My Beauty Best Teacher

As many of you know, I am from Michigan, and actually live very close to Oakland University, so I was very excited about the Republican Presidential Primary debate that was recently held there regarding the economy and jobs. As a teacher, the way that I approach this debate may be a bit different than some- I imagine in my mind my students- who are learning about government but are coming from a weak background and years of liberal indoctrination- asking me about the debate and wanting me to give my thoughts on it as an impartial political scientist and also as a hip and cool and connected to the youth high school government teacher.

This debate was one of the better ones that I have watched, and I believe it demonstrates the depth and maturity of the GOP field of candidates. While Democrats focus on demagoguery and constantly throw out rhetoric and boilerplate language about hope and change and doing things different, the GOP field from top to bottom displayed in this debate depth of knowledge on a range of issues facing our nation on to the topic of the economy and jobs. Their answers were candid, focused on the points addressed to them, and they took time in their answers to really try to get their points across. There appeared to be much less 'game-planning'- they weren't trying to 'score points' or 'do anything', but were instead doing a great job answer the questions and trying to convince the American people why they would make a great President of the United States. The moderators did a good job too- asking tough questions but staying away from the 'gotchya' questions that really annoy me as a viewer.

To me, the field has clearly separated after this debate into three candidates who are clearly head and shoulders above the other candidates, each having unique strengths and each having a good shot at winning the nomination. The three that I see emerging after this debate are Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Hermain Cain. I'll come back to those three in a moment after considering the other candidates on the stage.

John Huntsman should drop out of the race- he is not the sort of Republican that the Republican Party is looking for or needs this election. In too many of his answers he asserted that he personally knew what the right size of banks should be, or that he could 'right-size' industries, as if he knows what the 'right size' industries should be. He is trying to come off as a sort of GOP caring and trusting candidate, but I don't think people are looking for a hug and a shoulder to cry on this election- they should be looking for leadership and competence to fix the blunders and mistakes of the past administration, and Huntsman does not represent that in any way. He adds little to the discussion and should drop out.

Rick Santorum is a nice enough politician, but his desperation for attention is bothersome to me and he clearly is a one-trick pony. Most of the other candidates listened to the other candidates and bounced off their ideas, but it appeared at times if Santorum was in his own little world, hearing only what he wanted to hear while bouncing up and down whining 'look at me.' His self-promotion was annoying. And government should not pick winners and losers in our nation, even if you think that winner should be manufacturing- that sort of mentality is what got our nation in the mess it is in right now. He's a nice guy, but not President, and also should drop out of the race.

Rick Perry, I hate to say, should also bow out of the race at this time. I really wanted to like Perry- I heard him speak on Mackinac Island at the GOP Leadership Conference and walked away impressed, but he is clearly out of his comfort zone in running for the President of the United States. Yes, not remembering what department he wanted to axe is embarrassing, but it was more than that- his answers on a range of issues were boilerplate and the kind of stuff that I find trite and shallow and lacking in specifics of sophistication. I thought that he would be able to take what he did in Texas and communicate how he would bring that model to our whole nation, but it increasing appears as if he doesn't fully understand or isn't able to communicate what that model is or how he can bring it to our whole nation. He has been measured, evaluated, and found wanting- he is a good Governor of the State of Texas, but I feel nothing more, and should exit stage right now.

Ron Paul I also feel should drop out of the race, although I understand him staying in the race- he still adds something to the discussion and gives the GOP candidates still in the race someone to agree with and disagree with. He is good at stirring the discussion and is a great legislator- although he is not going to the nominee for President because he lacks leadership and executive qualities that are needed to be President of the United States. During this debate he looked good- restrained, having a good time, and trying to teach America views and policies- but in other debates on foreign policy or family values he looks lost, and sometimes in this debate and others he fell back on 'conspiracies' and little black men to explain away our issues and problems. You need a guy like Ron Paul in Congress and running for President- but he should not be the nominee for President.

Michelle Bachman really impressed me- she has really gotten a lot better and a lot more comfortable up there on stage and she now looks like she belongs. She showed depth of understanding on a range of issues and was able to approach issues with a more complex understanding that I am looking for in a President- I liked her stance on lower taxes, on having everyone pay a little something in taxes, reforming healthcare, and focusing on how our spending problem is what is leading to a rising China. She was good and I'd like to see her stay in the race and continue to improve- but I don't think she should be the GOP's nominee. On too many issues, she simply fell back to being critical of Obama rather than articulating a clear position of her own, and I felt at times like she was quoting from articles that I had read on the major newspapers or heard on talkshows rather than being a President. She is a good Congresswomen and commentator- but not yet Presidential.

