A week ago now I said something here about Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister of Thailand ousted in a coup in 2006 who has recently returned to face corruption charges.
Today I'll just briefly record the new developments there. Thaksin has pleaded "not guilty." Also, his request for a month-long trip to the UK has been granted.
Instead of covering the same ground I did last week about Thaksin's career, let's try to put it into a bit of context. In my day job at HedgeWorld we ran a story recently of a survey, released in November, by the consulting firm Oliver Wyman.
Wyman's study said that among hedge funds in Asia's debt markets, China and India are the two most popular destinations for their cash, despite the infamous illiquidity they can encounter in either place.
It found that Thailand was waaay down the list of desirable locales for such investors.
In fact, the list is this (name of country followed by the percentage of surveyed funds putting their money there).
China: 78
India: 76
Japan: 71
Taiwan: 59
South Korea: 45
Philippines: 44
Australia: 39
Thailand: 33
Indonesia: 30
Hong Kong: 29.
The significance of the list is perhaps not immediately apparent.
My take on it is this: such hedge funds make a profit only on inefficiencies. If a debt market is too well developed already, they'll turn away. Because in such a case, the assets are already priced at their value, and there won't be arbitrage plays.
On the other hand, the kind of inefficiency that makes a country attractive is of a specific sort. Hedge funds that are playing the credit markets aren't making their money off political chaos or inadequate infrastructure. They want stability, functioning courts, passable roads and reliable bridges etc. China and India possess both of these requirements. They've got the infrastructure that allows for the normal conduct of business, and they've got markets still inefficient enough for wily speculators to find profit opportunities.
A low place on that list, then, can be either good news for a country or bad. It's good news for Australia and Hong Kong, which both had efficient enough markets to scare off such funds. But its bad news for Thailand and Indonesia, where the basics aren't yet considered trustworthy.
The 2006 coup itself was presumably a large part of the reason for that in Thailand's case. I of course wish the people of the country well and hope that the routine resolution of the charges against Thaksin will prove something of a showcase for the routine functioning of a well-honed legal system.
13 March 2008
09 March 2008
One Year at Blogspot
Pragmatism Refreshed has been part of the blogspot landscape for a full year now. Imagine me making noise with my party favors. L'Chaim!
I've had an idea about my long-stalled civil war novel. I don't really have to write it in such a way that history comes out "right." There's a rich tradition of alternative history novels, after all. I'm not really thinking of joining the alt-history ranks, except perhaps as a sort of frame story, but I think it would work in that capacity.
Imagine this, then, as an opening sentence: "Do you know why the confederates changed their minds? Why they never did fire on Fort Sumter?"
That would commit me to include in the heart of the book some subtle variation from history which would explain that final change of heart, but would also allow me to explore the antebellum era much as I've been attempting.
I've had an idea about my long-stalled civil war novel. I don't really have to write it in such a way that history comes out "right." There's a rich tradition of alternative history novels, after all. I'm not really thinking of joining the alt-history ranks, except perhaps as a sort of frame story, but I think it would work in that capacity.
Imagine this, then, as an opening sentence: "Do you know why the confederates changed their minds? Why they never did fire on Fort Sumter?"
That would commit me to include in the heart of the book some subtle variation from history which would explain that final change of heart, but would also allow me to explore the antebellum era much as I've been attempting.
08 March 2008
The Patent-Blog 'Outing'
Yes, there is a corner of the blogosphere devoted to the debates over patent and copyright law. It includes, for example, blogs like this one.
Such blogs split into two opposing camps.
There are those, like "Patent Hawk," who think that IP is a crucial means of rewarding innovation, that some sneaky corporate interests are always trying to piggy-back off of other people's innovative ideas, and that accordingly patent rights need to be strengthened (the public domain narrowed) pro bono publico. Greed is good.
Then there are those (we might as well call them "patent doves"!) who believe that intellectual-property claims have gone much too far, that "trolls" are using patent claims to disadvantage productive businesses, and that a lot of the ideas now claimed as someone's property belong more properly in the public domain.
