Category: Politics

This is the headline of The Economist magazine this week. The Economist, for its part, is going with the incoherent. The logic is simple, but the argument is incomplete. According to the Economist, a liberal-in-the-European-sense magazine published in London, President Bush understands the need for freedom in the Middle East, and acted decisively to respond to the true culprits of 9/11 with a minimum number of mistakes there. However, the editors of the Economist believe that while it was correct to invade Iraq based on shoddy evidence of WsMD, the subsequent occupation has been a disaster. They believe that the American people should give Bush the accountability that he claims to require for everyone, but seems not to require of himself, and vote for Kerry.

OK, I pretty much agree with that. There are several interesting observations, however. To me, it is amazing that the Economist, a magazine so dedicated to free markets, capitalism, and libertarian ideals, after having endorsed George W. Bush (whose record included six unimpressive years in Austin, a stint as manager of a baseball team, and several failed oil companies) over a sitting Vice President with a record of economic growth but a woody personality, after rallying behind Bush in Iraq, after moaning about the wretched “indecisiveness” of Kerry, has still chosen to change horses mid-stream.

It is also amazing that throughout the Economist’s justification for its decision, it mentions not once the fiscal policies of this administration. After demand stimulus tax cuts to the wrong segment of society; a record of pork, log-rolling, and horse-trading that even embarrasses the Heritage Foundation; an incoherent trade policy that vacillates between protectionism and liberalism; and three years of “disappointing” job/growth numbers, you think that the Economist would live up to its name as “The Economist” and actually talk about economics.

How many months of worse-than-expected economic statistics do you want before you say, dammit George, please revise your expectations down and tell the truth? Just shows you, fool me once, um, …

Last night the third and final Ramadhan discussion was led by two Indonesian economists who discussed their recollections of the Indonesian economy under Suharto (they’re both really old). That’s right up my (TP) alley, of course. Thee Kian Wie is a famous economic historian and commentator with a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin, and Mohammad Sadli was a member of the famous “Berkeley Mafia” who had Ph.D.s from, yes, Berkeley and tried to advise Suharto from 1966 to 1998.

Despite the failings of Suharto’s New Order regime, we find it amazing to have the chance to talk to them. What immediately strikes you from the conversation is that, far from the normal view of third-world policy makers as hapless and inefficient, these two know their economics. They knew what they were doing, they knew what the implications of policy choices were, and they knew that Suharto’s corrupt regime was unsustainable. But how do you tell Suharto that? Furthermore, you get a glimpse of the true miracle that Indonesia is. Without forgetting the excesses of the New Order, its contradictions, its human rights abuses, and its total lack of participatory democracy, it is an empirical fact that Indonesia in 1965 was an absolute mess, and out of the whole world only China experienced more economic growth between 1966 and 1998. According to Pak Thee, “you youngsters have every right to criticize the regime, and should, but to forget what Suharto inherited is idiotic.”

We are going to attempt to go to Bandung this weekend. It’s either the third or fourth largest city in Indonesia, and is the capital of West Java, the province which surrounds Jakarta. It has a reputation as a university town, and also is the home to the textile industry. This might mean good deals on export-quality clothes. Look at the tag on your shirt: it probably says “Made in Indonesia.”