Hermain Cain did not impress me. 9-9-9 is not the answer to every question that our nation faces- it may be a bold reform plan, but it will not address every issue facing our nation and can't be the answer to every question that he is asked. For example, when asked on how he would get along with Democrats, he tried to answer that that wasn't important and that was important was passing 9-9-9- that's naive and misguided, because there are going to be Democrats in the House and Senate still after 2012 and 2014, and they aren't even going to give 9-9-9 a chance, and most Republicans aren't either. This guy is living in a dream world if he thinks he can just blow by those sorts of questions and shout 9-9-9 at people, and to me this speaks to the fact that Cain has never been in politics and has never run a government and has never had a position of leadership working in an environment where the other side hates his guts and will do anything possible to stop or sabotage his plan. In addition, on a range of answers he lacked knowledge of the details and issues- and this was domestic policy, his strong suit, not foreign policy, where he is very weak indeed in spite of the fact that foreign policy is a huge part of being President in our nation. He's a likable guy and easy-going- but I'd rather have as President a rude and stiff guy who knew what he was doing and could approach complex issues with complex and knowledgeable policy options. Hermain Cain would make a good Senator, but not a good President- increasingly I feel like the GOP likes him because he's the GOP's version of Obama- a weak on details, likable, easy-going fellow who can get off some good lines but has no experience and leadership and will be quickly overwhelmed with how boring and immense the office of the President is.

Newt Gingrich was the candidate that I was very happily surprised by. The best thing about Newt is that he doesn't let the liberals and Democrats frame the debate or control the direction of the debate- if he were the opponent of Obama I really think he would go after the guy and fight the battle on his terms. He has a stunning command of the issues and the complexity of the issues, easily referring to policies adopted by other nations and other areas as examples of what the United States should do while also drawing on history and economics concepts and philosophy with ease. His ideas about firing Bernake, auditing the Fed, reforming Freddie and Fannie, pushing Medicare to the states, expanding FSA's, giving more young people choices in Social Security, reforming student loan programs, and making America more competitive are all great ideas that the Republican party should and can get behind. Newt is a legitimate contender for the nomination, I feel, and would make a good (although wonkish) President of the United States, holding his own against the other party and executives from other nations, pushing for policies that would be innovative and creative to tackle the challenges that America faces in the 21st century. Obama might look for inspiration to FDR and the Great Depression of the 1930's- but Newt is a bold thinker looking ahead and pushing for new policies that could move America into the future. I think he would be a great addition to any ticket the GOP put forward.

Mitt Romney with this debate should have solidified his spot as the front runner. His knowledge of the issues and comfort with attacking problems with sophistication is only surpassed by Gingrich; his ability to attack Obama and roll of 'red-meat' lines that the base likes is surpassed only by Bachman; his experience as an executive and record of success in government is surpassed only by Perry; and his moderation and appeal to all-important middle-class voters is only surpassed by Huntsman. But put together all of these assets, combined with his general positive nature and range of experiences and Presidential look, and he makes a good nominee for the Republican Party. Not the best one- but on a lot of levels, a better nominee than McCain or Dole or Ford or Goldwater was, and comparable to others too. I believe that he speaks to the 'silent majority' in America that is always the key to winning elections- conservatives might not like this and might want him to be fully owned by the conservative movement, but the 'silent majority' of slightly right middle-class moderates is the group that really determines the President in our nation, and we'll need to win over that group to win the Presidency, and Romney can do that. Frankly, I don't know why conservatives hate him so- he was against the bailouts, against the auto bailouts, wants government to follow laws and processes, wants a flatter and broader tax base with less deductions, will cut the deficit, believes in federalism, talked about injecting the free market more into healthcare policies, and said that he'd push for more free trade. Oh, I know he also talked about keeping in place a safety net for the poor- but so did Ronald Reagan. And he was the only person who talked about he moral reasons for balancing the budget- about how it isn't right to pass that sort of debt down to our children. And he knew what sort of levers and buttons to push as President to get China to 'cheat' less in international trade while the other candidates didn't. I'm not endorsing him at this point- but there is a lot to like about him from this debate.

