However, reaction has been mixed, and the overall end goal of the operations remains unclear. Not surprisingly, US proponents of the use of force as a foreign policy strategy (such as Senator John McCain), complain that the passing of resolution 1973 is too little too late and that it would have been more useful back when the rebels controlled a larger part of the country. Likewise, Republican senator Lindsey Graham commented, “I don’t know what finally got the president to act, but I’m very worried that we’re taking the back seat rather than a leadership role.”

At the same time, war critics have spoken out against any military involvement in Libya. long-time critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Michael Moore expressed disappointment over the decision and poked fun at Obama’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. And the New York Times pointed to the realities of the United States’ current overseas commitments: “The airstrikes against the Libyan government crystallized the complexities and risks of addressing the multifaceted uprisings in the Arab world and could leave the administration stretched thin as its heads toward a budget showdown with Republicans in Congress and a decision by summer about how quickly to reduce the American military presence in Afghanistan.”

Without dwelling on the retrospective (whether or not we should have authorized military force against Qaddafi in the first place), we need to solidify our objectives going forward and determine what end results would qualify as “success.” In a separate article, the New York Times lays out the problem as: “Is it merely to protect the Libyan population from the government, or is it intended to fulfill President Obama’s objective declared two weeks ago that Colonel Qaddafi ‘must leave’?” If Qaddafi cannot be dislodged with airpower alone, will the allied powers be willing to commit ground forces?

The bombing campaign against Qaddafi, appears to be drawing criticism from regional actors such as the Arab League, and I can’t help but wonder if we’re now sliding that slippery slope toward using force against other unsatisfactory leaders in the region.

There are many visible way in which demographics play themselves out in society, but most stem from the balance of workers vs. non-workers (either the young or the elderly). Generally, a country with more than 30% of its population under the age of 14 and less than 6% over the age of 75 is considered a “young population,” and is a situation most often found in developing agricultural societies without adequate health services (i.e. lower life expectancies). See Pakistan, for example.

The opposite problem is that of an aging population, a phenomenon observed across much of the West but also acutely apparent in Japan. The odd-man-out in terms of typical population shifts (from the youth-heavy pyramid of developing counties to graying tendencies of more developed ones), is China.

A recent Economist article commented:

China is known for its plentiful, pliable workers. But these incidents have cast doubt on that caricature… China’s labour supply is still growing. Its working-age population will increase from almost 977m in 2010 to about 993m in 2015, according to projections issued in December by the US census bureau (see left-hand chart). But the number of youngsters (15-24-year-olds) entering the labour force will fall by almost 30% over the next ten years… The ageing of China’s labour force matters, because older workers are less willing to move to the coastal factories that depend on migrant labour.”

Not that imbalances in China’s demographics are anything new. The coming reversal of the country’s youth-heavy workforce, the coming of age of a male-heavy generation (due to a male-biased culture, the one child policy, and the arrival of ultrasound in the countryside), and other patterns have been well-documented. But the effects of these are somewhat more opaque than that of a shrinking labor-force.

Will a decline in available labor enable Chinese workers to demand higher pay, better working conditions, or more benefits? Will it force Chinese companies to raise the prices of their finished goods, and will the brands selling these products then pass the cost onto consumers? Could labor strikes such as the recent one at a Chinese parts supplier give rise to a broader workers’ movement? Who knows for sure… As much as behavioral economists would like to be able to predict how people will respond to certain economic conditions, history has shown that the reactions of Chinese populations is particularly hard to predict…

I’m not sure what he is smiling about in the background as they’re taking the journalist away… In many parts of the Middle East, shoe-throwing is one of the harshest gestures one can make. Note that shoe-throwing also made news in 2003 when Iraqis threw their footwear at the toppled statue of Saddam Hussein.

See also:

• BBC: Bush shoe-ing worst Arab insult
• Reuters: Iraqi shoe-throwing reporter becomes the talk of Iraq
• IHT: Shoe insult against Bush resounds in Arab world

After the Clinton years when people such as Richard Armitage (US Deputy Secretary of State from 2001-05) and Michael Green (Senior Director for Asian affairs at the NSC from 2004-05) came to power in Washington the concern of “Japan passing” receded from the minds of many Japanese politicians. The nomination of Obama and the return of the Democrats to power has rekindled the idea that America may again tilt more toward China. (Random Obama fact: He likes bulgogi and kimchi).

