View Article  Hungary Suffering from Skewed Wealth

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan

Monetary Policy Report to the Congress, February 16, 2005

 

In a democratic society, such a stark bifurcation of wealth and income trends among large segments of the population can fuel resentment and political polarization. These social developments can lead to political clashes and misguided economic policies that work to the detriment of the economy and society as a whole.

 

 

Economic Woes Fan Hungarian Riot Fires

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5359574.stm

 

September 19, 2006

 

Despite greater freedoms, many Hungarians feel they have been marginalized and left behind in a fast-changing nation as a small and powerful elite get richer at their expense.

At the same time, Hungary's economy has deteriorated to the point where the government has had to draft a package of emergency austerity measures in the hope of putting its finances back in order. Especially when they were told that the sacrifices made little more than a decade ago would ensure Hungary's stable economic future.

"There is an element of general dissatisfaction with the economy, and an element of political dissatisfaction," explained Zsolt Papp, a senior economist at ABN Amro. "People think they are not getting the benefit of economic changes and the country is still being run by the same old guys."

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, one of the biggest problems facing governments in former Eastern Bloc countries has been how to marry the expectations of the electorate with the harsh realities of running free-market economies that aspire to join the single European currency.

And if anything, the events overnight in the Hungarian capital may help drive home to voters just how serious the nation's economic problems are and concentrate the government's mind on its reform and cost-cutting programme, analysts said.

 

 

 

Stiglitz Trying to Save Globalization from Itself

 

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=reutersEdge&storyID=2006-09-18T203955Z_01_N18308875_RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-STIGLITZ.xml

 

September 18, 2006

Global economic integration could come apart if rich countries continue to hoard its benefits from the developing world, economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz said in an interview. “Globalization is not working," he said. "Money is flowing from poor countries to rich ones. There will be a backlash."

The former World Bank chief economist argues that forces of change are already in motion. It is up to would-be globalizers to adapt to these shifts in ways that allows them to maintain some clout, he says, or face drastic unintended consequences.

One possible shock would be a massive dollar crash. Unimaginable during the 1990s peak of U.S. economic clout, such an event has certainly been contemplated by investors, who fear an annual current account deficit close to $900 billion is not sustainable. While the greenback seems to be holding up for now, a dollar slump would have wide-ranging consequences for the U.S. economy, pushing interest rates sharply higher and endangering an already overstretched consumer. A prolonged economic downturn would likely ensue, Stiglitz predicts. Stiglitz warns corporate and financial powers that they must start making concessions in order to keep the upper hand in global economic affairs.

 

#1) Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy

 

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/1.html

 

The top 5% is capturing an increasingly greater portion of the pie while the bottom 95% is clearly losing ground, and the highly touted American middle class is fast disappearing. National leaders and mainstream media tell us that the only way out of our own economic hole is through increasing and endless growth-fueled by the resources of other countries.

 

As rich countries, strip poorer countries of their natural resources in an attempt to re-stabilize their own, the people of poor countries become increasingly desperate. This deteriorating situation, besides pressuring rich countries to allow increased immigration, further exacerbates already stretched political tensions and threatens global political and economic security.

 

The strict repayment schedules mandated by the global institutions make it virtually impossible for poor countries to move out from under their burden of debt. "In a form of colonialisation that is probably more stringent than the original, many developing countries have become suppliers of raw commodities to the world, and fall further and further behind," says one UN analyst. World economists conclude that if enough of the world's nations reach a point of economic failure, such a situation could collapse the entire global economy.

View Article  Some Iran-US History

What Every American Should Know by Melissa Rossi, 2005

 

Bad blood between the governments of the United States and Iran goes back for decades.

 

In the 1950s, the CIA helped take down a prime minister and put in the Shah, who bought billions of dollars of war toys from the United States, and let loose his nasty secret police, who killed thousands of Iranians, all with a shrug from DC, which saw Iran as a strategic gas pump.

 

In 1979, things got really ugly during the Iranian revolution, when the people ejected the Shah and installed a religious government, headed by Ayatollah Khomeni. It was alarming enough when the religious leader cut off oil to the United States; when radicals held fifty-two Americans hostage, holding most for 444 days, it caused an international crisis.

 

In 1980, the U.S.-backed Saddam Hussein kicked off the eight-year Iran-Iraq War, during which Hussein fought Iranians with chemicals. [Some say that the United States put Saddam up to the invasion, hoping to pry Iran’s ayatollah out of power.] Iran turned over the Tehran hostages – Bush Sr. is rumored to have negotiated a behind-the-scenes deal to postpone the handover until Ronald Reagan stepped into office – but Iran would be behind another hostage-taking ordeal in Lebanon.

