AN ‘US-VERSUS-THEM’ GENE?

In a previous post, I looked at my very young sons and saw no signs of racial or class hatred, and I jumped to the Rousseau-ian conclusion that such behavior must be inculcated by society.

Not so fast! It is at least conceivable that we are pre-programmed with an ‘us-versus-them’ gene (call it ‘UvT’) that kicks in later in life, just as some sexual behavior kicks in at puberty. After all, some social behavior in animal species appears to be inherited. Lions and wolves live in groups, while tigers and coyotes live more solitary lives. Certain species of red ants are programmed to attack and enslave black ants.

It makes evolutionary sense that an individual gene may enhance its survival chances by enhancing the survival chances of the group or clan. This is the argument in Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. Imagine a clan of blue-eyed people. They may have evolved to the extent that one of its blue-eyed members might be genetically programmed to lay down his life for his clan, so that the blue-eyed gene survives.

In this same way, we may be programmed with a UvT gene or combination of genes that makes us fight for our own clan in order to preserve our own genetic structures.

I’m reminded of Golding’s Lord of the Flies, in which a group of young boys are abandoned on an island and naturally break apart into warring factions.

Suppose that we all have UvT genes in our modern society. It is not clear who our ‘clan’ is. In general, it’s anyone who is just like us. Other races, religions, and physical types are identified as outside the ‘clan’, so that the UvT kicks in.

Society, and notably parents, play their role in identifying those outside our ‘clan’. They may tell us that certain races are bad, and then our inherent UvT easily convinces us to attack or discriminate against them.

I’m not arguing that the UvT genetic theory is necessarily true, but it’s at least plausible and has a certain amount of internal consistency, especially when we consider social behaviors of animals that are apparently controlled by the genes.

“A-bombs Don’t Kill People……”

Hiroshima: Second Amendment Right?

I’m watching CNN’s discussion of guns after the latest school shooting du jour. Yawn! Same old boring arguments, thoughts and prayers, second amendment, etc. But there’s one argument I’m not hearing: whether I have the right to bear nuclear arms. The same argument that people use to justify AR-15s should apply to atomic bombs.

So if I have the right to open-carry an AR-15 into a schoolroom, according to the second amendment’s “right to bear arms”, don’t I equally have the right to bring nuclear arms like an A-bomb into a schoolroom? After all “A-bombs don’t kill people, people kill people.” I could blow up an entire city with a million people with an A-bomb, and the gun-rights advocates would just chalk that up to collateral damage, as the right to carry nuclear ‘arms’ must remain sacrosanct. We might even hear clichés like, “We need more good guys with A-bombs.”

No, really, I think that the A-bomb example shows that the second amendment doesn’t actually authorize ALL arms. But then, where do you draw the line? At least one can claim that AR-15s are not automatically covered by the second amendment. The second amendment is just a red herring, designed to distract from whatever the real argument is about.

Don’t forget that assault rifles were once banned (and, btw, deaths went down), and the courts didn’t try to step in with the second amendment. So now, if you want to keep AR-15s legal, you can’t fall back on the second amendment. You must now argue that open carry of AR-15s is a somehow a good thing.

Also, don’t forget that Congress banned lawn darts — LAWN DARTS! — as too dangerous and not protected by the second amendment. Thus, Congress could ban AR-15s as too dangerous, but apparently danger is not the issue for AR-15s. So maybe A-bombs should be permitted as well, no matter how dangerous they are.
 

So if the second amendment is a red herring, and if the danger element is not an issue, just what IS the issue?

ISRAEL SHOULD TAKE HOSTAGES

What would I do if my son were kidnapped, and the kidnapper demanded a million dollars or I would never see my son again? I would probably beg, borrow, or steal the money to get my son back, without any logical reasoning such as:

  1. The kidnapper could just kidnap my son again and demand another million.
  2. The kidnapper, aware that kidnapping is profitable, could kidnap other kids.
  3. Villains around the world would learn that kidnapping is profitable.

However, any such logical reasoning goes out the window when it’s my own son. Furthermore, if I didn’t pay, people would ostracize me for being so callous that I would allow my son to die.

Similarly, the Hamas hostage-taking leads to Israelis and people around the world saying, “Free the hostages. Give in to Hamas’s demands:”

  1. Withdraw all troops from Gaza. Let Hamas rebuild their tunnels, re-arm, and prepare to invade Israel again, to take more hostages.
  2. Hamas, learning that hostage-taking is profitable, would be emboldened to take as many more hostages as possible.
  3. Regimes around the world would see how profitable it is to take hostages.

