To Boycott or Not to Boycott, that Is the Question

It has long been established that China is notorious for their human rights abuses. For years the United States relationship with China had been cold, and all the time the government argued that it was about human rights violations, the treatment of their people. But that chilly attitude changed once China began to open its doors to aspects of free trade. The United States saw an opportunity and seized it! The most populous nation in the world without protections for workers is a perfect place to do business. Think of all the costs that can be cut and all the profits that can be made! Very exciting for those with interests in the business world. But if you have an interest in people, then look away because things here are not so pretty.

When I think of China and human rights two things come to mind: 1) Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989 and 2) China's invasion and occupation of Tibet in 1950.

On June 8, 1989, I was on my way to pick up my tuxedo for my prom the next day. It was an event I had looked forward to for four years. The limousines were rented, the plans for after the prom were to go to either Emerald City (a dance club in NYC) or a comedy club, also in NYC. And afterwards, crash at a friends house to kick off a nice relaxing weekend. The day after the prom, my girlfriend and I went out on her boat along with another couple from the prom. It was a great day. But at the same time, on the opposite side of the world, students my age were not having such a nice weekend. They were peacefully protesting to have a few freedoms. They wanted their government to loosen up the tight control on speech. They wanted some right to religion. And yet, I, a naive teenager, aged 18, was taking for granted the freedoms that these Chinese students were asking for. But this protest was "getting out of hand." There were too many people protesting peacefully. The idea might spread, and that just could not happen.

On April 15, 1989, Hu Yaobang died. A Communist Party elite who oversaw the drastic makeover of the Party during the years 1982-1986, was viewed by the many in China as the major figure for reform. Upon his death, the many students gathered in Tiananmen Square to gain audience at the Great Hall of the People in order to request social and political changes. Their attempt to be heard was never granted and viewed by the students as a snub. As a result, overnight, many independent student organizations formed in cities throughout the countries, and some even clashed with police. But despite what appeared to be the beginning of a movement, Party leadership believed that it would all blow over the memorial service for Hu Yaobang on April 22. This estimate was incorrect and the movement would be discussed among the Party leaders as "turmoil" with the same negative connotation as the "turmoil" of the upheavals during the Cultural Revolutions of 1966-1969. At this point, the Party could not turn back from its course. It had denied audience to the students and now that the movement had grown, giving in to the protesters would be a sign of weakness in the Party, and would therefore send the message to other groups that protesting would help to get your way. Not a message the Party would advocate.

As the protests continued into and throughout May, the patience of the Chinese government grew shorter as they became anxious to end this before the arrival of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The students saw Gorbachev as a symbol for reform and by the beginning of June, the government had run out of options. They brought in the troops who would later be ordered to end the protests by force.

This is a single example of the Chinese treatment of their people. One that hits home to me once I put it into perspective, that I was attending my prom while they were facing off with tanks. Today we are seeing another such protest and reaction from the same Chinese government. Sure the names of the leaders re different, but the Party is the same. In 1950 China invaded and occupied the independent nation of Tibet. By 1959, Tibet would lose it's "autonomous" status and clearly unwillingly be a part of China with the exile of the Dalai Lama to India (for an amazing movie about these events, watch the Martin Scorsese film, Kundun). Since that day, the political and spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, has been unable to return for fear of his life. He has been helping to guide his people from India.

On a personal note, I have read some of the writing of the Dalai Lama and read about his history. I am infinitely impressed by his steadfastness and devotion to peace. I can not a imagine a single person that would blame or fault him if he decided to show anger or advocate violence against China considering what the people of Tibet have been subject to. But instead, his perseverance, courage, and calm have been an inspiration. From reading interviews and teachings, I have become a new person, he has totally helped me improve the person I once was to who I am today (I am not saying that I couldn't stand to improve some more, but I believe that I am a better person now than I was 8-10 years ago).

Today, the people of Tibet are once again struggling against the Chinese regime - demonstrating for independence. But the Chinese government continues its crackdown on the protesters who are not limited to Tibet, but to other neighboring provinces as well. And as this protest spreads, Beijing may be faced with some serious problems in the run up to this year's Olympic Games in Beijing. Many world leaders are already planning to boycott the Games, while many others have yet to decide. "President" Bush insists that he will honor his commitment to the invitation to attend the Olympic Games claiming that there would be more to gain be keeping the dialog open between the two leaders (Bush and Hu Jintao). His view is that a boycott would make the Chinese leader more reluctant to listen to the President and any discussion about human rights. So the question remains, would there be mo to gain from boycotting or attending the Olympics?