 

In 1988, the last year of the brutal Iran-Iraq War, the USS Vincennes shot down a commercial Iranian plane over the Strait of Hormuz – killing 290. Iranians were livid, all the more so when President George Bush Sr. awarded a medal to the shooter and announced, “I will never apologize for what Americans do.”

 

In 1995, President Bill Clinton slapped sanctions of Iran, when that country was implicated in the 1988 blowing up of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 over Lockerbie, Scotland [some say it was payback for the USS Vincennes].

 

In 2002, President George W. Bush renewed named Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil” in his State of the Union Address.

 

In 2004, President George W. Bush renewed economic cuffs that had been clamped on by Clinton for yet another year, noting that Iran posed an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the U.S. security.” With continued rumors that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons – a fear of Israel, which holds nuclear weapons itself – the United States started growling again about WMDs. Neocons are urging the United States to stomp in there while its troops are already in the neighborhood.

 

View Article  Henry Paulson International Economy Treasury Sep 2006 -- Color Coded Analysis
 

Color Coded Financial Analyses

 

September 13, 2006

 

Yellow :: Good

Red :: Not So Good

 

Remarks by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson on the International Economy
Treasury Department Cash
Room Washington, D.C.

One week from today, I will be in China to discuss the economic relationship between our two nations.  Today I will speak about China, and more broadly about the international economic system.   The prosperity of the United States and China is tied together in the global economy, and how we work together on a host of bilateral and multilateral issues will have a significant impact on the health of the global economy.   Half of all global economic growth in the last five years has come from the United States and China, and our two economies will continue to be the drivers of growth in the future. Yet many view the growth of China and its increasing importance as the clearest and most tangible threat of globalization.  Those who welcome China's growth and integration into the world economy, as I do, should confront this argument directly.

Vietnam, where I attended the APEC meetings last week, is a case in point.  In 1986, the Vietnamese launched the Doi Moi program of economic reforms that liberalized Vietnam's economy and began to open it to foreign trade and investment.  Vietnam's trade has since grown by 20-30% per year, and the country has been second only to China in its rate of real GDP growth.  When I visited Vietnam, I spoke to its leaders, but I also spent time with young entrepreneurs and students.  They are eager to join the global economy and replicate the success of others in the region. 

Trade is not a zero-sum game.  Rapid economic growth in Vietnam and other nations around the world benefits Americans by adding to the growth of the global economy, and over time, creating greater demand for our products and more jobs for our workers. 

Our prosperity is linked to the strength of foreign economies.  And we are adversely affected by their economic declines and financial shocks.  The Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 may have reduced growth by as much as 1 percentage point in the United States and Europe.  Financial markets also are global.  The Russian default in 1998 led to a sudden widening in credit spreads and a financial shock which contributed to the failure of the hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management, in the United States

There are no islands of economic stability in today's world.  Globalization and interdependence are here to stay.  No nation can turn back the clock. 

In today's interdependent world, U.S. exports and U.S. employment opportunities are affected by how well our major trading partners are doing.  When any major economy does well, its growth benefits the overall global economy.  When a major economy falters, it is a drag on global growth.   We see this illustrated by Japan, the world's second largest economy, which struggled for a decade with sluggish growth and deflation. 

Japan's economic reforms over the past five years have produced an economic recovery, and we all have benefited from the boost to global growth and the increase in Japanese import demand. Japan's reforms are not complete, and they must continue.  However, these steps demonstrate the importance of growth-enhancing reforms in major economies as an effective way to increase jobs in the United States and prosperity globally.

Economic integration makes economies more efficient, more productive, and more competitive.  Integration gives businesses greater access to markets around the world, and increases their ability to achieve economies of scale.  Global markets give consumers more choices.  And global competition helps reduce the prices of goods and services – a real benefit to those with lower incomes, whether in the United States or abroad. Enhanced competition from global integration greatly benefits the international economic system, particularly the United States

The Institute for International Economics has estimated that the integration of the global economy generates an economic gain of $1 trillion to the U.S. economy, every year.  And I know from my previous life at an investment bank that global economic integration also leads to a lower cost of capital, more opportunities for investors to achieve higher returns, and more stable long-term economic growth.  This is the foundation of prosperity, jobs, and opportunity. 

Yet, despite the benefits of competition and the expansion of world trade, there are many who oppose what is commonly know as "globalization".     Ironically, this protectionist sentiment comes from many quarters in those nations – including in the United States and China – which have benefited the most from the economic growth generated by global competition.  This widespread and growing resistance is not surprising, because the benefits of competition, while significant, are not spread evenly and competition can create losers as well as winners.

Because I care deeply about the competitiveness of the U.S. economy I will be an outspoken advocate for maintaining – and extending – free and fair trade.  The United States wants open markets.  We welcome foreign investment.  And we seek partners to join us in advancing a global agenda that will help realize the benefits of economic liberalization and competition.  We will not heed the siren songs of protectionism and isolationism.