Indeed, Putin has already learned this, as he ‘arrests’ Americans and uses them as bargaining chips. America’s response is always the same: at first, strict posturing that “We don’t give in to kidnappers.” Then later, behind the scenes, quietly pay the ransom, but claim that nothing was paid. Russia’s ‘arrest’ of Brittney Griner, the basketball player, is a good example; no one questions the price that America had to pay to get her back. Biden can claim a great victory at arranging her release, whatever the cost.

Also, indeed, Hamas has already gotten a lot of mileage out of kidnapping the Israelis —  a lot more mileage than if they had simply killed them to begin with. I’m actually surprised that there isn’t a lot more hostage-taking in conflicts around the world: Ukraine, Venezuela, etc. Hostage-taking is really useful, whether monetarily or as a bargaining chip.

Which leads to my question: why doesn’t Israel start kidnapping Gazans or other Palestinians? They could even match the age, sex, etc. with hostages currently held by Hamas. What’s more, they could say that if Hamas harmed any Israeli hostages, Israel would harm the Gazan hostages in a similar manner. After all, as we have learned, a live hostage is far more valuable than a dead one. Why am I not hearing anyone advocate this procedure?

I think that the answer is that, using its usual double standards, the world would vilify Israel. “How barbaric! How dare they? Taking hostages is against international law!” This outrage would play into Hamas’s primary strategy of provoking enough outrage that Iran and its allies would attack Israel and provoke an all-out regional or global war.

The recent murder of six hostages by Hamas reveals the world’s thinking. The protesters in Israel are not directing blame or outrage directed at Hamas for their cold-blooded murder. Rather, half a million Israelis are demonstrating against Netanyahu and even Biden for allowing this to happen. The protesters are chanting to make a deal with Hamas to release the remaining hostages. ANY deal. Here is a facebook quote from someone named Lapid: “They were alive but [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and his Cabinet of death decided not to save them,” Lapid wrote on his Facebook page.  Huh? Wait a minute! They were alive, but Netanyahu decided to try to save them, so Hamas murdered them. Otherwise, they would be alive today.

Hostage-taking always leads to emotional, irrational thinking. It could hardly be otherwise. But one thing is clear: it is immensely profitable. It works!

THOUGHTS OF A NEW FATHER

A lot of my readers are fathers and will have experienced similar thoughts to mine: the miracle of life, the wonder of witnessing a new human being, etc. So what I’m expressing is probably nothing new, but I feel like expressing it anyway.
 

One of my first thoughts at seeing my newborn son was that one year ago, this amazing creature didn’t exist at all. Even the sperm and egg didn’t exist a year ago — they were just a bunch of carbon and hydrogen atoms. For these disparate chemicals to come together and form this incredibly complex creature is truly a miracle.

The father of a newborn baby cannot avoid thoughts of Creationism. Surely there must be a guiding hand behind this creation of life. The old saying, “There are no atheists in foxholes,” should apply to new fathers as well.

Not only is this new life wonderful in itself, it is pre-programmed to develop. The DNA code dictates that certain changes will take place, at puberty, for example. In that little helpless baby are the seeds for creative or mathematical abilities, for how tall they will be in 30 years’ time, for personality types.

When I look at my baby, and when I look at my other son (now 3 years old), one thing that I do not see is evil. Young children do not hate. Does our DNA program us to hate, later in life, people who are not identical to us — blacks, Muslims, LGBTQs? If my baby is created by God, does God want him to grow up with the notion that he should kill gays and other minorities? I think not.

When I look at the hatred expressed by Christian Evangelicals towards minorities, I think I could make a pretty good case that Satan is at work. While I do not see Satan in my baby, I certain see him in many so-called Christians.

How can this happen? There may be many causes, but I feel that one culprit is the illogical leap from Creationism to morality. “God created me, therefore I must act in a certain way.” There is no logical connection here. My baby is not going to get his moral compass from God, who created him. Remember “Kill a commie for Christ”? Does my baby’s DNA program him to want to kill communists? It is society (of which I am admittedly a member) which will instill moral values in my baby. (There is, however, some research challenging this.)

