CAMBODIA’S COMING DEBT CRASH

The rise in energy costs is going to hit Cambodia harder than other countries. This is because the country is already struggling with mountains of debt.

My sister used to work for an American bankruptcy court, and she would tell me story after story of families who played by the rules, paid their debts, and were responsible enough to manage to keep afloat amid huge debts. But one day a ‘black swan’ event occurs, such as a gigantic medical bill. That completely destroys the family, and they must declare bankruptcy.

I fear that the same phenomenon may happen to Cambodian families. Consider the following descriptions of Cambodian debt, as described in an article in Deutsche Welle:

More families in Southeast Asia sinking into debt

Across Southeast Asia, households are taking on debt just to cover basic needs. Analysts warn that the region’s growing dependence on borrowing risks triggering wider financial stress and long-term economic harm.

From Phnom Penh to Bangkok, a growing share of mainland Southeast Asia’s economic story is no longer about exports, investment or factory growth, but about households borrowing simply to get by.

Cambodia is at the center of the crisis. The country’s credit boom lifted the private debt-to-GDP ratio from 24.2% in 2010 to 134.5% in 2023, one of the region’s sharpest expansions. [Thailand, itself considered highly indebted, has a ratio of only 87%].

According to Cambodia’s Credit Bureau, as of December 2025, the average outstanding personal loan per borrower was around $6,500 (€5,665). The garment-sector minimum wage is $208 per month.

I have observed the Cambodian economy over the past several years. I know that salaries are only a few hundred dollars a month, but I see these same hard-working people driving conspicuous-consumption vehicles, for which they must have borrowed thousands of dollars at high interest rates. However, as in the stories my sister tells me, they have managed to make ends meet and keep afloat, that is, until the recent energy crisis.

This rise in energy costs comes amid a perfect storm of economic hardships, based on at least two other ‘black swans’.

First, the property market has crashed. Go to the outskirts of any Cambodian city, and you will see rows and rows of empty ‘boreys’. In the past decade, investors (largely Chinese, possibly interested in money laundering), have built thousands of these housing units, which no one wants to buy. If you have a house that you want to sell, lotsa luck!

Typical Borey. These are mostly empty.

Secondly, Trump foisted his tariffs on Cambodia. At first, it was 49%, but in order to pacify both Cambodia and Thailand at the beginning of their border war, he graciously lowered it to only 19%. The Cambodians were so grateful! I see it like this: Trump threatens to cut off your arm, but then he cuts off only your hand, and you are eternally grateful.

The tariffs are hurting Cambodia’s lifeline – the garment industry. If garment exports to the US are heavily taxed, demand will go down, and many factories will be forced to close, sending young girls back to their villages into poverty and most likely prostitution or other degrading activities.

I fear that the recent energy price increases may be the straw that breaks the back of working Cambodians. What are the implications of that? For one thing, banks may fail, due to an avalanche of nonperforming loans. For another, the conspicuous consumption in cars and houses may come to an end, as families are forced into much more modest lifestyles. One positive point: Cambodia produces a lot of its own food and other products. Cambodia may prove to be remarkably self-sufficient.

WHY ARE MORE AMERICANS IN FAVOR OF THE IRAN WAR?

Americans, at the start of the Iran war, were largely negative. On March 1, CNN reported 41% in favor, and 59% opposed (-18%).  More recently, however, the war has increased in popularity. RealClearPolitics lists recent polls, and finds that the average is 44.3% in favor, 47.7% opposed  (-3.4%). That’s still negative overall, but just barely, and in fact less than 50% are actually opposed to the war. The Washington Post, in its most recent poll of March 9, even gives 42% for and 40% against (+2%). The usually pro-Trump Rasmussen poll gives 52% for and 42% against (+10%).

I was flabbergasted by this increase in popularity. Most of the articles I read consider the war an unmitigated disaster, which is looking more and more like a ‘forever war’ with global energy shortages and high prices, leading to possible economic collapse. How on earth could more and more Americans think this outrageous war is a good thing? This question has really puzzled me.

I have two or three possible explanations, but there may be others.

  1. 13 American soldiers have been killed. Americans are angry and howling for vengeance. No matter that we murdered 170 schoolgirls, those 13 Americans demand retribution. The greater the US destruction and death in Iran, the more that vengeance will be satisfied.
  2. Trump has bragged about US successes, claiming victory. The Trump-controlled media are saying that the war is a great success militarily. This makes Americans feel good. “Let’s continue to kick more ass!” may be the attitude of many Americans.
  3. At first, Trump thought that Iran would roll over and die, and that the grateful Iranian people would welcome US intervention and overthrow the régime. That didn’t happen. Angry Americans may feel “How dare they refuse to submit and continue to defy American might. Let’s teach those ingrates a lesson.”