We have before us an historic opportunity for the international community to join together to generate economic growth, spark development, and raise living standards across the world like no other action. 

The trend towards greater public voice and democratization is clear, for instance, in rapidly growing Asian economies such as Korea, Indonesia, and others.  

Does this mean that open markets by themselves will end war, eradicate terrorism, and lead to democratic government everywhere?   No.   But it does mean that economic liberalization – with the interdependence and the growth that it brings – can play an important role in advancing the cause of peace and stability.

Against this backdrop of interdependence, China has an increasingly important role in today's global economy and its economic relationship with the United States.  In many ways, this nation's economic development – which has seen hundreds of millions of its citizens raised from poverty in just a few decades – has to be one of the most dramatic transformations in world economic history.  The Chinese people have benefited greatly from China's integration into the global economy.  China's GDP has grown 10-fold over the last 27 years, it is now the world's third largest trading nation. 

And China's incremental demand is the major factor in determining the price for a number of primary commodities, including oil.  We must realize that China is already a global economic leader.  China deserves recognition for what it has become, but at the same time, China must be more than a beneficiary of open markets.  I agree with former Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick, China should be a responsible stakeholder.  As a global economic leader, China should accept its responsibility as a steward of the international system of open trade and investment.  

It must recognize its responsibility to maintain the health of the global system.  China's remarkable success since market reforms began in 1978 has led many to predict that its meteoric growth will continue indefinitely – that we can extrapolate its future growth from its past performance – as if China has somehow found a way to immunize itself from business cycles and all other economic problems.  Some fear that China will soon overtake all other economies to the detriment of the rest of the world.   To them, China has become the leading symbol of the threat posed by globalization. 

Today, China is transitioning from a planned economy to a market-driven economy and there is no doubt that this process will continue for a number of years to come.  But, because of its size and its role in world markets, China is, by definition, already a global economic leader and deserves to be recognized as a leader.  But with leadership comes responsibility.  When I go to the International Monetary Fund meetings in Singapore later this week, I will support China and other nations gaining greater representation at the IMF as part of comprehensive reform of that institution. 

Because it is a global economic leader, what happens in China will affect the well being of the U.S. and the rest of the world.  China's continued economic progress will strengthen the international economy benefiting people around the world while a hard landing or a significant slow down in the Chinese growth rate will weaken the global economy to our detriment. 

Of course, global economic leadership also brings with it responsibilities that go beyond the economic arena, including international laws and conventions on important issues ranging from human rights to non-proliferation.  A big part of being a global economic leader is a commitment to open markets at home.  China's record of reform is remarkable by any standard.  But much remains to be done.  The tasks faced by Beijing are so daunting that the biggest risk we face is not that China will overtake the U.S., but that China won't move ahead with the reforms necessary to sustain its growth and to address the very serious problems facing the nation. 

These problems range from modernizing and reforming the rural agriculture economy, to providing an adequate pension system and other safety nets, to developing capital markets that have lagged far behind the needs of China's economy, to freeing up an inflexible currency regime that hinders the efficient allocation of capital and the achievement of balanced sustainable growth.  The Chinese economy itself is becoming increasingly difficult to manage as it becomes larger and more complex, but is still only part way between a managed and market economy.

China now faces a difficult but essential phase in its development and the reforms it must continue to pursue will not be easy.   Up to now, rapid growth has been achieved by shifting excess labor from agriculture and state-owned enterprises to market-based manufacturing.  Today, as the most obvious sources of inefficiency are disappearing, growth will depend on raising productivity which, in my judgment, will require markets to allocate capital as opposed to administrative decisions.   The Chinese have an astonishingly high savings rate – 50 percent of GDP – because Chinese households face so many uncertainties. 

China needs a more harmonious, more balanced pattern of growth that gives Chinese households more income and the confidence to spend it. These challenges are made even more difficult by the fact that within China, as in the U.S., there are loud voices espousing anti-reform, protectionist sentiment. In China this resistance stems from a number of factors including that the benefits of this economic expansion have been spread unevenly among its citizens and that some influential people have never fully embraced the need to open up the Chinese economy to competition.

First and most importantly, only reform can guarantee the future growth that the Chinese people expect and deserve.  Second, liberalization sends a clear signal of China's willingness to assume its role as a global economic leader.  And third, reform will do much to ease rising anti-Chinese sentiment.

Over the last couple of years in my prior role, I was struck by the fact that some of the anti-trade sentiment manifesting itself outside our nation is turning into anti-China sentiment as more people in nations around the world are viewing China as a symbol embodying both the real and imagined downsides of global competition.  They are increasingly blaming China for economic dislocations in their nations and are increasingly viewing China with apprehension.