The best thing is that all of the candidates- from RINO Huntsman to libertarian Paul and everyone in between- all want to lower taxes, all were against the bailouts, all wanted to get rid of Obamacare, and all wanted to expand energy production in the United States. Right there, we know that whomever the nominee is, they will be a better President than the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, and will make America a better place for us to live, a more free nation for us to live in, and will create and protect our prosperity better.

UPDATE: Welcome readers from The PJ Tatler and from The Hill! While you are here, please take a moment to look around my site and check out some of my other posts or look through my archives and read anything that catches your interest. Bookmark my site or link to it on your own or subscribe by email and become a regular reader!

Bombastic Element on art ecosystems and markets in China and South Africa:

It is apparent South Africa, in terms of the push-pull tensions of its post-Apartheid society and emerging middle class, occupies a unique nexus of culture and politics that's boon for artists and art consumption...while in China It is very simple. You have a society [exemplified by] rapid consumerism and a system that's authoritarian. The 2 co-habit, mingle, co-exist in each other...

Great example of a country turnaround from dictatorship and corruption, Aubrey Belford reports in the NYTimes:

After years of being known for inefficiency, corruption and instability, Indonesia is emerging from the global financial crisis with a surprising new reputation — economic golden child.The country’s economy, the largest in Southeast Asia, grew at an annual rate of 6.2 percent in the second quarter of this year, data released Thursday showed. That is an acceleration from 2009, when gross domestic product expanded 4.5 percent.The stock market hit a record high last week and has been among the best-performing equities markets in Asia this year, rising more than 20 percent since Jan. 1...[continue reading]

Image via Wikipedia

Many factors have contributed to this upturn. Emerging-market demand has pushed up commodity prices. Urbanisation has given rise to a dynamic informal sector. Improved governance, higher food production, increased inter-regional trade, debt cancellation, better use of official development assistance (ODA), and thriving telecommunications and housing markets have helped as well.
But transfers from the African diaspora stand out as the most significant contributing factor. A study commissioned by the Rome-based International Fund for Agricultural Development indicates that more than 30 million individuals living outside their countries of origin contribute more than $40bn annually in remittances to their families and communities back home. For sub-Saharan African countries, remittances increased from $3.1bn in 1995 to $18.5bn in 2007, according to the World Bank, representing between 9% and 24% of GDP and 80-750% of ODA...[continue reading]

J. Skyler Fernandes and Lena Sene write in Huffington Post:

According to the 2009 Milken Institute report "Stimulating Investment in Emerging-Market SMEs," they account for 57 percent of employment and over 50 percent of GDP in developed countries. But in the developing countries, they contribute only 18 percent of employment and 16 percent of GDP. The report concludes that "if barriers to their growth were removed, SMEs would contribute more to economic development by providing jobs and income, expanding the middle class, broadening the tax base and ultimately decreasing poverty levels."...[continue reading]

In the Economist:

...a combination of challenges and opportunities is producing a fizzing cocktail of creativity. Because so many consumers are poor, companies have to go for volume. But because piracy is so commonplace, they also have to keep upgrading their products. Again the similarities with Japan in the 1980s are striking. Toyota and Honda took to “just-in-time” inventories and quality management because land and raw materials were expensive. In the same way emerging-market companies are turning problems into advantages....the emerging markets are developing their own distinctive management ideas, and Western companies will increasingly find themselves learning from their rivals. People who used to think of the emerging world as a source of cheap labour must now recognise that it can be a source of disruptive innovation as well.

Gautam Bandyopadhyay writes in the African Executive:

An exciting landscape is emerging in the banking arena, one where there is a billion-strong market actively seeking financial services but remains largely unattended to. These globally distributed prospective customers represent enormous earning potential for banks, but constitute the unbanked...[continue reading]

Bernard Hours writes about the NGOs and the victim industry.
Webometrics releases a continent-wide rankings for universities. Nigeria's ramshackle tertiary sector lives up to its expectations-Terrible. via Mootbox
African Loft highlights an IMF survey, that showcases the emerging market status of a number of African countries.
Mark Mobius discusses emerging opportunities in frontier markets.-FT
Mimicking the private sector or not? A question for Development Agencies-via Mootbox
Untying red tape-Doing Business 2008 a video report.