Images like this enrage many Americans.

One other point: this change in attitude is not just a change in Trump’s approval. RealClear has his average approval spread at a fairly constant -11%. Compared to the war approval spread of -3.4%, that means that 7.6% still disapprove of Trump but support the war. This constant -11% also indicates that Trump has not lost support because of the war.

THERE WERE TWO STRIKES ON THE GIRLS’ SCHOOL

Graves of schoolgirls killed by US Tomahawk missiles

I have been reading many accounts of the bombing of the girls’ school in Iran. They all refer to the ‘strike’. None of them mention the second strike, some 40 minutes later, which killed many of the survivors of the first strike and those trying to rescue them.

This second strike is important, because it gives the lie to the explanation that the bombing was a mistake. Even if the first strike was a mistake, the bombers would quickly realize it, and would not repeat the same mistake.

One account claims that they were aiming at a nearby installation; while another account claims that an outdated map showed a military installation on the site; a third account claims that the destruction of the school was just collateral damage from a bomb strike nearby. The picture below shows that this was no collateral damage.

Ruins of the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab

None of these explanations satisfy me, especially after Trump tried to lie his way out of it by saying that the Iranians bombed their own school, and when shown evidence that it was an American missile, he claimed that he knew nothing about it. Suuuurre! Of course he knew. The alleged evidence of an outdated map sounds like the product of some backroom sessions trying to come up with an excuse that sounded credible.

The US media have been boasting about how accurate American strikes have been, as evidenced by the precise targeting of the Ayatollah. I somehow believe these boasts, after I saw how precise their calculations had been in Venezuela. The New York Times noted that “a single errant missile wouldn’t have caused such precise and targeted damage to several buildings “. No, the US military didn’t make a mistake.

The only other explanation is that the US knew that they were bombing the school – twice. Why would they do that? They haven’t told us, so there must be some secret. One theory, which I haven’t heard anywhere and just invented myself, is that there was actually some important person hiding in (or under?) the school. That person must have been so important that, even now, the US military refuses to mention any high-ranking figure in connection with the school. Has anyone asked whether there were tunnels beneath the school?

Whatever the true explanation (which Trump is hiding), this massacre will go down as one of the most despicable acts of savagery in American history, and history will hold Trump accountable for this evil murder.

OCCAM’S RAZOR APPLIED TO IRAN

Trump has been flailing – and failing – to provide a plausible rationale or objective for attacking Iran. He changes his unconvincing explanations on a daily basis. Meanwhile, media pundits are scratching their heads trying to figure out what Trump is trying to achieve. Everyone is guessing how long it will last, but how can you even guess when you don’t even know what victory looks like?

The Trump-controlled media outlets like CBS and now CNN are spending hours and hours discussing this complex situation. Apparently, Trump is not allowing them even to utter one simple 3-letter word. That would be Occam’s Razor.

Let’s back up to Venezuela. Trump offered all sorts of reasons for attacking. For a while it was fentanyl, until everyone figured out that no fentanyl was being shipped from Venezuela. Then it was Maduro’s drug trafficking and oppressive régime. But when it was all over, the régime – sans Maduro – was still in place, while Trump was given control over Venezuela’s oil, with profits flowing to a Trump-controlled (NOT American) offshore account in Qatar. Trump’s ‘deal’ was to allow the trafficking, criminal, oppressive régime to remain in place as long as he controlled the oil.

Now, back to Iran, where the media are not allowed even to suggest that O-I-L has anything to do with this war. I suggest that oil has everything to do with it. In short, Trump wants to control Iran’s oil in the same way that he controls Venezuela’s. As in the case of Venezuela, his ‘deal’ is “I will totally destroy you if you don’t give me your oil. I will leave the current corrupt, oppressive régime in place as long as I control the oil and its profits.”

All of Trump’s ‘deals’ are like this, including the tariff ‘deals’: “I will destroy you if you don’t give me what I want.”

A word about the 185 murdered schoolgirls. The Trump-controlled media outlets gloss over this massacre as though it was just an accident. Trump fires pinpoint precision missiles and hits other targets exactly. The school bombing was not a mistake; it was precisely planned. Now why would Trump plan to murder 185 schoolgirls? If my assessment above is correct, the murder of schoolgirls sends the message: “I will stop at nothing until you give me your oil.”

(aside: has Trump destroyed any of Iran’s oil installations? I think I can guess why not.)

