The more that I see Obama being outperformed by McCain, the more that I as struggle to understand why Democrats did not send Hillary to the final round on the presidential race.
Her marvelous speech on Tuesday night was even greater because of her grace, her positive attitude and the energized crowd that gave her a long standing ovation when she first walked in. Even Bill appeared tearful at times. As I watched Hillary performed in such unique way – to a crowd that maybe still hoped that things change before anything was official – it came to my head that Democrats may feel that they made a huge mistake sending Obama to face the tough Republicans on the main election.
Obama is nowhere near to take a huge lead over McCain, who at every point should be losing by a lot, considering that he is clueless about the economy, that he still wants to be in Iraq and the his monochromatic party has failed to embrace a multicultural country.
Obama has failed to bring that change rhetoric to a consistent action. While Hillary was tough and heroic Obama is timid and lacks that spirit to make a huge majority believe that despite his inexperience he will be a great leader.
McCain on the other hand is not the best choice for Americans. He wants to drill so more oil profits will go to his pals, but with no actual consequence to the price on the pumps. He is so jealous of Obama that even went to the extreme of placing him with Paris and Britney on the same add.
Knowing that America should not risk four more years with a Republican on the White House we can only hope that Obama wins an undeserved presidency.
Bill Clinton gave an outstanding speech on Wednesday after a four minutes or so ovation from an exited crowd. He did after Hillary a day before, what they should have so no one can tell that because of them the party lost on the general election.
Bill after all had one of the greatest eight years on the White House, opaque at times with the Monica scandal, but remembered with nostalgia after eight years of a Bush presidency that has bought more doubts than great memories.
The big night was on Thursday, although the big stadium presentation could mean a lot of problems for Obama, Democrats filled the stadium nevertheless. His speech was done to weight some confidence in the American audience. Compare to both Clinton´s speeches this particular one told me nothing new about a better future, but is generally acclaim as a great speech, where he said what was needed.
My bitter sweet feeling that Obama is the lesser of evil is more deep now that we have to tolerate a movie star for the next eight years. His character was not strong enough to beat Hillary in the primary, now it seems that he is not strong enough to beat McCain.
Now that Sarah Palin – an unknown governor from Alaska – is in the race as McCain´s choice for veep, Obama has to feel that leaving Hillary off the ticket was a dumb idea.
We may see that Joe Biden with all his experience overshadows Sarah on their debates, but woman that felt that Obama let them down may chose to support Sarah in the end. Remember that Hillary appealed to a lot of woman on the fact of just that, that woman are capable of getting to the White House, that is exactly what Palin is doing, trying to be a woman on the White House.
This can pose several problems for both campaigns, Obama risks losing the vote of thousand of Hillary supporters, most of the woman that could flunk to Sarah, also McCain can no longer attack Obama for his inexperience, as you know Sarah just got into the spotlight as she was nominated to be the Vice presidential choice two days ago.
But thinking that Palin could take most of Hillary´s votes just because of gender is not right either, what we are seeing needs to be analyze at more depth, you can take it anyway you want it, but Republicans placed a woman as Vice president candidate and that is a lot of accomplishment for a remarkable election, the US surprises the world every time that things looks bad.
If Hillary would have won the Democratic primary things will be different now. But things are the way they are and are far too complicated to understand why.
Obama does not seem like the great leader that the US needs in order to embrace the future. America was the hope and destiny of millions of entrepreneurs that saw it as the only place where they can achieve what no other place in the world could offer them. In a globalized world this is not longer the case.
Universities can bring and educate the brightest people in the world, give them the tools to be entrepreneurs, give them information, showing them a new culture. But only the government can chose to keep most of those bright students in the country. Allow them to have a job, maybe a working visa or to accept them as new citizens.
America needs a strong leader that knows that this is the future. That embraces green technologies and pushes for environmental friendly legislation. I have not heard either candidate committed neither to this nor to a hard future for this side of the planet.
We all saw the miracle of the Chinese growth, the ultra-modern airports, the slim stadium, the billions invested in infrastructure, their proud people and of all the gold medals during this past Olympics.
Obama does not seem like the right choice; Americans need someone like JFK to guide the country to the moon, someone like Reagan to achieve policy based on true beliefs. Clinton was a clear example of economic policy leaning to growth and equality.