Interestingly, the fear in Japan of being passed (or ignored) doesn’t only apply to relations with the United States. In addition to the ongoing Australia-Japan disputes over whaling, current prime minister of Australia Kevin Rudd’s “widely celebrated Sinophile credentials” have also contributed to concerns that Australia will lean more toward China at the expense of relations with Japan.

So are Japan’s concerns about being “passed” (by the United States, Australia, or other bodies such as the UNSC) unfounded or warranted? Even if many of Obama’s advisers indeed turn out to be from the Clinton era, I think it’s unrealistic that Japan will cease to be an important US ally in Asia.

And to continue my rant against Alaska, I can’t believe that it looks like Ted Stevens will be re-elected. What a world.

So let me begin on the second part of my rant tonight. Alaska. I’ll admit that I didn’t know much about our northernmost state before the start of this election — just assumed that it was a cold yet beautiful, sparsely-populated yet geographically huge state.

I’m not that fond of winter, but I was definitely happy to continue in my naive bliss and assume that Alaskans felt as though they were part of the US despite their detached location. Now I have my doubts.

NPR tonight quoted one Alaskan woman who in response to the Ted Stevens conviction said, “Twelve outsiders trying to pass judgment on our United States senator? I won’t have any part of it,” she said. “That’s like in the days pre-statehood, when outsiders used to pass judgment on us.” Yes, I know this is hardly a significant sample size, but I found her comment utterly shocking. (1) She’s undermining the very basis of our judicial system — the jury system. (2) She’s saying that mainland USA is so completely different from Alaska that it’s impossible for people there to “pass judgment” on a legislator from Alaska (who has, by the way, probably spent more of his life in DC than Alaska). (3) Alaska became a state in 1959… I don’t think many people viewed the trial as a fight against Alaska or its sovereignty. This is about political corruption, not membership to the union.

Really now. When was the last time you heard a market rally over currency devaluation? Unfortunately for the yen, it was the victim of a financial practice known as the carry trade. In (relatively) plain English this means borrowing in a currency offering low interest and investing in high-interest currencies — or, in other words, taking advantage of different interest rates in different markets to make money.

Because the Bank of Japan (BOJ) has kept Japanese interest rates so low, the yen has been on the borrowing end of the carry trade, and traders have used this yen to invest in developing markets around the world. Unfortunately for Japan, with the global financial system in turmoil and developing markets looking increasingly risky, investors are pulling out of these investments and are converting assets in other currencies back into yen. Demand for yen goes up, and the value of the yen rises against everything, even the dollar (one of the other currencies currently on the rise).

Or something like that. The end result of the whole mess is that Japanese exports are more expensive on foreign markets (due to the strong yen), and Japanese manufacturers are freaking out.

• Foreign Policy/Gallup: Electoral Map of the World
• Economist: Global Electoral College
• CNN: How global viewers saw the McCain-Obama battle
• BBC: All countries in BBC poll prefer Obama to McCain

Need some data? Head on over to amazon.com. The first economic-related book to come up in the bestsellers list is The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life at #8. You don’t have to scroll down far to see the next: The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What It Means by George Soros at #12. Thomas Friedman’s new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution–and How It Can Renew America is right below at #13. Still within the top 20, The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets: How to Keep Your Portfolio Up When the Market is Down (Little Books. Big Profits) comes in at #19.

If you’re an audio learner instead of a visual learner, then I’d suggest Marketplace from American Public Media. Here’s the link to Marketplace’s complete coverage of the financial crisis.

Other links:

• Wikipedia: Financial Markets
• Wikipedia: Bond Market
• Wikipedia: Stock Market
• Wikipedia: Foreign Exchange Market
• Wikipedia: Derivatives Market
• Wikipedia: Commodity Market
• Wikipedia: Spot Market

Some press say the move is an attempt by the outgoing Bush administration to bolster its foreign policy image before it leaves office in January. For example, the LA Times wrote:

The administration’s position marks a 180-degree turn for a team that came to office in 2001 contending that the Clinton administration had been too lenient in its six-year effort to trade North Korea’s nuclear ambitions for economic and political benefits. Now, the Bush administration counts its denuclearization program as one of its most important achievements.

Will the delisting be good or bad for the denuclearization progress in the long run? I suppose only time will tell, but I certainly hope that there was more reason behind the timing of the decision than simply an outgoing administration trying to tie up loose ends.