There is a vast difference between an electioneer and a statesman. Barack Obama is in many ways a master electioneer--very good at winning elections but very poor at running a country. A vapid and superficial character, he unfailingly exemplifies the "free lunch with extra sidings" American society which produced him and returns him to office time and again as a true reflection of itself. In the final analysis, his horrendous presidency will not amount to much other than a continuation of the slide into the abyss started by his predecessor and double act--the BushBama years. On the other hand, "Harry" Lee Kuan Yew represents the ideals not just of his tiny city-state but of an entire region. Unlike Obama, he has a vision--call it "authoritarian development" or what you will. What's more, he was able to realize this vision--call it modern-day Singapore. China is but one of the many countries that have found this vision appealing. To put matters into perspective, his American counterpart when he came into power in 1959 was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eleven American presidents have come and gone since then, yet Lee Kuan Yew remains the sage of Singapore. China will inevitably catch up to the U.S. in absolute GDP. But its creativity may never match America's because its culture does not permit a free exchange and contest of ideas. How else to explain how a country with four times as many people as America--and presumably four times as many talented people--does not come up with technological breakthroughs?Or, how about China becoming democratic?
To achieve the modernization of China, her communist leaders are prepared to try every method, except for democracy with one person and one vote in a multiparty system. Their two main reasons are their belief that the Communist Party of China must have a monopoly on power to ensure stability and their deep fear of instability in a multiparty free-for-all, which would lead to a loss of control by the center over the provinces. To ask China to become a democracy, when in its 5,000 years of recorded history it never counted heads--all rulers ruled by right of being emperor; if you disagree, you chop off heads, not count heads.Lee Kuan Yew has endless quips like these: some are illuminating, others entertaining, yet some more are politically incorrect or even downright deplorable. Again, though, his track record guarantees that people will listen to a person of his stature. After all, would you expect Barack Obama to make sage pronouncements on something other than the matter of creating ballooning deficits in the trillions year in and year out? I didn't think so. Speaking of the US president, here's Lee Kuan Yew on what's wrong with America (among other things):
Nonetheless, Lee is frank in describing what he considers to be fundamental problems with U.S. government and culture. It has been unable to tackle its exploding debt, he asserts, because presidents do not get “reelected if they give a hard dose of medicine to their people.” In a social-media-fueled era of 24/7 news, furthermore, those who prevail in elections are not necessarily those who are most capable in governing, but those who can present themselves and their ideas “in a polished way.” He doubts that such contests “in packaging and advertising” can produce leaders in the mold of “a Churchill, a Roosevelt, or a de Gaulle.” Instead, he laments conditions in which “to win votes you have to give more and more. And to beat your opponent in the next election, you have to promise to give more away.”Like him or not, the Singaporean's thoughts are sought even by the Americans who've been subject to a well-deserved tongue-lashing for years and years now. His health may not be what it once was, but his intellect remains formidable.
I have read all the advice on your blog, and have not found an answer to the following question. With some modifications I think it's a question a few pre-PhDs from Harvard/MIT/etc. have, so I hope I'm not being too selfish in asking.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I have good reason to believe I'm in the top 1% of academic-economists-to-be in my generation, possibly better.
Suppose further that I want to devote my career to important, and mostly policy-relevant, research. In the medium term I just want to be an academic (professor with tenure), but in the long term I'd want to do the sort of government roles you've done.
I have an offer to work for a management consulting firm for two years. Or I can start my PhD next year. Should I take the former option, with the aim of learning 'how the world works', how to prioritise/listen/implement, etc., or should I just complete my PhD as quickly as possible? It seems I could get away with a short stint in the private sector now, whereas there'd be no chance post-PhD on the academic track. But then the opportunity cost of two years in early 20s not doing maths is also high. I'd be very grateful for your reflections, however brief.
If lawmakers chose to prevent those automatic cuts each year without making other changes that reduced spending by offsetting amounts, spending would be $42 billion higher in 2013 [my emphasis] and $995 billion (or about 2 percent) higher over the 2014–2023 period than is projected in CBO’s current baseline. Total discretionary outlays would be $869 billion (or 6.8 percent) higher, and mandatory outlays would be $126 billion (or 0.4 percent) higher.In other words, the touted figure to be sequestered this year is $85 billion, but the actual reductions to the deficit will only amount to $42 billion due to ancillary factors. Still, the idea of a less-than-trillion dollar deficit is enticing if still by no means a certainty. The deficit lover's argument, of course, is that the sequester's reduction of public spending will reduce GDP and have knock-on effects elsewhere in the US jokeonomy:
The onset of sequestration, as the automatic spending cuts are known, threatens growth in the US and globally. It will hit everything from housing vouchers to naval shipbuilding with $85bn in cuts for the rest of this fiscal year.The sequester doesn't matter much in the same way one guy with a pail won't save the Titanic, but hey, at least it's an improvement no matter how minuscule.