Here’s a corollary to my thesis. In order for Trump to profit from Iran and Venezuela’s oil, their governments must be absolutely stable. They must brook no dissent that might interrupt the flow of oil. Therefore, Trump will covertly assist those governments in suppressing dissent, even if it means massacring thousands of protesters (the very act he condemned in Iran last month).

FOREIGN PRODUCERS REALLY DO PAY THE TARIFFS

Conventional wisdom is that foreign countries do not pay the tariffs; importers pay them, and then pass them on to consumers. Various estimates claim that 95-99% of Trump’s tariffs are paid by consumers.

So now that the tariffs have been declared illegal, import companies are lining up to claim refunds on the tariffs they were forced to pay illegally. However, various websites are crying foul, saying, “Hey, it was really the consumers who paid those tariffs, so why pay refunds to the importers? In fact, the American taxpayer, who paid the higher price, is now asked to bail out the importers, who levied the higher prices on consumers in the first place. The taxpayers are being hit twice for the same price rise.”

But it’s a whole lot more complicated than that. The real losers are the foreign producers, because the tax on their products makes them lose sales. Too high a protective tariff may force the foreign producer to lose their entire US market. That could be a huge loss.

I live in Cambodia, where garment factories form a large part of the country’s GDP, mostly through sales to the US. I have seen garment factories forced to close, because Americans can no longer afford tariff-taxed Cambodian products. The garment industry in Cambodia has lost millions of dollars to Trump’s tariffs.

The winners are the American producers of competing products (just as Trump wanted). Consumers find American products more attractive than the (taxed) foreign imports. Not only do American sales rise, but the producers, without foreign competition, can now raise their prices.

What about tariffs on products that cannot be produced in the US, like coffee or bananas? If the price of coffee goes up, Americans will buy less coffee, or may switch to tea. At least they can switch to coffee from lower tariff countries, since Trump levied the tariffs unequally. The real losers are the high-tariff countries who must now sell less coffee.

Importers, who have simply passed the tariffs on to consumers, cannot claim injury from the federal government, so they should not be allowed to sue. Only the foreign producers should sue for damages. Of course, consumers, who have lost big time, will have trouble individually suing the federal government.

For those of you who like Econ 101 graphs, here is the situation:

Originally, the supply graph S meets the demand graph D in equilibrium point A. With the tariff applied, the supply graph moves up to S’. The new equilibrium point B shows a higher price than point A, but with a lower quantity of sales, Q2. It is that lower sales figure of Q2 that makes the producing country lose money.

MAGA’S NEW EPSTEIN TUNE

Ever since the Epstein files became prominent, MAGA’s response, echoing Trump’s, has been “It’s all a hoax.  Fake news.” That wall is starting to crack.

With the release of 3 million out of a total of 6 million pages of documents, MAGA cultists must be realizing that the hoaxsters wouldn’t print 6 million fake pages. Furthermore, why would they then go and redact most of the fake stories they had invented? Seeing the redacted pages on TV forces the MAGA cultists to admit that maybe they are real.

Moreover, more and more CEOs, royalty, celebrities, and politicians around the world are resigning because their names have been linked to Epstein. They wouldn’t be resigning if it was all a hoax, would they?

I have seen a few recent Facebook posts from MAGA cultists, who are now saying, “Yes, the files are real and some famous people were doing some really bad things. But our hero Trump would never do anything like that.” Pam Bondi declared, under oath, that there is no credible evidence that Trump committed any crimes.

At her infamous hearing, she was shown dozens of testimonies from victims implicating Trump himself. The DOJ response to these horrific accusations is that the FBI (Patel) or the DOJ (Bondi herself) had received the complaints and judged that they were of no merit. Therefore, they do not constitute credible evidence against Trump.

Every article I read on this subject contains an obligatory disclaimer about Trump, something hilarious like “Jane Doe reported to the FBI that Trump had raped her three times, but this does not constitute any suggestion that Trump did anything wrong.” Without that ridiculous disclaimer, Trump would sue the writers of the article.

That seems to be MAGA’s fall-back position: that Trump was friends with a lot of those evil people, including Epstein, but never did anything wrong himself. Those flight manifests from Epstein’s private plane may be real, but they don’t prove that Trump did anything wrong.

MAGA cultists may admit that Epstein and Trump threw parties,

but Trump did nothing illegal there.

I think it was clever of DOJ to release 38,000 mentions of Trump in the files – the least damaging ones they could find. They couldn’t possibly be believed if they redacted ALL mentions of Trump. MAGA can now say, “Nothing to see here.” However, it’s now widely accepted that his name appears over a million times, so that the other 962,000 have been redacted. Those must be the really juicy ones.