So in this tumultuous times – just at the begging of this new millennium – when the US needs a strong leader with a clear vision of the future, voters have delivered McCain and Obama. Both candidates lack the sense of how the future will unfold all the imbalances of the current situation.
It is a shame that Obama has to be the next president, but true democracy brings to power whoever gets the most votes. Hilary knows this and pressed on a remarkable speech for everyone around her to vote for a better future. I think she knows that Obama is not the right one to change things, but McCain should not be allowed to win.
“No way, no how, no McCain”, those were Hillary´s words on her Tuesday speech. This implies that McCain must not win, even if you have to elect Obama to impede that.
We hope for the best, but it has to be set, I don’t think that Barak Obama was the right choice.
lunes, 1 de septiembre de 2008
miércoles, 30 de julio de 2008
The black light at the end of the tunnel
Again and again we end up talking about energy independence and the blindness of our leaders. Now as the price of oil is coming down, mainly because America is driving less and being more conscious about how much energy the country uses, one thing that worries me is that the green revolution may head to an abrupt end.
Now that G.M. and Ford are closing some of the factories that produces big trucks, one thing that comes to my head is that the market will go on the opposite way. Why? They are too dumb to be right.
If the world economy slows and Brazil starts producing those hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil a day from off shore platforms, we may see the price of gasoline drop significantly in the US market, meaning that people will stop thinking about saving and will go to their Hummers again.
This may seems like a fairy tale but it is not. People will go after their personal interest rather than the collectives ones, that is why unless you tax gas – yes Friedman again – no entrepreneurs will be able to invest large amounts of money on alternative energy, Mr. Pickens will lose billions of dollars and Mr. Gates won´t be putting a cent in the company Pacific Ethanol.
If prices fall that fast all the green spirit will turn black, oil addiction will prevail and the Middle East will keep on building ridiculous islands just to show that they don’t know what to do with those extra trillions that they have.
The following picture is blinding the world of economists. We are too worry about inflation fears, Fanny and Freddy, City and Bear, Iraq and Israel, if Bernanke call it recession or a slow down, or if hurricanes will affect the Gulf of Mexico, that we don´t understand that all of them are correlated to two critical problems.
Where are the dollars heading?
To the countries that produce petroleum.
Which country is taking advantage of the current situation?
Those who produce petroleum, plus the ones creating green energy.
If you think you are smart enough – and since I won´t be writing for a while – let me propose this. I will place two scenarios for the future and you will tell how they are going to be, then we can actually believe if all those macroeconomic formulas work in the real word.
If you want to trust your instinct they you are welcome too, just try to put some words on what you think about it.
a- Oil prices will fall below $100 (inflation adjusted) before 2008 ends. The world economy will recover by the first quarter of 2009 and things will seem like 2002. That is low interest rates, more consumption, low energy prices, a housing market picking up, more exports from Asia, a bigger India and a strong Brazil. The main consequence… oil consumption will grow again and big cars will crowd our roads.
b- Oil prices will be at records high, touching $200 (inflation adjusted) the world economy will hung while green technologies and energy savings keep the US and Europe afloat. Both will embrace current wind farms and solar panels while China sinks into a black smoke air that is polluting its cities. The world economy will almost face recession but it will recover by the third quarter of 2009 when these technologies hit the market and be the engine of big companies.
Two tricks on this, first you have to guess if Obama will win over McCain, both candidate´s policies are opposite when it comes to energy. Second you have to embrace or reject the idea that China can grow without the US and Europe buying its “toys”. This is the difference between having a hungry Asian and a starving one.
Maybe you are really smart... who knows.
Now that G.M. and Ford are closing some of the factories that produces big trucks, one thing that comes to my head is that the market will go on the opposite way. Why? They are too dumb to be right.
If the world economy slows and Brazil starts producing those hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil a day from off shore platforms, we may see the price of gasoline drop significantly in the US market, meaning that people will stop thinking about saving and will go to their Hummers again.
This may seems like a fairy tale but it is not. People will go after their personal interest rather than the collectives ones, that is why unless you tax gas – yes Friedman again – no entrepreneurs will be able to invest large amounts of money on alternative energy, Mr. Pickens will lose billions of dollars and Mr. Gates won´t be putting a cent in the company Pacific Ethanol.