Sequestration would mark the first time in three years of budget battles that Barack Obama, the US president, has failed to reach a last-minute compromise with Republicans in Congress.
The International Monetary Fund warned that it would cut its growth forecast for the US as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said growth would be 0.6 percentage points slower because of sequestration. The CBO said there would be 750,000 fewer jobs at the end of 2013 if sequestration remained in place.
The pound had steadily declined since Mubarak was pushed from power with the country's grim economic outlook straining its foreign reserves. Billions in hard currency have been spent by the central bank trying to protect the country directly, as well as on wheat and fuel imports that the government subsidizes for domestic consumers. But notice my use of the word "had." Of late, the pound's decline is no longer "steady." Since about Jan. 13, the pound's decline against the dollar has been precipitous.Actually, Egypt not confronting the matter of subsidies head-on is quite a problem in itself. If I may elaborate on the formulation above:
That's particularly dangerous for Egypt, since so many dollar-dominated commodities are subsidized by an Egyptian government that receives most of its revenue in pounds. In other words, every bushel of wheat or barrel of oil that the government purchases is far more expensive in domestic terms, which in turn further depletes the government's foreign currency reserves, makes investors even more nervous about the chances of a pound collapse, and so puts more pressure on the pound. The very definition of a vicious cycle.
As Japan's top financial diplomat from 1999 to 2003, he aggressively intervened in the exchange-rate market to weaken the yen to support the country's export-reliant economy, a sign he will be keen to keep any sharp yen rises in check. He has called for the BOJ to achieve its 2 percent inflation target in two years by pumping money into the economy through unorthodox steps, such as expanding government bond purchases and buying shares. Inflation in Japan has rarely reached 2 percent since the early 1990s.Ironically, Kuroda is believed by many in the ruling LDP to be ideal for the job precisely because he has spent so much time cottoning up in absentia to the movers and shakers of Asia and beyond as ADB president. Despite gaining next to no attention elsewhere, rest assured that the Manila-based lender commands considerable clout in the Pacific Rim. Quoting PM Abe:
“(We want) someone who can articulate (Japan’s policy) in the inner circle of international finance and win understanding (from foreign countries),” he said. “Someone who can use theory to counter criticism against monetary policy is needed.”...and here:
Mr. Kuroda’s global experience — as vice minister for international affairs at Japan’s powerful Finance Ministry from 1999 to 2003, and as president of the Manila-based Asian Development Bank starting in 2005 — could also help Tokyo navigate foreign criticism that its monetary policies are intended to weaken the yen to give Japanese exporters a competitive edge.I ultimately believe that Japan will be aiming to weaken its currency regardless of who takes the job of BoJ governor; it's just that they believe the diplomatically assured Kuroda will be more able than his putative competitors to smooth ruffled feathers. See, for instance, the Koreans complaining about Japan re-engaging in currency war by using unprecedented measures to reflate the Japanese economy.
Abe advisers say Mr. Kuroda's main weakness is his apparent indispensability in his current position—president of the Asian Development Bank, a post he has held since 2005. He is less than two years into his five-year term.I simply do not think that erosion of Japanese influence at the ADB will happen overnight even if Kuroda is pulled out in a last-ditch effort to reflate Japan's economy. It will remain the institution's top shareholder and Japanese officials will still hold key positions. On the other hand, if Kuroda's successor proves unpopular, you never know if others can muscle in on turf the Japanese have long held to be their own.
Some Japanese officials worry that if Mr. Kuroda leaves early for the BOJ slot, Japan risks losing the perch it has controlled since the founding of the Manila-based institution in 1966. For Japanese finance officials, the ADB is Japan's equivalent of the World Bank for the U.S. or the International Monetary Fund for Europe—an international financial institution they expect to run, a platform for global influence. Losing the ADB for Japan would be a blow, especially at time of growing insecurity about the country's diminished standing in the region.
