncomfortably comfortable relationship with Saudi Arabia for a long time.  Since WWII, we've had our ups and downs while maintaining peace and attempted cooperation.  Now the Pentagon has approved an arms deal possibly worth up to $60 billion.

I am struggling very hard to paste my opinion here.  Let's just say that it will be imperative to track these sales.  I'd be interested (and terrified) to see where these planes, helicopters, etc, have landed in five or ten years, and what they are being used for.

Quick note of clarification:  Saudi Arabia has shown strong support for US initiates in recent history, and I don't mean to imply corruption or incompetence.  But historically, when $60 billion or some obscene amount worth of US military equipment goes into a turbulent region, people like Victor Bout get giddy.

Trust the Nigerian People Like We Trust Alaskans!

Earlier in the year, while preparing a literature review for a paper on natural resources and economic development, I was lucky enough to read an article by the famed economist Xavier Sala-i-Martin.  I've enjoyed his papers in the past, as he's brilliant and quite a character.  Here is his website, if you want proof.

 Who said economists lead boring lives?

Anyway, the paper in question, linked here, co-authored by Arvind Subramanian (awesome name), is quite unique, as it offers not just rigorous econometric analysis but also some clear, novel, and ambitious policy suggestions. 

The suggestion that hit me is that to avoid corruption, underperformance, and all of the social ills that come along with both, the government of Nigeria should simply distribute all of the oil revenue to its people.  Directly.  Tax them if necessary, but don't keep it.  This is similar to the policy they have in Alaska, where they pay people to live there.  When I was in French camp, the amount was $1000 per person per year.  Apparently, this amount has varied over the years.

The reasons that this is a good idea are many.  The most important one involves keeping a democracy healthy.  If a government is the recipient of massive oil wealth, that means that a large portion of their budget does not come from taxes.  If this country has a very poor population, and an even poorer system of tax collection, the proportion of government budget that comes from taxes turns miniscule.  This means that the government is not dependent on its people in the same way as non-oil rich countries, often resulting in oil-rich countries turning a blind eye to their peoples needs and requests.

Another reason why this is important is it requires the government to collect taxes from people using a known tax rate.  This leaves less room for corruption, as the government's budget should be much easier to calculate.  Additionally, people will receive money (happy!) and then be taxed (sad...).  When government takes money away from its people through taxes, people want to make sure that it was for a good reason.  In this way, there will be much more public pressure for government to spend the oil wealth (first distributed to the public and then taxed) properly than if they bypassed the people altogether.

While there are more reasons why this would be an awesome idea, I'll just end with this simple one.  If you're a Nigerian, and you realize that not only could you get some of this oil money in which your government is bathing but it's also economically and politically the right thing to do, wouldn't you push for this?  I'm not a Nigerian, but if I were, I would.  And therefore it's the job of the Nigerian media to push for this kind of political-economic reform.  Push!!!

Venezuelan Gerrymandering

So the results are in, and Hugo Chavez is scared.  The opposition won 52 percent of the vote, which allows them a whopping two thirds of the delegates.  Now, for those of you math inclined, you might realize that in a functional system, 52 percent of a vote should result in 52 percent of the seats.  But this is Venezuela, so the opposition should be thankful that they got 40 percent.  It's enough to stop rule by decree, at least in theory, as that would necessitate the Chavistas controlling 66% of the Asamblea Nacional.  But more importantly, it shows a real possibility that Chavez could be challenged in the presidential election two years from now.

The above math is a result of a crazy amount of gerrymandering, where the districts are not proportionally represented in the least.  But it should be noted that even proportional gerrymandering can seem ludicrous.  Here is a picture of the district representation from my home state of Maryland.  Look at the red district.  At least it's proportional?

I miss Augustus

I miss Augustus.  He was definitely the best guinea pig.  Ever.  Accept it.  But this one's pretty darn cute as well.

My apologies to those who favored the short-lived Lavender.