I am getting close to those old French philosophers, here. Rousseau: “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.”, or Voltaire’s ‘tabula rasa.’ To me, it seems that modern genetics shows that a baby is not completely a tabula rasa, but maybe only a moral tabula rasa. That is, a baby may be programmed to develop in a lot of ways, but I don’t see any moral programming. I see my baby as born without hatred or evil, but I have to wonder whether I will be the one responsible for instilling in him that hatred for ‘the other’. Or is there some kind of ‘hate-the-other’ combination of genes.  I am at least grateful that my kids are bi-racial, so that at least they will not grow up to feel that they are the master race or master religion.

THE CHINESE/ CAMBODIAN CANAL IS A BIG DEAL

The canal will pass through Cambodia and will bypass Vietnam

Cambodia declared a national holiday for the start of the new canal, with parades, fireworks, the whole shebang. This canal will allow Cambodian river traffic to avoid passing through the Mekong delta in Vietnam. Phnom Penh will become a major river port, or perhaps some new city will spring up, such as Neak Leung, where Highway 1 crosses the Mekong.

Of course, this event probably didn’t register a blip on the world media screens. After all, by way of perspective, Cambodia’s population is 1/70th that of China, and there are individual cities in China that have more people than all of Cambodia. But this should be important. The canal will not only be a big deal for Cambodia, but will also have wide geopolitical repercussions.

Cambodia will be able to export rice to China along this canal, as well as import more Chinese products into Phnom Penh. Cambodia will become even more of a Chinese colony than it is already. The sinification of Phnom Penh will accelerate.

There will also be military advantages for China, as the Chinese navy will essentially control Cambodia, and can sail its fleet up into the Laos-Thailand area. Don’t forget, that the Mekong has its source in China. China has reportedly established a naval base at Ream, near Sihanoukville. But even without a naval presence, China will control the flow of water all the way from China through Cambodia.

[As an aside, recall that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were more of a Chinese project than a lot of people realize. Does anyone ever ask the question, “If the Khmer Rouge sent millions of people into the countryside to produce bumper crops of rice, why were the people starving?” One-word answer: China.]

The effect of the canal will be to divert large amounts water from one of the world’s major rivers away from Vietnam. The Mekong is the life-blood of that whole delta region. I’m not hearing anyone worrying that it will cost Vietnam agriculture billions of dollars. Vietnam is not going to be happy about this. Not to mention environmental concerns for the entire region.  The construction of the canal represents, in many ways, a declaration of economic war against Vietnam.  Vietnam is already trying to shake off a lot of Chinese economic influence, and the canal may push Vietnam further into the arms of America and the West.

Finally, one must ask whether this huge loan ($1.7 billion), of Chinese money to Cambodia, is another one of those Chinese projects that eventually bankrupt the borrower so that China can take over the entire ownership of the project.

A HAMAS CONSPIRACY THEORY

I have written, in earlier blogs, about Hamas’ goal and strategy: the destruction of the State of Israel though global outrage against Israel . To reiterate a bit:

First, the October 7 incursion into Israel was not designed to topple Israel in one fell swoop. Rather, it was to provoke Israel into a blind rage of destruction that would create a global outrage and a desire from neighboring countries to attack Israel. They knew very well that the United Nations would ring with cries of ‘disproportionate response’ after Israel laid waste large areas of Gaza.

(I’m old enough that Gaza’s daily TV announcement of the number of Gazans killed reminds me of the US ‘body count’ back in the days of the Vietnam War. For Hamas, the death toll, almost certainly grossly inflated, keeps reminding the world every day of how horrible Israel is.)

Secondly, Hamas used hospitals and schools for their military operations. They dared Israel to attack those hospitals, and Israel obliged. Now, the UN rang with cries of ‘targeting civilians’ and ‘genocide’. Hamas’ goal was to provoke such outrage that Iran, Lebanon, and the West Bank would be drawn into an all-out assault on Israel.

It wasn’t working, although there were signs that it might work when Iran sent hundreds of missiles towards Israel, but it stopped there. Gaza body counts and horror stories have become a boring, repetitive story that doesn’t make the front pages anymore. Time for a new outrage.

So Hamas’ next step was to publicly and conspicuously station its leaders in Iran and Lebanon, just daring Netanyahu to go after them. Again, he obliged by assassinating the leaders on foreign soil. Once again, Hamas is hoping that this outrage will provoke Iran and Hezbollah to launch an all-out war. It might just work this time.