If prices fall that fast all the green spirit will turn black, oil addiction will prevail and the Middle East will keep on building ridiculous islands just to show that they don’t know what to do with those extra trillions that they have.
The following picture is blinding the world of economists. We are too worry about inflation fears, Fanny and Freddy, City and Bear, Iraq and Israel, if Bernanke call it recession or a slow down, or if hurricanes will affect the Gulf of Mexico, that we don´t understand that all of them are correlated to two critical problems.
Where are the dollars heading?
To the countries that produce petroleum.
Which country is taking advantage of the current situation?
Those who produce petroleum, plus the ones creating green energy.
If you think you are smart enough – and since I won´t be writing for a while – let me propose this. I will place two scenarios for the future and you will tell how they are going to be, then we can actually believe if all those macroeconomic formulas work in the real word.
If you want to trust your instinct they you are welcome too, just try to put some words on what you think about it.
a- Oil prices will fall below $100 (inflation adjusted) before 2008 ends. The world economy will recover by the first quarter of 2009 and things will seem like 2002. That is low interest rates, more consumption, low energy prices, a housing market picking up, more exports from Asia, a bigger India and a strong Brazil. The main consequence… oil consumption will grow again and big cars will crowd our roads.
b- Oil prices will be at records high, touching $200 (inflation adjusted) the world economy will hung while green technologies and energy savings keep the US and Europe afloat. Both will embrace current wind farms and solar panels while China sinks into a black smoke air that is polluting its cities. The world economy will almost face recession but it will recover by the third quarter of 2009 when these technologies hit the market and be the engine of big companies.
Two tricks on this, first you have to guess if Obama will win over McCain, both candidate´s policies are opposite when it comes to energy. Second you have to embrace or reject the idea that China can grow without the US and Europe buying its “toys”. This is the difference between having a hungry Asian and a starving one.
Maybe you are really smart... who knows.
lunes, 7 de julio de 2008
G.M. and the Bankrupt Nightmare
Like any big company that holds a lousy CEO and some blind car dealers – in the US – the future looks dark and dangerous. Not long ago intellectuals where laughing at the proposal of giving rebates and paying for gas to the big SUV buyers, not long ago car dealers across the country sent their support to Wagoner, not long ago the Prius became the car to buy, while the Ford F-150 series and the Hummer where symbols of inefficient fuel burn monsters. The conundrum of the big three just began, people where taking about the Japanese cars being better.
Ford made the same mistakes as G.M. did when the prices of oil where climbing fast, Chrysler is out of the talk because it will soon disappear. The problem with Ford is that is not as great as G.M. nor as powerful, also it seems that it begrudge the cash on hand that G.M. has; which could be devastating taking into account that the credit market is tight, and no major institution is lending without collateral.
G.M. was the brand, the model to follow, and the American pride on how to do business, even now that its international operations are performing great in developing countries, the North American ones are burning money on a breaking point basis.
Japan parlays its ability to be flexible when producing new cars using that leverage to create more sales which translates into more money, while G.M. is selling the Hummer, Ford the Jaguar and Chrysler, well it was bought by Cerberus Capital Management.
G.M. is worth $5.6 billion, has about $20 billion on cash and it is burning $1 billion a month, so you have a company that has more cash on hand than stock value, that is losing money faster than any turn around could fix, that is stuck with big SUV unsold, and that is competing with the “low cost hungry of growth” Asians. My vitriolic criticism comes from the fact that this has gone far enough, none of the intellectual elite were taken aback by this crisis, but when they spoke against Wagoner they were trashed by a lousy and mediocre P.R.
With the gallon of gas over $4 and the price of oil over $140 a barrel you can say bye bye to the good all days where contamination through burning fossil fuels was cheap enough to drive wherever you want to with little money.
Really?
When I live in the U.S 8 years ago this was already a problem, the price of gas was going up and people were complaining about the cost of heating their houses and filling their tanks. It was not as bad as it is now, but I heard them complain.
So why Detroit kept producing those monsters?
The profit on SUVs is much higher for automakers and car dealers than small fuel efficient cars. What they didn´t get is that the profit for small fuel efficient cars is better than losing money over unsold SUVs.