Economically, the United States has much to gain by keeping in the good graces of China - potentially the largest market in the world. In addition to being a source of cheap labor and cheap goods, China also holds an abundance of US currency. This could be very bad for the US dollar. Remember, since the $US is backed by faith in its value, all China need do is demand yuan (the Chinese currency) for $US. This would result in a devaluation of the dollar and an increase the rate of inflation experienced by Americans.

Last week, as the Olympic torch made its appearance in San Francisco during its brief visit to the US, it was to be met by many protesters. But the heavily guarded torch procession took an alternate route in order to avoid the concentration of demonstrator for fear that it would encounter the same resistance as it did in London and Paris. But when I saw pictures of the armed escort the torch received I was hard pressed to tell the difference between the United States and a police state. What have we been reduced to as a nation? Do we live in such fear that we must have such a presence for a procession to honor the Olympic torch? Or, has our xenophobia taken us so far that we should now even fear those sworn to protect us?

Police Escort in San Francisco

Police in China

With regard to the history of the Olympics. Every four years in ancient Greece, the finest athletes from all of the city-states would get together in the spirit of competition in the city of Argos. These athletic events were to honor the king of the gods, Zeus. The pan-Hellenic games were the ultimate sign of goodwill between the competing cities as every city-state pledged a ceasefire of any hostilities for at least the duration of the games. Today, the ideal of worldwide good will continues to exist as the athletes compete together and recognize their similarities as athletes and put aside their differences as, perhaps, political enemies. Yet we rarely live up to that ideal. And it is made even more difficult to hold this ideal high when the very host country continues to hold an entire nation prisoner, as it does to Tibet. When this happens the spirit of the games is lost and it becomes nothing more than spectacle. A game without meaning.

"I decided it is better to scream. This pitiful sound, which sometimes, goodness knows how, reaches into the remotest prison cell, is a concentrated expression of the last vestige of human dignity. It is a man's way of leaving a trace, of telling people how he lived and died. By his screams he asserts his right to live, sends a message to the outside world demanding help and calling for resistance. If nothing else is left, one must scream. Silence is the real crime against humanity."

- Nadezhda Mandelstam

"Recession" is a 4-Letter Word

Jobless claims: Highest since Katrina (CNNMoney.com)

The Great Inflation Cover-up (CNNMoney.com-Fortune)

Fed official: Economy 'all but stalled' (CNNMoney.com)

80,000 job losses, unemployment spikes (CNNMoney.com)

On March 26, 2008, "President" Bush visited a small business in Sterling, Virginia where he promoted his economic stimulus package (see speech "President Bush Visits ColorCraft of Virginia, Inc., Discusses Stimulus Package, Economy"). At no point did he mention that horrible word "recession." He did however refer to the economy as enduring a "downturn" and even a "rough patch", but he is "confident in the long term we'll come out stronger than ever before." And that the best way to do this is "to give people their money back so they can spend it." Admittedly, "it's going to take a while for the economy to feel the effects" but until then we can "rest assured" that "in the long term we'll come out stronger than ever before."

Oh, is that so, Mr. "President"? How can you explain to the 7.815 million people now unemployed to be patient because in the long term things will be better? "Oh, don't worry. I know the banks have foreclosed on your home and you can no longer make ends meet, but if you wait until, say, 2010, it will all be OK. At that time the housing crisis will be over and the economy will be better. And it will all be the result of this 'good law that I signed.'"

The data below show the rate of inflation since 2001 as well as the rate if unemployment over the last 13 months from the Bureau of Labor Statistics latest information.

According to this information, the rate of inflation has been increasing since 2001. That is to say, the buying power of the $US has been falling at an increasing rate. Or, prices have been rising faster and faster each year. It has been argued that if we focus only on "Core Inflation" (the rate of inflation without the volatile fuel and food market) that the rates are not at all alarming. So in other words, if we tell the consumer that if you don't buy fuel to run your car or heat your home, and if you don't buy food, then your should be 'OK' and won't feel the full effects of inflation. Economists who use only core inflation to measure the rate of inflation are ignoring the human factor of the economy - these are essential items to human consumption. And if an economist ignores the human factor then EVERY economic model can be thrown out since they are all based on how consumers will make their economic decisions. This is when economics as a science becomes irrelevant. The only way it can remain relevant is if economists remember the source of all economic data are the consumers and the tendencies of consumers when they make economic choices. The study of economics for its own sake is pointless. (Which can be said of any social science - social sciences must be studied in a way that makes it relevant to the student - but that is a discussion for another day.)