There is a vast difference between an electioneer and a statesman. Barack Obama is in many ways a master electioneer--very good at winning elections but very poor at running a country. A vapid and superficial character, he unfailingly exemplifies the "free lunch with extra sidings" American society which produced him and returns him to office time and again as a true reflection of itself. In the final analysis, his horrendous presidency will not amount to much other than a continuation of the slide into the abyss started by his predecessor and double act--the BushBama years. On the other hand, "Harry" Lee Kuan Yew represents the ideals not just of his tiny city-state but of an entire region. Unlike Obama, he has a vision--call it "authoritarian development" or what you will. What's more, he was able to realize this vision--call it modern-day Singapore. China is but one of the many countries that have found this vision appealing. To put matters into perspective, his American counterpart when he came into power in 1959 was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eleven American presidents have come and gone since then, yet Lee Kuan Yew remains the sage of Singapore. China will inevitably catch up to the U.S. in absolute GDP. But its creativity may never match America's because its culture does not permit a free exchange and contest of ideas. How else to explain how a country with four times as many people as America--and presumably four times as many talented people--does not come up with technological breakthroughs?Or, how about China becoming democratic?
To achieve the modernization of China, her communist leaders are prepared to try every method, except for democracy with one person and one vote in a multiparty system. Their two main reasons are their belief that the Communist Party of China must have a monopoly on power to ensure stability and their deep fear of instability in a multiparty free-for-all, which would lead to a loss of control by the center over the provinces. To ask China to become a democracy, when in its 5,000 years of recorded history it never counted heads--all rulers ruled by right of being emperor; if you disagree, you chop off heads, not count heads.Lee Kuan Yew has endless quips like these: some are illuminating, others entertaining, yet some more are politically incorrect or even downright deplorable. Again, though, his track record guarantees that people will listen to a person of his stature. After all, would you expect Barack Obama to make sage pronouncements on something other than the matter of creating ballooning deficits in the trillions year in and year out? I didn't think so. Speaking of the US president, here's Lee Kuan Yew on what's wrong with America (among other things):
Nonetheless, Lee is frank in describing what he considers to be fundamental problems with U.S. government and culture. It has been unable to tackle its exploding debt, he asserts, because presidents do not get “reelected if they give a hard dose of medicine to their people.” In a social-media-fueled era of 24/7 news, furthermore, those who prevail in elections are not necessarily those who are most capable in governing, but those who can present themselves and their ideas “in a polished way.” He doubts that such contests “in packaging and advertising” can produce leaders in the mold of “a Churchill, a Roosevelt, or a de Gaulle.” Instead, he laments conditions in which “to win votes you have to give more and more. And to beat your opponent in the next election, you have to promise to give more away.”Like him or not, the Singaporean's thoughts are sought even by the Americans who've been subject to a well-deserved tongue-lashing for years and years now. His health may not be what it once was, but his intellect remains formidable.
I have read all the advice on your blog, and have not found an answer to the following question. With some modifications I think it's a question a few pre-PhDs from Harvard/MIT/etc. have, so I hope I'm not being too selfish in asking.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I have good reason to believe I'm in the top 1% of academic-economists-to-be in my generation, possibly better.
Suppose further that I want to devote my career to important, and mostly policy-relevant, research. In the medium term I just want to be an academic (professor with tenure), but in the long term I'd want to do the sort of government roles you've done.
I have an offer to work for a management consulting firm for two years. Or I can start my PhD next year. Should I take the former option, with the aim of learning 'how the world works', how to prioritise/listen/implement, etc., or should I just complete my PhD as quickly as possible? It seems I could get away with a short stint in the private sector now, whereas there'd be no chance post-PhD on the academic track. But then the opportunity cost of two years in early 20s not doing maths is also high. I'd be very grateful for your reflections, however brief.
If lawmakers chose to prevent those automatic cuts each year without making other changes that reduced spending by offsetting amounts, spending would be $42 billion higher in 2013 [my emphasis] and $995 billion (or about 2 percent) higher over the 2014–2023 period than is projected in CBO’s current baseline. Total discretionary outlays would be $869 billion (or 6.8 percent) higher, and mandatory outlays would be $126 billion (or 0.4 percent) higher.In other words, the touted figure to be sequestered this year is $85 billion, but the actual reductions to the deficit will only amount to $42 billion due to ancillary factors. Still, the idea of a less-than-trillion dollar deficit is enticing if still by no means a certainty. The deficit lover's argument, of course, is that the sequester's reduction of public spending will reduce GDP and have knock-on effects elsewhere in the US jokeonomy:
The onset of sequestration, as the automatic spending cuts are known, threatens growth in the US and globally. It will hit everything from housing vouchers to naval shipbuilding with $85bn in cuts for the rest of this fiscal year.The sequester doesn't matter much in the same way one guy with a pail won't save the Titanic, but hey, at least it's an improvement no matter how minuscule.