It will be hard to dislodge the MAGA cultists from their latest fall-back position. What could force them to change their minds?

The next big step may be the release of unredacted files by European governments. Not only will Trump’s most horrible misdeeds come to light, but there will be corroborating testimonies supporting these stories that will cross-check. How will MAGA react to that?

Another development will be that some of the guilty villains will be perhaps arrested, or if not, at least forced to testify. These important people will carry far more credibility than the women victims, especially if their testimony supports that of the victims. They may be important people whom MAGA can believe.

For example, the former Prince Andrew has already been identified and has lost heavily. What more would he have to lose by testifying against Trump or others? And how about Howard Lutnick, whose story about just visiting Epstein’s island for lunch with his family has absolutely no credibility? If he becomes too much of a laughingstock or liability, he may be forced out and might then testify against Trump and other cabinet members.

I think that the final position of the MAGA cultists will be, “Well, maybe Trump did some bad things when he was younger, but he’s straightened out after realizing that America is broken, and he is doing his best to fix the country, as only he can.”

HOORAY FOR BAD BUNNY!

Prior to the Superbowl halftime show, MAGA critics were shouting that a Hispanic performer was a divisive influence. “Why didn’t the NFL choose someone who spoke English?” An article in the Atlantic states that MAGA voices attacked the “crazy” decision by the “woke” NFL to book someone who’s not “a unifying entertainer.” 

It turned out that Bad Bunny staged an exuberant, positive show, full of joy and happiness, as he emphasized not only the unity of the United States, but the unity of all ‘American’ nations in the two Americas. The 127 million viewers came away feeling pumped up.

On the other hand, the opposition halftime show, with only 5 million viewers, was a bit of a bore. Its featured artist, Kid Rock, did not inspire unity.

Kid Rock (not even from the USA) is not a unifying figure.

We knew Trump would write something nasty about the show. The real reason for his angry response was that, for once, Trump wasn’t the center of attention. Trump has to make everything about HIMSELF.

Bad Bunny’s positive show was a rare island of feel-goodism in a sea of American gloom. Everything in the news these days is negative, from ICE murders to record job losses, from Trump’s constant anger to the horrific Epstein files.

A recent Economist/Yougov poll about the direction of the country showed a negative-to-positive result of 33-61, a spread of -28.

Studies reported in Fortune show that the long-term gloom is even worse. The most recent measures show that while current life satisfaction has declined over the last decade, future optimism has dropped even more.

“While current life is eroding, it’s that optimism for the future that has eroded almost twice as much over the course of about that last 10 years or so.”

That’s why Bad Bunny’s show was such a light in the darkness for millions of Americans. Give him credit for not dwelling on the negatives. He could have badmouthed Trump, bemoaned the economy, or brought up Trump’s misadventures in Venezuela, Greenland, etc. That’s what many people expected, but he didn’t take the bait.

Maybe this show will be a first step towards a more positive attitude, not just about the future of the US, but about the unity of all the diverse peoples in the Americas.

FREUD’S ID-SUPEREGO-EGO MODEL IS USEFUL

I just had the following experience:  lying in bed, I thought of a cold beer I had in the fridge, and also that I had some muesli and milk. I thought, “Wow! A cold beer would taste mighty good about now.”  But then I thought, “The muesli and milk would be a lot better for my health.” I finally decided, “The beer can wait for another day, but the milk might go bad if I don’t drink it.”

Which would you choose, a cold beer or muesli and milk?

This mental debate reminded me of Freud’s model of the mind — id-superego-ego. Wanting a cold beer represents the id of raw desire; the health benefits of muesli represent the morality of the superego, and the rational choice of the muesli represents the adjudication by the ego.

The id-superego-ego model can be quite useful in describing our thoughts. Many decisions are a struggle between a physical desire and a moral principle, adjudicated by some rational decision. Two separate parts of the brain are struggling, and the decision is made by a third part in order to balance or satisfy the other two.

I remember watching cartoons in my youth, where a character had a devil whispering in one ear, “Go ahead and do it; no one will find out,” while an angel whispers in the other ear, “You shouldn’t do that; it’s not right.” That’s the id and the superego speaking, while the character has to decide which ear to listen to, so that the decision represents the ego.

I’m sure you have seen images like this.

Freud is out of fashion these days, but I think he should be listened to more attentively. Equally out of fashion is another major work of Freud’s: Totem and Taboo. This work has been heavily criticized by sociologists, but it is worth delving into because of its originality of thought. Read it with a grain of salt, but be prepared for stimulating insights worth examining.

Anyway, the next time you have a decision to make, it might be useful to examine which side represents the id and which side represents the superego. Be aware of which part of your brain wins out.