One of the more prominent of the patent doves has called himself Patent Troll Tracker, and for a long time kept his 'real' identitya secret. But he has been outed as a California lawyer named Rich Frenkel.
The 'outing' exercise itself is inside-baseball, but the intellectual complexities of the underlying debate are fascinating.
Consider the meaning of the word "obvious." A simple enough word, of transparent (self-referential!) significance, right? Maybe not. The U.S. Supreme Court wrestled with this last year, in KSR v. Teleflex.
The pertinent statute says that no patent shall issue when "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
That seems to require the courts to engage in an exercise of hindsight. "It was obvious that peanut butter would mix well with jelly between two pieces of bread, wasn't it?"
Anyway, I'm just glad I can enjoy a PB&J sandwich now and then without paying whoever made the first one. That'll conclude my IP cogitating for now.
Such blogs split into two opposing camps.
There are those, like "Patent Hawk," who think that IP is a crucial means of rewarding innovation, that some sneaky corporate interests are always trying to piggy-back off of other people's innovative ideas, and that accordingly patent rights need to be strengthened (the public domain narrowed) pro bono publico. Greed is good.
Then there are those (we might as well call them "patent doves"!) who believe that intellectual-property claims have gone much too far, that "trolls" are using patent claims to disadvantage productive businesses, and that a lot of the ideas now claimed as someone's property belong more properly in the public domain.
One of the more prominent of the patent doves has called himself Patent Troll Tracker, and for a long time kept his 'real' identitya secret. But he has been outed as a California lawyer named Rich Frenkel.
The 'outing' exercise itself is inside-baseball, but the intellectual complexities of the underlying debate are fascinating.
Consider the meaning of the word "obvious." A simple enough word, of transparent (self-referential!) significance, right? Maybe not. The U.S. Supreme Court wrestled with this last year, in KSR v. Teleflex.
The pertinent statute says that no patent shall issue when "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
That seems to require the courts to engage in an exercise of hindsight. "It was obvious that peanut butter would mix well with jelly between two pieces of bread, wasn't it?"
Anyway, I'm just glad I can enjoy a PB&J sandwich now and then without paying whoever made the first one. That'll conclude my IP cogitating for now.
07 March 2008
Love and Consequences
Many readers will no doubt remember James Frey, the best-selling memoirist whose work, "A Million Little Pieces," turned out to be a packet of lies, uncovered as such only after Oprah Winfrey made a fool of herself rushing to his defense.
In recent days, two more so-called memoirs have turned out to be as false as Frey's, (or as those of his South Park counterpart, Towlie).
There was Mischa Defonseca, author of "Mischa: A Memoir of the Holocaust Years." This was first published in France (and in French) eleven years ago. It made a huge splash, and was translated into 18 languages. Unfortunately, it was tommyrot. Mischa did have a compelling story to tell, had she only stuck to telling it. Her parents were members of the Belgian resistance and they were killed by the Nazis.
But neither they nor she were Jewish, as her 'memoir' presumes. And she did not, in their absence, revert to a feral condition, which is the gist of the book's plot. She was, rather, taken in by her grandfather and lived out the war in relative comfort.
"She belonged to a very good family and lived in the most beautiful house on the street," an old acquaintance has said.
These lies took time to unravel. But on leap day, February 29, Mischa fessed up.
But even that's not the latest one. And here we return to Oprah. For Ms Winfrey has expressed enthusiasm over LOVE AND CONSEQUENCES, a supposedly autobiographical tale of a gal who grew up running drugs for the gangs in the 'hood, in south central L.A., written by one Margaret B. Jones.
On Tuesday, March 4, the publisher recalled 19,000 copies of the book -- all apparently destined for paper recycling -- as Ms Jones turned out to be Margaret Seltzer, a well-to-do product of the San Fernando Valley, not of southcentral anywhere. Gag me with a spoon.
The title, "Love and Consequences" is a piece of art in itself. Those of us who love the non-fiction memoir as a genre are now doomed to face the consequence of such fraud -- we never know when we're reading one.
