The lunch line is long, we've had a full morning and the computer room is by far the most air conditioned room in all of Chania, so I think I'll spend a couple cool minutes talking about political economics. I want to begin, though, with a bit of advice from an American trying to survive three very political weeks amongst some of the brightest minds of Europe. My roomate mentioned to me this morning that he's been e-mailing his professors with ideas, wondering if any of his thoughts might have enough quality to make up an op-ed piece for publication, just to prove my point. So my advice is: Read about international events as much as you can, and think about how conflicts abroad (such as Israel's right to exist in the eyes of many Arab nations) can relate to conflicts at home (such as America's role in the Middle East). The lack of knowledge of the American delegation is astounding compared to the rest of the world. I have spent much of the past two weeks listening, taking in new information that these young individuals know in depth. Let me name the conflicts about which I have taken part in extensive conversation:
- Israel-Palestine
- Israel-Lebanon
- Israel-Syria...I could go on with Israel-______, but you get the point
- Greece-Turkey
- Greece-Macedonia
- Cyprus: Greek-Cypriots/Turkish-Cypriots
- Kosovo-Serbia
- America-Iraq
- America-Iran
- Lebanese Civil War 1975-1990 (I watched "West Beirut" last night. It was a very moving film about life during war.
- Egyptian power process under Gamal Abd al-Nassar, Anwar al-Sadat and now Mohammed Hosni Mubarak and the conflict between Muslims and Coptic Christians
- Divisions between Shia, Sunnia and Kurdish Muslims, along with a sect that I had never heard of - Suffi Muslim
- Countless conflicts in the countries of the former Soviet Union
If a professor asked a class to raise their hands if they had knowledge of all of these conflicts, I would not have raised my hand. In fact, I probably would have put my hands on the floor, perhaps trying to dig into the carpet to get as low as possible. These are important issues in the world. Thesis papers waiting to be written, as Dr. Armstrong would probably say. Yet Americans, for the most part, do not even have basic knowledge of what most of these conflicts are about. I am coming back to the States with many goals, not least of which is to encourage the people I am around to become more knowlegeable about the world around us. It will make us better American citizens and better people.
Now, on to political economics! We began classes yesterday (Monday) and will continue until Friday. Our exam over Political Economics with Professor Morriss and Intelectual History with Professor Sullivan will be on Saturday, and the program concludes on Sunday. Economics is a very interesting topic, and one that is important to honestly, everyone. I am really glad that I was convinced to take a basic economics course last semester, or I would be completely lost in this course. The article we are currently working on discusses the reasons why some nations embrace capitalism and thrive economically (United States, Britain, Japan) while others make the attempt and seem to fail miserably (Latin America, many countries of the former Soviet Union, China). Americans consistently give advice to other countries on how to legalize practices and make economic decisions more logical, yet the advice often seems to fail.
The theory proposed in controversial at best, flat wrong at worst. Every piece of America is owned. Likewise in much of western Europe and Japan. Every tool is inventoried, every piece of property legally recognized, every credit action accounted for. This is not true in much of the undeveloped world, much as it was not true in America 150 years ago. And this is the key difference. If an individual wants to start a business in Kansas City, she can mortgage her house, take out a loan, sell shares of investments that she may own, etc... This can be done because all of her assets are legally recognized. If an individual in undeveloped Africa, for instance, wants to do the same, it is impossible. The land that his family has developed and farmed for generations is not officially or legally his, so he cannot use it for collateral to take out a loan. The house he built is not legally recognized, so it cannot be remortgaged. The individual in Africa has just as much in terms of assets as the individual in America, but his assets are not legally recognized like hers are. The African's capital is "dead", so to say, because it cannot be used to generate more capital. On the other hand, the American's capital is "living", because it is the basis for generating more capital.
There are more readings in the coming days and more lectures that will hopefully clarify this theory. I, personally, have a couple immediate issues with it. Unfortunately, though, I'll save those arguments for sometime later, hopefully tonight. For now, it is lunch and the line is no longer long. And Iman just came in and told me lunch is souvlaki. No offense my friends, but my stomach is setting the priorities right now! Kali Orexi!