But if we combine the increasing rate of inflation with the increasing rate of unemployment we have a larger problem - stagflation (see the March 20, 2008 posting on "The Average Day" titled "Stagflation"). But what does the Unemployment Rate measure? Simply, it is the number of people who are "out of work." That definition is insufficient. It may lead people to believe that includes children, retired persons, stay-at-home moms, and disabled people. Unemployment only measures the portion of the population who are eligible, able, and desiring work - the "Workforce". So a 52 year old man who has decided to give up looking for work is not considered part of the workforce even if he is healthy and has bills to pay. Since he is no longer actively seeking employment, he is not considered part of the workforce. What is also deceiving is the exclusion of the "underemployed." Underemployed consists of people who are forced to take work that is below their qualification and experience. For example, the same 52 year old man has a PhD in Aerospace Engineering yet his company has downsized and cut his division. He must now compete with equally qualified individuals younger than himself. The big difference is that he will command a higher salary than those 20-25 years his junior and so becomes less marketable. In addition, working against him is his age and potential health risk, which again ups the overall cost of a firm to hire this worker. As a result, this individual may be forced to take a job for which he is overqualified - anything from, in the worst case scenario, retail at a department store, to perhaps store manager. Is this person employed? Yes he is. Is he commanding the salary he deserves based on his experience and training? Not at all. Again, leaving out the human element to economics.

But "Recession?" Not us, not now. What is the "President" doing to head off this "rough patch?" Giving everyone who files their taxes this year $600 dollars! Now that is a reason to celebrate! Isn't it? Why don't you look any happier? Oh, yes, I know, fuel prices are continuing to rise and that $600 will simply be eaten up in fuel costs. Oh, that's OK. That is money you would have spent on fuel anyway, right? But look on the bright side, if own stock in one of the Big 5 oil companies you will earn greater dividends. Now that is something to celebrate. (See post "April Fools'! The Joke Is on the Consumer")

If we admit that we are in a "recession" then how would that look for the President? How would that look for our economic leader? How will that tarnish his legacy as president?

For more anti-Bush paraphernalia, visit http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse.

April Fools'! The Joke is on the Consumer

At hearing, Big Oil says its profits aren't extreme (USA Today)
Congress has big questions for Big Oil (Yahoo! News)

In order for the argument of Big Oil to make sense, you have to agree with the basic premise: Profits of $124 Billion is not extreme.

Are you kidding me? Not extreme? $124 Billion ranks 61st among the GDP of nations of the world. In other words, the profits made by the five major US oil producers is better than that of 170 other nations of the world. But this is just profits. Let's take a look at each of the Big 5's Revenues and some corresponding statistics I put together:

Remembering that GDP is the combined value of all goods and services produced in a given nation for a given year, the Big 5 Oil Companies account for 10.43% of the USA's GDP for 2007! In terms of production among nations of the world, according to the CIA World Factbook, the Big 5 would rank 13th in the world, behind Italy, but just ahead of Spain. Their production would make up just over half of Germany's GDP and is greater than Mexico and Canada.


Keep in mind that profit is the amount of revenue left over after all bills and expenses are paid, including salaries and dividends to shareholders, why should our government have a problem cutting the amount of subsidies given to these companies? It seems to me that they are earning enough to cover any investment into expanding fuel sources as well as into finding cleaner and alternative sources.


According to the articles above, oil supplies have been holding steady, so the argument of a "shortage" doesn't hold water. Where is all this money going? Remember, a subsidy is a government grant of money to a business or corporation to encourage a type of production, be it research or investment in production. Where does government get the money to pay these subsidies? Taxes, our taxes. So, not only are we getting gouged at the pump, our taxes are also going to the fuel companies instead of directly improving our life. That money goes to pay the investors of the Big 5, as well as the average $3.29 per gallon we pay at the pump.


In general, people do not like taxes. But, if taxes are collected, it is accepted that as citizens we should see a benefit from those taxes paid in the form of government programs or services that will directly impact our lives. When taxes go subsidize already profitable corporations, it becomes difficult to see the direct benefit. In this case, we can tack on the fact that both Bush and Cheney have ties to the energy industry. To me it looks like Bush's promise to veto any legislation that makes it to his desk that cuts subsidies to the Big 5 is nothing more than payback for years of support to the White House, both before and during this administration's term.