“Hang on!”, I hear you cry. “First you claim that Hamas leaders were sacrificing thousands of innocent civilians just to create outrage, and now you claim that the Hamas leaders were sacrificing themselves? Ridiculous!” UNLESS….

What if political enemies within Hamas sent those leaders to places where they could be targeted by Israel? How about Yahya Sinwar, mastermind of the October incursion, who has now been elevated to be the head of Hamas?  Or to go even further down the rabbit hole, suppose those enemies secretly informed Israel just where and when those leaders would be easy targets. A power-hungry Sinwar, or whoever it was, killed two birds with one stone — not just eliminating the two leaders, but also perpetuating the strategy of outrage, to provoke Lebanon and Iran into total war against Israel.

We’ll see how this all plays out in the next few days, as Iran and Hezbollah plot their likely attacks on Israel.

CAN CAMBODIANS BECOME CHRISTIANS?

After the Pol Pot auto-genocide, Christian missionaries must have thought that the surviving Cambodians would be easy targets for conversion to Christianity.

When I first arrived in Cambodia in 1995, I saw a traumatized people. There were almost no psychiatrists to treat the PTSD that was rampant across the country. Not only had most of them seen their loved ones brutally murdered, many acquiesced into participation. The guilt must have been awful. Image a starving young man who, in exchange for a bowl of rice, had turned in his mother to be tortured and clubbed to death before his eyes.

Now along comes Jesus Christ, with the positive message that the young man’s sins will be forgiven. You can bet that conversion to Christianity would be a big temptation. Indeed, mass torturer and murderer Comrade Duch, overseer of the Tuol Sleng torture and killing prison, later converted to Christianity. His torture and murder of thousands of innocent Cambodians were now forgiven and he would go to heaven.

There is also collective guilt. A Buddhist nation must have asked itself, “How bad can our karma be to have deserved the murder of 2 million of our citizens? Is this what our Buddhism has brought us?” I might imagine a mass exodus from the Buddhist religion after the Pol Pot debacle.

I first came to Battambang, Cambodia, as a volunteer for COERR: Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees. COERR had set up operations in the refugee camps along the Thai border, and some wonderful people like Sister Joseen Vogt had worked with the refugees to train English teachers. Upon their eventual return to Cambodia, they set up the COERR school in Battambang, and I worked closely with these returnees, who were the best trained English teachers in the country.

Nearly 30 years later, many of these same Khmer people are still dedicated teachers at the — now 3 —  COERR schools. Wonderful people, but none of them are Christians, despite the propaganda blitz by the missionaries! That happened all over Cambodia. Estimates of the number of Christians range anywhere from 0.4% to 2% of the population, even by Christians’ own estimates. That’s not many, considering the missionary effort over 30 years, and a disproportionate number of these are Vietnamese boat people or non-Khmer ethnic groups.

What happened? Or rather, what didn’t happen? Buddhism has bounced back amazingly. The pagodas have been reconstructed, and monks are out collecting alms everywhere you look. I know almost no Christians among my Khmer friends, many of whom are survivors from the refugee camps. Clearly, the Khmer Rouge attempt to destroy Buddhism, by murdering all the monks and tearing down pagodas, failed miserably, while Christianity has failed to gain a foothold.

Buddhism is thoroughly ingrained in the Khmer personality. To use an overworked cliché, Buddhist values are ‘in their DNA’. The fact that they are one strong, unified culture across the country adds to this solidarity of their value system. This quality is explained brilliantly in a great book by Philip Coggan, called Spirit Worlds, in which one of the closing lines is, “To be Khmer is to be Buddhist.” It’s a question of identity. Khmer people still identify with the proud civilization of Angkor Wat and its God-kings like Jayavarman VII.

Religion is culture. So how must Khmer persons feel when Western missionaries arrive and tell them that their crummy Khmer culture is vastly inferior to Christian culture, the only true culture? They must feel this as an insult, an attack.

I worked a lot with missionaries in Africa, and I was always struck by their arrogant attitude that they had nothing to learn from the local Africans. They had all the answers, and were there only as teachers to bring the benighted natives into the light of Jesus. When they bring this same arrogance to Cambodia, is it any wonder that the proud Cambodians turn their backs?