Oz ponders "Emerging Emerging Markets":

For the past 10 years the Nigerian economy has swung back and forth between emerging market, frontier market and even underdeveloped economy, as perceived by institutional investors. Personally I find it difficult to to tell the difference sometime.I am of the opinion that Wall Street is acutely tunnel visioned when it comes to recognizing the impressive changes that the African continent has undergone in the last ten years. This is why I find it difficult not to be cynical sometimes when ‘premier’ analysts sometime tout the equity markets in Nigeria as the next big thing...[continue reading]

Harold L. Sirkin in Businessweek writes about emerging market multinationals:

We continue to underestimate that companies from China, India, and other developing markets have the capability to challenge us, giving these companies time to sharpen their skills, enhance their marketing capabilities, become serious innovators, gobble up Western knowhow and companies, and set their sights on global markets, including the lucrative U.S. market...[continue reading]

Image via WikipediaFrom the website of the ISE founded by Ashraf Ghani and Clare lockhart:

The Institute for State Effectiveness (ISE) uses a citizen-centered perspective to rethink the fundamentals of the relationship between citizens, the state and the market in the context of globalization. Stability and prosperity in our interdependent world demand a new global compact to ensure that the billions of people currently excluded become stakeholders in the emerging political and economic order.

J Mawuli Ababio of the AVCA discusses the widening range of financing tools available to businesses in an AfricaNews interview:

‘There has always been a recognition of the lack of long term funding in Africa. There is no question about that. A lot of the African private businesses have traditionally been run by short term loans from banks. Today Venture Capital and Private Equity is assuming increasing prominence as a financing tool in emerging market economies, (including those in Africa), to finance private and public sector requirements on the continent.

Barney Jopson at the FT reports on the continent's developing mortgage industry:

The African mortgage sector remains tiny. In spite of huge pent-up demand, mortgages are available only in a dozen or so countries and the barriers to making them a mass-market product are formidable – not least the murkiness of property rights across much of the continent. “Maybe the hype exceeds the reality, but banks are at least trying to roll out products,” says Rod Evison, head of the Africa department at CDC, a private equity fund-of-funds specialising in emerging markets...The market’s boundaries are being pushed by young innovators such as Equity Bank, which is using capital secured last year when Helios, the London private equity group, paid Ks11bn for 25 per cent of the group. Banque Commerciale du Rwanda, which is owned by Actis, another London-based private equity group, has just sold the country’s maiden corporate bond to fund its nascent mortgage business...

Businessweek reports:

Banking powerhouses including Citigroup and JP Morgan operate in sub-Saharan Africa, but last week Russian investment bank Renaissance Capital (RenCap) showed signs of things to come as it bought stakes in brokerages in Ghana and Zambia...Mr Cornthwaite(of Rencap) said: "The situation is similar to our experience in Russia 15 years ago. There is a business opportunity here, and if you've seen the movie before, you're in a better position to capitalise," he said.

India and Africa have similar markets, value systems, levels of development," says Sunil Mittal, chairman of Bharti. "Emerging markets make sense for us."Especially markets in Africa, where connections to India run deep..."If we don't step in today, we will lose a huge market 15 years from now," says Malvinder Mohan Singh, CEO of drugmaker Ranbaxy Laboratories, which operates throughout Africa.

From the IMF's Regional Economic Outlook for Sub-Saharan Africa,2008(PDF):

The term “emerging market” was coined in 1980 to refer to countries that had stock markets and were in transition toward having the features of the mature stock markets in industrial countries.This box suggests that some African countries fit within the emerging market group and supports this view by benchmarking these African economies of 2007 against the ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore,and Thailand) of 1980, when the term “emerging market” entered the lexicon.
Selected African countries compare favorably with the ASEAN countries of 1980. The ASEAN countries were already experiencing strong economic growth. Yet, in many other respects, the ASEAN countries looked quite different from what we see today. Inflation rates were still high in some cases, the depth of their financial sectors was limited, foreign direct investment had yet to accelerate, and their financial
resources, reflected in international reserves, were adequate but not high. Many African countries have perhaps reached broader macroeconomic stability than the 1980 ASEAN benchmark. Growth is strong, inflation moderate, and international reserves relatively high. Like ASEAN, financial depth remains limited.Foreign direct investment is quite high, although this is in large part a reflection of the larger share of naturalresources such as oil in the case of African countries.2 Debt-to-GDP ratios are low.