Indy Telecom & Industrial Media

I rarely recommend textbooks as good reads. Not that they aren’t, of course, but they often tend to be academic in nature and therefore of little interest to anyone other than academics (and unfortunate students).

However, I’m taking a class by Professor Stephen P. Marks on World Poverty & Human Rights this Spring, and one of the textbooks is Amartya Sen’s rather excellent book Development as Freedom.

The book was such an engaging read that I finished reading it even before the start of my semester. Sen’s writing is very humanist in nature, peppered with a wry sense of humor in parts, all the while maintaining a tone that is at once both philosophical and pragmatic to the world’s problems.

Sen starts out addressing the question of whether or not freedom is conducive to development. He feels that such a question is at best defectively formulated, for reasons given below.

Sen ponders over how freedom is often dissociated from development, and considered a pleasant consequence thereof. However, Sen counters that freedom in itself should be the goal of development, and it is both constitutive and instrumental to development. He makes the argument that freedom (political, economic or societal) is central to achieving development; while freedom may result from such development, it would be unwise to ignore the inverse relationship, and true development will only happen through the proliferation of such freedoms. Furthermore, if the definition of development is to move beyond GNP and include freedom, unfree societies aren’t really quite developed.

Sen also argues against the “Lee Hypothesis”, named after the first Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew. The idea behind the “Lee Hypothesis” is that democracy and freedom are luxuries that only developed societies can afford, and to become developed, less-developed societies will need to push forth agendas that may be at odds with democracy and freedom. Furthermore, a more ardent view would be that “non-democratic systems are better in bringing about economic development” for such societies.

In the same vein, he also takes to task the interpretation that “Asian Values” are inherently unsuitable and unfit for democracy, where Asia is defined not by region but through culture. The argument goes that discipline and obedience are critical traits to the Asian cultural psyche and as such, democracy is at odds with such a principle. This particular notion has had the unfortunate reputation of being exploited by authoritarian governments across Asia.

Sen counters both the “Lee Hypothesis” and the “Asian Values” argument by offering the example of the biggest democracy in Asia — India. While India has made several economic mistakes through the years, the fact that it continues to be free democracy hsa helped its economy grow while preserving the freedoms of its citizens. Sen also counters that the “Asian Values” argument isn’t necessarily unique to Asia, and that even within Asia, there have been differing schools of thought, including those that question blind allegiance to the state.

And of course, this book also touches upon Sen’s (now-famous) insight on famines and democracies.  He argues that famines are not necessarily caused by lack of  declines in food production but rather due to instability in the political, economic, or societal structures that leaves sections of the population unable to fend for themselves. Sen further proposes that countries that are “free” in the economic sense would have citizenry with a consistent income flow, and this income can be used to borrow or import basic necessities in times of need.

But at the end of the day, Sen concludes that true development cannot be measured through mere tangibles (e.g. GNP). Freedom remains the only true measure of development, and when there is freedom, development will follow.

(Cross posted from my International Relations blog.)

The topic and abstract for my IPE term paper that I had originally planned turned out to be a little too broad in its scope. As a result, my final paper had a much tighter focus.

Fluctuation & Flexibility: A Case Study of Exchange Rate Regimes from the 1997-1998 East Asian Crisis

The choice between fixed and flexible exchange rate regimes has long-lasting impacts on a nation’s economic security, and consequently, its political outlook. However, such a freedom of choice is almost always limited by the fiscal and monetary health of the nation. This paper evaluates the extent of such a freedom, and how choices in exchange rate regimes affect a country’s economic performance. Specifically, this paper uses the East Asian economic crisis as a case study to examine the effects of exchange rate policies.

The case study was performed on the basis of an exchange rate regime model by Patrick Osakwe, and was built using data before and after the Asian Crisis. The data and the results from the model were then utilized to review the original assumptions, and this laid the foundation for the conclusions drawn from the case study.

You can find my paper and the referenced Patrick Osakwe’s paper on choice of exchange rate regimes in emerging markets.