CURRENCY DEVALUATION IS A TARIFF

Trump has recently claimed that it would be a good thing if the US dollar depreciated. This is a common argument because if the dollar depreciates, it makes US exports seem cheaper and more attractive to foreign countries, while it makes imports more expensive, thus discouraging Americans from buying foreign products.

It’s quite a valid argument. Several years ago, many countries realized this and began a ‘race to the bottom’, trying to beggar their neighbors in lowering their currencies. The result was that nothing changed. If country A takes steps to lower its currency against country B, and if country B takes the same steps to lower its currency, the two actions cancel each other out.

Suppose, then, that Trump manages to devalue the US dollar by 10%. That means that the Chinese yuan and others will rise by 10% against the dollar. An American company that wants to buy a Chinese product (in yuan) will have to pay 10% more for the product.

In other words, a 10% tariff.

In fact, it’s a 10% tariff on every country and every product at the same time. That’s not very useful, if Trump wants to punish selective countries or selective products. That’s why he hasn’t focused on devaluation.

However, it appears that Trump is getting his devaluation anyway. The US dollar has dropped 11% against a basket of major currencies in 2025 and is poised to drop even further. It is currently at a 4-year low.

Many countries, alarmed at Trump’s erratic policies, are dumping their dollar holdings in the form of US Treasuries in favor of other currency-denoted assets. With all the selling, the US dollar will surely decline, and if the US loses its credit rating, the dollar could really plummet.

The US dollar has been propped up by interest rates that are higher than many other countries, including Japan. Japanese investors may buy dollars with their yen, in order to gain that higher interest. This is known as the ‘carry trade’.

If Trump succeeds in coercing the Fed into lowering rates, the carry trade may lessen or disappear. That will make the dollar less attractive and will therefore lower its value.

In sum, if Trump lowers interest rates, it will devalue the dollar, which, as a tariff, will represent a tax on Americans in the form of higher prices for foreign goods. Of course, as we have seen from Trump’s tariffs so far, while some foreign companies still sell their product in America at higher, taxed prices, others will simply withdraw from the American market because their products cannot compete.

This all sounds good for the ‘America First’ crowd. A weaker dollar will make US products more attractive, and may induce foreign companies to make their products in the US. Still, without foreign competition, American companies can charge higher prices.

There are many products that are difficult or impossible to produce in the US. How about coffee or bananas? A weaker dollar will make those products more expensive, in other words, a tariff on those products.

Also, world oil is priced in dollars. If the dollar declines, countries, including the US, will have to pay more dollars for that barrel of oil. That means global inflation.

And, just like tariffs, a lower dollar will be a tax on American consumers, who will have to pay higher prices on foreign goods, or else higher prices on American-produced goods with no foreign competition.

MY EXPERIENCE WITH BEAUTY

Every morning I walk over to the local pagoda. After some Qi Gong meditation, I just sit on the swing, drinking in the beauty of the place. Not just the visual beauty, but the sounds, especially some 20 identifiable surround-sound bird songs.

My swing at Wat Kandal

This right-brained experience leads my left brain to analyze just what this experience of beauty is really all about.

Here is my simple-minded theory of art: the artist has a vision in his mind (perhaps visual, but maybe musical or poetic), which he then transcribes, using his technical skills, so that the recipient will appreciate his vision. Art is thus a communication between artist and recipient, and the value of that art is judged both by the richness or depth of the original vision, together with the technical skill used in transmitting it.

Of course, each recipient will appreciate different aspects of the message, because they bring their own background to the experience. That is why Plato insisted that “Beauty is in the mind of the beholder.”

What was the original vision of this artist?

Now, back to the pagoda experience. Is the beauty I experience in nature the same experience as seeing a Monet Water-Lily painting, or listening to a Bach fugue? I believe it is. It is the appreciation of some aspect of the mind of the creator, perhaps ‘through a glass darkly’. Creator? Yes, I’m coming down on the side of Creationism. However, while the usual argument for Creationism is that the universe is too complex and orderly to have created itself, and therefore must have been created by something, my argument is that the universe is beautiful, and that beauty is communicated to us from some mind, or what I might call Ubermind, or pure Mind.

I conclude that my experience of beauty at the pagoda is a glimpse into the Creationist Mind. In fact, those of us who have had ‘peak experiences’ may realize that such an experience is a union with, or incorporation into, that Mind.

[Note that I am not connecting this to religion, which I feel is far removed from Creationism.]

This connection between art and Creationism was expressed by Beethoven:  when he said, “Bach is the immortal God of harmony.” Bach himself wrote, “Harmony is next to Godliness.”