Sequestration would mark the first time in three years of budget battles that Barack Obama, the US president, has failed to reach a last-minute compromise with Republicans in Congress.
The International Monetary Fund warned that it would cut its growth forecast for the US as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said growth would be 0.6 percentage points slower because of sequestration. The CBO said there would be 750,000 fewer jobs at the end of 2013 if sequestration remained in place.
The pound had steadily declined since Mubarak was pushed from power with the country's grim economic outlook straining its foreign reserves. Billions in hard currency have been spent by the central bank trying to protect the country directly, as well as on wheat and fuel imports that the government subsidizes for domestic consumers. But notice my use of the word "had." Of late, the pound's decline is no longer "steady." Since about Jan. 13, the pound's decline against the dollar has been precipitous.Actually, Egypt not confronting the matter of subsidies head-on is quite a problem in itself. If I may elaborate on the formulation above:
That's particularly dangerous for Egypt, since so many dollar-dominated commodities are subsidized by an Egyptian government that receives most of its revenue in pounds. In other words, every bushel of wheat or barrel of oil that the government purchases is far more expensive in domestic terms, which in turn further depletes the government's foreign currency reserves, makes investors even more nervous about the chances of a pound collapse, and so puts more pressure on the pound. The very definition of a vicious cycle.
As Japan's top financial diplomat from 1999 to 2003, he aggressively intervened in the exchange-rate market to weaken the yen to support the country's export-reliant economy, a sign he will be keen to keep any sharp yen rises in check. He has called for the BOJ to achieve its 2 percent inflation target in two years by pumping money into the economy through unorthodox steps, such as expanding government bond purchases and buying shares. Inflation in Japan has rarely reached 2 percent since the early 1990s.Ironically, Kuroda is believed by many in the ruling LDP to be ideal for the job precisely because he has spent so much time cottoning up in absentia to the movers and shakers of Asia and beyond as ADB president. Despite gaining next to no attention elsewhere, rest assured that the Manila-based lender commands considerable clout in the Pacific Rim. Quoting PM Abe:
“(We want) someone who can articulate (Japan’s policy) in the inner circle of international finance and win understanding (from foreign countries),” he said. “Someone who can use theory to counter criticism against monetary policy is needed.”...and here:
Mr. Kuroda’s global experience — as vice minister for international affairs at Japan’s powerful Finance Ministry from 1999 to 2003, and as president of the Manila-based Asian Development Bank starting in 2005 — could also help Tokyo navigate foreign criticism that its monetary policies are intended to weaken the yen to give Japanese exporters a competitive edge.I ultimately believe that Japan will be aiming to weaken its currency regardless of who takes the job of BoJ governor; it's just that they believe the diplomatically assured Kuroda will be more able than his putative competitors to smooth ruffled feathers. See, for instance, the Koreans complaining about Japan re-engaging in currency war by using unprecedented measures to reflate the Japanese economy.
Abe advisers say Mr. Kuroda's main weakness is his apparent indispensability in his current position—president of the Asian Development Bank, a post he has held since 2005. He is less than two years into his five-year term.I simply do not think that erosion of Japanese influence at the ADB will happen overnight even if Kuroda is pulled out in a last-ditch effort to reflate Japan's economy. It will remain the institution's top shareholder and Japanese officials will still hold key positions. On the other hand, if Kuroda's successor proves unpopular, you never know if others can muscle in on turf the Japanese have long held to be their own.
Some Japanese officials worry that if Mr. Kuroda leaves early for the BOJ slot, Japan risks losing the perch it has controlled since the founding of the Manila-based institution in 1966. For Japanese finance officials, the ADB is Japan's equivalent of the World Bank for the U.S. or the International Monetary Fund for Europe—an international financial institution they expect to run, a platform for global influence. Losing the ADB for Japan would be a blow, especially at time of growing insecurity about the country's diminished standing in the region.