Oh times, Oh morals, Oh Oprah!
In recent days, two more so-called memoirs have turned out to be as false as Frey's, (or as those of his South Park counterpart, Towlie).
There was Mischa Defonseca, author of "Mischa: A Memoir of the Holocaust Years." This was first published in France (and in French) eleven years ago. It made a huge splash, and was translated into 18 languages. Unfortunately, it was tommyrot. Mischa did have a compelling story to tell, had she only stuck to telling it. Her parents were members of the Belgian resistance and they were killed by the Nazis.
But neither they nor she were Jewish, as her 'memoir' presumes. And she did not, in their absence, revert to a feral condition, which is the gist of the book's plot. She was, rather, taken in by her grandfather and lived out the war in relative comfort.
"She belonged to a very good family and lived in the most beautiful house on the street," an old acquaintance has said.
These lies took time to unravel. But on leap day, February 29, Mischa fessed up.
But even that's not the latest one. And here we return to Oprah. For Ms Winfrey has expressed enthusiasm over LOVE AND CONSEQUENCES, a supposedly autobiographical tale of a gal who grew up running drugs for the gangs in the 'hood, in south central L.A., written by one Margaret B. Jones.
On Tuesday, March 4, the publisher recalled 19,000 copies of the book -- all apparently destined for paper recycling -- as Ms Jones turned out to be Margaret Seltzer, a well-to-do product of the San Fernando Valley, not of southcentral anywhere. Gag me with a spoon.
The title, "Love and Consequences" is a piece of art in itself. Those of us who love the non-fiction memoir as a genre are now doomed to face the consequence of such fraud -- we never know when we're reading one.
Oh times, Oh morals, Oh Oprah!
06 March 2008
Thinking about Thaksin
Thaksin Shinawatra returned to his homeland, Thailand, on February 28.
He has been in exile for a year and a half, when Thaksin -- the prime minister then -- was deposed by a military coup.
The junta stepped aside peacefully last year, arranging for elections, and a new incarnation of Thaksin's political party won those elections, as the leader of a six-party coalitions.
Six-party coalitions can be fragile things, so although the new prime minister (Samak Sundaravej) is an associate of Thaksin's, it's a bit much to speak of Thaksin, as some have, as the "kingmaker" in this situation.
Indeed, Thaksin is under something of a cloud himself. He has returned not in triumph but to face criminal charges arising out of his time in office.
One charge involves a 2003 land deal. While Thaksin was PM, his wife bought a plot in Bangkok from the central bank's distressed-asset fund. The accusation is that this was something more than just a sharp bit of dealing by a woman who just happened to be married to the prime minister, but that it was an inside fix.
The other charge relates to the events that set off the military coup. In 2006, the Shinawatras sold their interest in a computer company, Shin Corp. (they owned 49.5% of its equity) to Temasek Holdings, the sovereign wealth fund of the government of Singapore, for about US$1.9 billion. They paid no capital gains tax on this sale. It appears that under Thai law they were exempt from the tax, although the legality of it may only make it more scandalous than otherwise.
Also, Thailand's SEC found that the couple's son, Panthongtae Shinawatra, violated some of its disclosure rules in connection with the Shin Corp. transaction.
Such points are mere technicalities, though, compared to the issue of who bought the company the family was selling. One of their political opponents said that Thaksin was worse than Saddam Hussein for not protecting the Thai economy from foreigners: "Dictator Saddam, though a brutal tyrant, still fought the superpower for the Iraqi motherland," whereas Thaksin was selling out his motherland to Singapore.
Although there were lots of other reasons various factions were unhappy with Thaksin, as there always are, it was the Shin sale that sent people into the streets. Mass anti-Thaksin demonstrations, answered by mass pro-Thaksin demonstrations, created the climate of disorder that, in turn, created at least a plausible pretext for the coup that autumn.
Now he's home, and this Wednesday, March 12, 2008, Thaksin will appear in court to answer charges related to the 2003 land deal.