Similarly, I've seen that the level of anti-trade and anti-China sentiment in the United States is also significant and growing.  I believe that if China doesn't move quickly to continue reforming its economy, it will face a backlash from other international economic stakeholders. This backlash would not benefit any of us.

The United States has its own responsibility to help China continue its structural reforms and its transition to a market-driven economy that welcomes competition. 

We also have responsibilities as a stakeholder in the global system.  These include keeping our markets open to trade, to foreign investment and maintaining the flexibility and rapid productivity growth that has made us a driving force in the growth of the global economy.  We must continue to pursue policies that maintain and enhance international confidence in the U.S. economy, financial markets and U.S. securities.  

Without question, the nation must modernize its financial sector, open up its capital account, and move to a more consumption-based model of growth.  A competitive, well-regulated financial system and the free flow of capital will help reduce the extraordinarily high levels of precautionary savings and allocate capital to its most efficient use, which will help raise productivity and living standards.  China must also pursue fiscal and regulatory polices that address the investment/savings imbalance. 

China faces several critical, immediate challenges.  The first is the pressing need to put in place widely-accepted, market-based tools to keep its economy from veering out of control.  A much more flexible, market-driven exchange rate along with a more nimble, self-determined monetary policy are key ingredients to stable and sustainable, non-inflationary growth. 

Another pressing issue is greater protection for intellectual property rights.  China cannot achieve its goal of being a modern economy if it fails to adhere to the rule of law and fair trade and encourage the innovation that is the engine of growth for developed – and developing – economies. 

Bigger domestic markets and more success for you mean expanded markets, a higher standard of living and more jobs in the U.S.  It also means lower prices for U.S. consumers and higher returns for U.S. investors.  The United States has a huge stake in a prosperous, stable China – a China able and willing to play its part as a global economic leader.   We are not afraid of Chinese competition.  We welcome it. 

We want China to assume its rightful place as a responsible member of the international community.  The choices you make will affect many things from the air we breathe to price of our farm products.  And, of course, of vital importance to you is a United States of America with a healthy, growing economy which believes you are committed to being a responsible global economic leader dedicated to moving forward with your economic reform agenda and fair trade.

 

View Article  Cynics of Democracy

With the election season approaching and having to choose between GoodCop::BadCop Left::Right Dem::Repub Lib::Con, these cynics offer a humorous perspective....

 

Cynic's Lexicons - Excerpts

 

Oscar Wilde, 1854-1900, Irish Playwright, Poet and Wit

High hopes were once formed of democracy, but democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people.

 

George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950, Irish Playwright and Critic

Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

 

Will Rogers, 1879-1935, American Humorist

Democracy is the art of saying ‘nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.

 

Laurence Peter, 1919-, Educator

Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame.

 

Henry Miller, 1891-1980, American Writer

The democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything to the level of the herd.

 

James Russel Lowell, 1819-1891, American Autor and Diplomat

Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.

 

H.L.Mencken, 1880-1956, American Editor, Essayist and Philologist

Democracy is grounded upon so childish a complex of fallacies that they must be protected by a rigid system of taboos, else even halfwits would argue it to pieces. Its first concern must thus be to penalize the free play of ideas.

 

Democracy is a form of religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.

 

Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right.

 

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. To die for an idea – it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true.

 

Robert Hutchins, 1899, American Academic

The death of democracy is not likely to be assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference and under-nourishment.

 

Herman Goering, 1893-1945, German Reichsmarschall         

Naturally the common people don’t want war but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works th same in every country.

 

Robert de Flers, 1872-1927, French Playwright

Democracy is the name we give to the people each time we need them.

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803-1882, American Essayist, Poet, and Philosopher

Democracy becomes a government of bullies, tempered by editors.

 

Alan Coren, 1938-, British Humorist

Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they’ve told you what it is you think you want to hear.

 

G.K. Chesterton, 1974-1936, British Novelist and Critic

Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.

 

Charles Bukowski, 1920-, American Poet and Author

The difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship is that in a Democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a Dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting.

 

Gerald Barry, 1899

Democracy: in which you say what you like and do what you’re told

View Article  Money That’s What I Want by the Beatles – Lyrics

 

Money – Songs and Poems Selection

 

Money That’s What I Want

Beatles 1963

Josie and the Pussycats

 

The best things
In life are free
But you can keep them
For the birds and bees
Give me money
(That's what I want)
That's what I want
(That's what I want)
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

Your lovin' give me a thrill
But your lovin'
Don't pay my bills
Give me money
(That's what I want)
That's what I want
(That's what I want)
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

Money don't buy
Everything, it's true
But what it don't get
I can't use
Give me money
(That's what I want)
Lots of money
(That's what I want)
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

Give me money
(That's what I want)
Lots of money
(That's what I want)
Just give me some money
(That's what I want)
A whole lotta money
(That's what I want)
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want