Finally, a quick caveat that this was a class term paper that’s effectively going to be a working paper to extend and validate Osakwe’s model. So, please treat it as such.

(Cross posted from my International Relations blog.)

On the same note as the previous post, here are some Scilab renderings of the slightly more interesting Plücker’s conoid.

And of course, here’s the code. Substitute N with the number of folds in the surface, where (quite obviously) the period of oscillation around the Z axis is given by 2π/n.

//Plücker’s conoid
stacksize (10000000);
num_points = 50;
u = linspace (0, 2*(%pi), num_points);
v= linspace (0, (1/2)*(%pi), num_points);
[U, V] = meshgrid (u, v);
x = V.*cos(U);
y = V.*sin(U);
z = sin(N.*U);
mesh (x, y , z);
surf(x, y, z,'edgecol','blu');

It’s been a while since I did something interesting with math on my blog, so I figured I’d go back to some old favorites. I’ve done the Cross Cap before, so here’s a variation — the Pseudo Cross Cap.

And of course, as always, here’s the code code to render them in Scilab. The code has been tested on Scilab 4.0. Enjoy!

//Pseudo Cross Cap
stacksize (10000000);
num_points = 50;
u = linspace (0, 2*(%pi), num_points);
v= linspace (0, (1/2)*(%pi), num_points);
[U, V] = meshgrid (u, v);
x = (1 .- (U.*U)).*sin(V);
y = (1 .- (U.*U)).*sin(2.*V);
z = U;
mesh (x, y , z);
surf(x, y, z,'edgecol','red');

I was rather intrigued and quite delighted to read about Minnesota introducing the world’s first Carbon tariff.

The target of this (much maligned, if I might add) tariff is North Dakota, which exports electricity produced primarily through the use of coal power plants. This is in stark contrast with Minnesota, which is ranked 4th in the nation for sustainable and non-polluting wind power generation.

The irony of this, of course, is that the world had always expected such a tariff to be imposed by one of the developed nations on the developing world, particularly China.

However, whether or not Minnesota can succeed in imposing such a tariff remains to be seen. One particularly significant hurdle is Article I Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution — the commerce clause — that specifically forbids states from imposing tariffs on interstate commerce:

“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

While there are several arguments regarding the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it is quite likely that this argument would entirely be at the mercy of the Supreme Court. After all, the Federal government has time and again demonstrated that what constitutes “interstate commerce” could be something completely arbitrary to suit an agenda.

However, what is more likely to work (in my opinion) is the argument of public good (in the Adam Smith sense of the term). In that context, it is the prerogative of Minnesota to tariff, tax, or otherwise hinder what it considers harmful to the inhabitants of the state. Also, the Commerce Clause specifically applies to states regulating commerce through the use of taxes and tariffs on interstate commerce — however, pollution is hindering the public good (air, water, health) and Minnesota is not just taxing those from other states, but also those from within Minnesota.

After all, if I pollute a river whose water is consumed downstream, the folks downstream are well within their rights to tariff all providers of water who do not conform to a standard of purity. It’s unfortunate if the majority of those live upstream — but that in no way means that the polluters  downstream do not have to pay a price. They are taxed/tariff-ed just the same.

Secondly, the fact Minnesota has been pushing for wind power over time (as evidenced by the great animation below) is a point further in their favor –

It could be argued that they are moving towards a source that is less polluting and more sustainable in the interest of public good. Of course, the reverse could also be argued in that they are exploiting that which they’re abundant in. However, that’s a facetious argument simply because there are other states better positioned to use their natural resources (e.g. solar energy) that don’t (e.g. Texas).

No matter which way this goes, it is bound to be an interesting debate — and one in the right direction.

After all, as an adherent of Keynesianism, I am of the firm belief that inefficiencies in the market are endemic to private enterprises, and a “correction” mechanism in the form of public intervention is often necessary (as little as possible, however). I will also add that public good is one such inefficiency that’s often ignored by the private sector, and it falls within the purview of governments to ensure that the interests of the people and the environment are maintained over the interests of the greenback.

Go Vikings!