Conclusions? I have none to offer, except that all states are failed states. Pragmatism should dictate that we find ways to order our affairs without reliance upon hierarchy, sovereignty, and superstition. Anarcho-capitalism. Catch the fever.
He has been in exile for a year and a half, when Thaksin -- the prime minister then -- was deposed by a military coup.
The junta stepped aside peacefully last year, arranging for elections, and a new incarnation of Thaksin's political party won those elections, as the leader of a six-party coalitions.
Six-party coalitions can be fragile things, so although the new prime minister (Samak Sundaravej) is an associate of Thaksin's, it's a bit much to speak of Thaksin, as some have, as the "kingmaker" in this situation.
Indeed, Thaksin is under something of a cloud himself. He has returned not in triumph but to face criminal charges arising out of his time in office.
One charge involves a 2003 land deal. While Thaksin was PM, his wife bought a plot in Bangkok from the central bank's distressed-asset fund. The accusation is that this was something more than just a sharp bit of dealing by a woman who just happened to be married to the prime minister, but that it was an inside fix.
The other charge relates to the events that set off the military coup. In 2006, the Shinawatras sold their interest in a computer company, Shin Corp. (they owned 49.5% of its equity) to Temasek Holdings, the sovereign wealth fund of the government of Singapore, for about US$1.9 billion. They paid no capital gains tax on this sale. It appears that under Thai law they were exempt from the tax, although the legality of it may only make it more scandalous than otherwise.
Also, Thailand's SEC found that the couple's son, Panthongtae Shinawatra, violated some of its disclosure rules in connection with the Shin Corp. transaction.
Such points are mere technicalities, though, compared to the issue of who bought the company the family was selling. One of their political opponents said that Thaksin was worse than Saddam Hussein for not protecting the Thai economy from foreigners: "Dictator Saddam, though a brutal tyrant, still fought the superpower for the Iraqi motherland," whereas Thaksin was selling out his motherland to Singapore.
Although there were lots of other reasons various factions were unhappy with Thaksin, as there always are, it was the Shin sale that sent people into the streets. Mass anti-Thaksin demonstrations, answered by mass pro-Thaksin demonstrations, created the climate of disorder that, in turn, created at least a plausible pretext for the coup that autumn.
Now he's home, and this Wednesday, March 12, 2008, Thaksin will appear in court to answer charges related to the 2003 land deal.
Conclusions? I have none to offer, except that all states are failed states. Pragmatism should dictate that we find ways to order our affairs without reliance upon hierarchy, sovereignty, and superstition. Anarcho-capitalism. Catch the fever.
02 March 2008
New Gutenberg bibles?
Gutenberg's printing press marked the start of western mass-production of books.
Only 48 known copies of the bibles printed by his press in the mid fifteenth century are known still to exist, and most of those are in far-from-perfect condition.
The first copy to arrive in the United States was known to be on these shores by 1847, when it was purchased by James Lenox. It now sits in the New York Public Library.
In 1987, a Tokyo-based company reportedly purchased one of the remaining copies at auction (Christie's) for $4.9 million. That copy is now in the Keio University Library in Tokyo.
A couple in Utah have taken it upon themselves to make new ones, in a manner of speaking.
Using a reconstructed press, period-appropriate binding techniques, herringbone stitch to hand sew the pages together, beechwood for the covers, they're working in painstaking detail to create their replicas.
God bless them. That's dedication.
Only 48 known copies of the bibles printed by his press in the mid fifteenth century are known still to exist, and most of those are in far-from-perfect condition.
The first copy to arrive in the United States was known to be on these shores by 1847, when it was purchased by James Lenox. It now sits in the New York Public Library.
In 1987, a Tokyo-based company reportedly purchased one of the remaining copies at auction (Christie's) for $4.9 million. That copy is now in the Keio University Library in Tokyo.
A couple in Utah have taken it upon themselves to make new ones, in a manner of speaking.
Using a reconstructed press, period-appropriate binding techniques, herringbone stitch to hand sew the pages together, beechwood for the covers, they're working in painstaking detail to create their replicas.
God bless them. That's dedication.