I REALLY GREW UP IN APPALACHIA

J.D. Vance has been touting his knowledge of Appalachia through his book Hillbilly Elegy, even though he grew up in northern Ohio and knows very little about Appalachia, except for a collection of negative cliches that point to Appalachians as a bunch of genetically degenerate losers.

I actually grew up in a small town of about 3,000 in Appalachia — in the beautiful hills of southern Ohio — from age 7 to age 20.

Now that I’ve traveled the world, I have a global perspective on a lot of things. One thing that stands out to me is the frustration I feel with the computerized technology of everything. Even with all my online experience, I cringe at having to fill out an application for a bank account online, with passwords, proofs that I am not a robot, and instructions that I find incomprehensible. If I put myself in the shoes of some of my former Appalachian schoolmates who do not have my education or experience, I can see how they feel completely left out by society. No wonder they are angry, when they have just been rejected for a bank loan without being able to actually talk to anyone in person.

They HATE the educated elite, epitomized by Hillary Clinton, and they absolutely HATE being called ‘deplorables’ by East Coast snobs, but they adore uneducated people like themselves, who cannot figure out how to apply for a bank loan online. Enter Donald J. Trump. When he says that back in 1776 the Revolutionary Army took out the British Air Force, they can say, “Even WE know better than that.” In Trump they can actually look down on someone whom they can laugh at.

They probably like the fake image of J.D. Vance, especially that photo of him sitting with a shotgun in front of a pile of chopped wood. Makes him look like a real hillbilly. But if they read his book, they might see how he is looking down on them as a bunch of misfits.

He seems to treat Appalachians’ drug problems as genetic, as though there was a specific gene that makes them take drugs and then act stupidly. Back when I lived there, there was hardly a drug scene. Marijuana was just catching on, and that was more of a plaything for the upper class.

Vance’s condemnation of druggies turns a cause-effect relationship upside down. He points to drugs as the evil cause of all sorts of negative outcomes. I would argue that drugs are an effect, or result, of joblessness, of that feeling of despair, of being abandoned. In those circumstances, people turn to drugs as an escape hatch.

The magic of billionnaire Trump is that all his policies are designed to benefit the rich and screw the hillbillies, but since he is so anti-intellectual, they can identify with him. They share his victimhood. The feel that the whole establishment is out to get him…and them. They cheer when he says, “I am your vindication!”

West Virginia will vote solidly for Trump, even though all his policies are designed to screw them…take from the poor and give to the rich. They believe that he will ‘drain the swamp’ of all those ‘deep state’ educated East Coast liberals, and replace them with uneducated hillbillies like themselves.

I think that people are beginning to see through Vance as a phony and an opportunist. A second reading of Hillbilly Elegy might reveal that he is only writing a self-serving memoir, and that he doesn’t understand Appalachians at all.

CHERCHEZ LE PATRONAGE

If a Westerner observes some act of Cambodian behavior that he finds rather bewildering, my advice is: ‘cherchez le patronage’. Khmer society is governed by a system of patronage, where every person owes allegiance to their ‘bong’, very much like the old European feudal system, or in some ways like Chinese Confucianism. The patronage mindset may be at the root of the unexpected behavior.

In this system, an employee ‘belongs’ to the patron, or ‘bong’, not to thecompany or group. When I first came to Cambodia, I noticed that when the company boss’s sister was getting married, all the employees were expected to serve as waiters, greeters, etc. at the wedding. A Western employee might have complained, “But that’s not my job; I don’t even know the sister.” But the Cambodian employee would not feel slighted at all, nor would it even cross their mind to complain. If the bong decrees it, then it must be done.

Indeed, in Cambodia, the company and the person-in-charge are not separate entities. The company vehicle is the bong’s vehicle. For example, it used to be the case the company that was Northwest Cambodia’s biggest employer had all its financial records and bank accounts in the personal name of the CEO. There was no formal distinction between company moneys and personal moneys.

One advantage of the patronage system is the smooth running of society. Everyone knows their place and no one rocks the boat. Cambodia has been remarkably stable for the past 25 years. (Add to this the absolute horror of returning to the violence of the Khmer Rouge days.)

One disadvantage is that there is little team spirit. People do not identify with a team or group working towards a common goal. Rather, all their actions are to serve the bong. One of Mao Tse Tung’s first initiatives was to form gung ho groups – meaning ‘work together’.

Non-Khmer employees are also frustrated when they have a good idea to share with the boss. It’s like talking to a brick wall; only the bong‘s own ideas can be considered. What’s worse, the bong will pretend to listen attentively to the new idea, but later, the employee is frustrated when no action is taken.

Both Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot saw the inherent inequities in such an entrenched hierarchical society, and they both tried to coerce the people into an egalitarian society, even if it meant killing off millions of people who adhered to the old, feudal system. Of course, they both failed. That shows just how thoroughly entrenched the hierarchies had become.

Years ago I saw a study done in Hong Kong, in which people were asked how they felt about the grossly unequal economy of Hong Kong. People didn’t express a need to tax or otherwise bring the super-rich down to their level. Rather, they just wanted to be rich like the elite. If the bong was ordering them around, they wanted to change places and be in a position to order other people around.

People in Hong Kong saw how the elite cheat and manipulate situations in order to rise to the top, but since people just want to emulate the elite, they accept the notion that corruption of all sorts is just part of the game, and they are even jealous that one person can succeed in bamboozling the authorities when they themselves cannot.

I have seen this attitude in play in Cambodia, where foreign employees complain about illegal or unethical behavior by the bong, while the local employees simply accept such behavior and may even be envious that the bong can get away with it.

I said that the Cambodian patronage culture reminded me of Confucianism. However, I get the feeling that there is a subtle difference (but I stand to be corrected). The philosophy of Confucianism saw ‘filial piety’ as a means towards the end of a smooth-running society. Cambodian culture sees the perpetuation of the patronage system as the end in itself.

Cambodians who witnessed the horrors of Pol Pot’s supposedly egalitarian system rapidly returned to the safety of their old patronage system, which now appears to be more deeply entrenched than ever.

CAMBODIAN DEBT

Here’s a small factoid:  Cambodian private debt is 180% of GDP. 180%! In layman’s terms, this means that the average private Cambodian is in debt up to their eyeballs. All those new cars and new houses are not paid for, and as far as I can see, will never be paid for. They will all be repossessed, and Cambodia will to belong to the banks, if it doesn’t already. Or, perhaps more common, the debtor will sell the land or car to some entrepreneur in order to settle the debt. Even someone who can afford a $30,000 car will borrow more to buy a $50,000 car.

According to a Licadho study, over a quarter of all households spend more than 70% of their income on debt repayment. And 93% of microloan recipients are required to pledge at least one land title as collateral. Those microloans have insanely high interest rates.

On the other hand, Cambodian GDP is growing at over 7% per year. The economy is booming. Or is it?… What the heck is going on?

On my street in Battambang, there is a constant turnover of restaurants. Capital is invested, but then there are no customers night after night, so that in 3-6 months, the place closes, and within a day or two, the place is being remodeled for yet another new restaurant. Outside of town, there are literally thousands of new housing developments that are empty, or that have ‘for sale’ or ‘for rent’ signs. Doesn’t sound like a booming economy to me.

However, there appears to be plenty of venture capital floating around to finance new restaurants and new housing developments. Every time a new house goes up, the GDP goes up, regardless of whether anyone will actually live in the house. The banks evidently have plenty of money to lend, knowing that the land will serve as adequate collateral.

Where is all this capital coming from? In a word: China. In 2023, China experienced record-breaking capital outflows at $53 billion. I follow the Chinese stock market, and it has gone down at least 10% in recent months. All that sold stock money must be going somewhere. And Cambodia has had a reputation of being an easy country to launder money. Just look at that plethora of different banks — eight of them right in a row in Battambang. Where do you think all that money is coming from?

What does the economic future hold? I’d guess pretty much the same, as Chinese capital continues to flow into Cambodia, building new empty housing developments and businesses. So the GDP will continue to rise.

One thing that could change is the Cambodians’ optimistic attitude that you can just borrow money and not worry about the consequences. Too many Cambodians are losing their shirts in risky ventures. Maybe they will begin to learn that you can’t just borrow money that you probably can’t pay back.

Or maybe there’s something else at play here. All those 3-6 month restaurants on my street might be planned failure, for some reason that I can’t fathom. Surely those investors have a pretty good idea that their restaurants will fail. Any developer can see all those literally thousands of empty houses, yet still they invest in more of the same. I don’t get it, but I suspect that money laundering has something to do with it. But still, why would a money launderer intentionally lose money?

The Cambodian economy is an enigma.