01 March 2008
William F. Buckley RIP
William F. Buckley has passed away. I was never a fan, but his life did give us some YouTube worthy moments, such as a classic exchange with Gore Vidal while both were supposed to be providing commentary on the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.
It seems to me that Buckley was plainly being baited there ("shut up a minute" says Mr. Vidal) and responded with a certain natural degree of heat. I don't think any the less of him for that. In terms of the political climate of 1968, all this was not nearly as nasty as it might have been.
I didn't see that program when it aired, but of course I had heard of it and was delighted at my recent discovery of YouTube's memorialization.
The Buckley I recall more vividly was the Buckley of Firing Line at the height of its influence, the period between 1976 and 1980, between Reagan's loss to Ford and Reagan's victory in the intra-Republican context and then in the general election of 1980.
I was a law student and a John Anderson volunteer in 1980 so I plainly wasn't in Buckley's side of intra-party fights. Nonetheless, he put on a good show. And that theme music! -- Bach's second Brandenburg Concerto.
And of course in parodic form Buckley was a "character" in a classic SCTV skit, "Battle of the PBS Stars," in 1982.
In retrospect I can see something of Buckley's historical importance, especially in the period 1970-80. This period begins when Nixon's wage and price controls disenchanted many market-oriented conservatives with the Republican Party and persuaded them they'd either have to remake it or leave. Some, the libertarians, left it. Others, under Buckley's leadership, stayed in the GOP determined to re-make it, and eventually they were rewarded with Reagan.
The Reagan crowd was, then, a little bit more principled than the Nixon-Ford crowd. That isn't a very high hurdle to clear, IMHO, but they did clear it. At least while they were out-of-power. Once in charge though ... well, that's another story.
It is possible to be a bit nostalgic for Buckley at his height. Today's conservatives, the Cunningham's and Coulter's especially, might learn a bit from him.
Every society will have a conservative element, in some sense, and it is best that this element be intelligent and civil. As much so as Buckley was at his best.
Will people someday look back at Limbaugh in the same spirit as that in which I look back as Buckley? Maybe. They may even look back this way at Cunningham and Coulter. God help us all.
It seems to me that Buckley was plainly being baited there ("shut up a minute" says Mr. Vidal) and responded with a certain natural degree of heat. I don't think any the less of him for that. In terms of the political climate of 1968, all this was not nearly as nasty as it might have been.
I didn't see that program when it aired, but of course I had heard of it and was delighted at my recent discovery of YouTube's memorialization.
The Buckley I recall more vividly was the Buckley of Firing Line at the height of its influence, the period between 1976 and 1980, between Reagan's loss to Ford and Reagan's victory in the intra-Republican context and then in the general election of 1980.
I was a law student and a John Anderson volunteer in 1980 so I plainly wasn't in Buckley's side of intra-party fights. Nonetheless, he put on a good show. And that theme music! -- Bach's second Brandenburg Concerto.
And of course in parodic form Buckley was a "character" in a classic SCTV skit, "Battle of the PBS Stars," in 1982.
In retrospect I can see something of Buckley's historical importance, especially in the period 1970-80. This period begins when Nixon's wage and price controls disenchanted many market-oriented conservatives with the Republican Party and persuaded them they'd either have to remake it or leave. Some, the libertarians, left it. Others, under Buckley's leadership, stayed in the GOP determined to re-make it, and eventually they were rewarded with Reagan.
The Reagan crowd was, then, a little bit more principled than the Nixon-Ford crowd. That isn't a very high hurdle to clear, IMHO, but they did clear it. At least while they were out-of-power. Once in charge though ... well, that's another story.
It is possible to be a bit nostalgic for Buckley at his height. Today's conservatives, the Cunningham's and Coulter's especially, might learn a bit from him.
Every society will have a conservative element, in some sense, and it is best that this element be intelligent and civil. As much so as Buckley was at his best.
Will people someday look back at Limbaugh in the same spirit as that in which I look back as Buckley? Maybe. They may even look back this way at Cunningham and Coulter. God help us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