But what can I say, I never liked Wagoner and now that the company has been torn apart I see the brand that I admired for so long, lost into indecision and hesitation of a lame duck leader that could not take the right path when the Japanese did.
G.M. sales in June felt by 18% according to the Economist, and while they rush to make fuel efficient vehicles, on the same article a car dealer explains that people still prefers fuel efficient Japanese cars over the American ones.
This means a lot of trouble, since we think that a Toyota is fuel efficient while a Chevy is not, people will have on their top of mind a Prius instead of a Cobalt.
Some rumors about the split up of the North American operation of G.M. – which loses money every month – and the international operation are getting bigger. But this won´t fix the main problem, how to make people buy their cars.
A company that lacks a genius on its ranks, with no serious change of direction for the future, is doom to be bought – like Chrysler – or sent to bankruptcy.
While most of us can´t stop thinking about the soon to come 3G iphone – and have seen Steve Job´s presentation a thousand times –many others are thinking about the new Corolla and how Google will help Yahoo on its fight against a Microsoft´s takeover.
G.M. is out of the picture when it comes to entrepreneur spirit, innovation, development and growth. That could reflect not only a change in a company structure, but how they ersatz towards the Japanese auto models to see if America can catch up.
For connoisseurs of G.M. failures the tricky point is this, fight to get a new direction on the company, or fight to see it fall into Tata´s hands in few more years. Either way the new leader will be Toyota, who saw an interesting opportunity selling fuel efficient cars, when the big three saw nothing but a waste of time and money.
We cannot be tickled by the current events, not when we always looked at G.M. as the number one, the undisputable leader that sold more than anyone else. This may not be right to say, but I feel that the same is happening to the US. For some reason people cling to the wrong leaders until things fall apart, instead of embracing change when things can improve.
We are not looking for cars to be beau ideal we want fuel efficient ones, we want comfort and a good engine, that uses less gas than our old pickup truck, Wagoner may know how to jargon to their believers, what he can´t do is convince the rest of us that he should stay one more day.
You may not agree that G.M will file for bankruptcy in the near future, but you may like to think about which car you are looking to buy next.
You may ask for a picture of my new to be bought Yaris, but only after you send me one of your new Prius. That is the way that Thomas Friedman drives.
Ford made the same mistakes as G.M. did when the prices of oil where climbing fast, Chrysler is out of the talk because it will soon disappear. The problem with Ford is that is not as great as G.M. nor as powerful, also it seems that it begrudge the cash on hand that G.M. has; which could be devastating taking into account that the credit market is tight, and no major institution is lending without collateral.
G.M. was the brand, the model to follow, and the American pride on how to do business, even now that its international operations are performing great in developing countries, the North American ones are burning money on a breaking point basis.
Japan parlays its ability to be flexible when producing new cars using that leverage to create more sales which translates into more money, while G.M. is selling the Hummer, Ford the Jaguar and Chrysler, well it was bought by Cerberus Capital Management.
G.M. is worth $5.6 billion, has about $20 billion on cash and it is burning $1 billion a month, so you have a company that has more cash on hand than stock value, that is losing money faster than any turn around could fix, that is stuck with big SUV unsold, and that is competing with the “low cost hungry of growth” Asians. My vitriolic criticism comes from the fact that this has gone far enough, none of the intellectual elite were taken aback by this crisis, but when they spoke against Wagoner they were trashed by a lousy and mediocre P.R.
With the gallon of gas over $4 and the price of oil over $140 a barrel you can say bye bye to the good all days where contamination through burning fossil fuels was cheap enough to drive wherever you want to with little money.
Really?
When I live in the U.S 8 years ago this was already a problem, the price of gas was going up and people were complaining about the cost of heating their houses and filling their tanks. It was not as bad as it is now, but I heard them complain.
So why Detroit kept producing those monsters?
The profit on SUVs is much higher for automakers and car dealers than small fuel efficient cars. What they didn´t get is that the profit for small fuel efficient cars is better than losing money over unsold SUVs.
But what can I say, I never liked Wagoner and now that the company has been torn apart I see the brand that I admired for so long, lost into indecision and hesitation of a lame duck leader that could not take the right path when the Japanese did.
G.M. sales in June felt by 18% according to the Economist, and while they rush to make fuel efficient vehicles, on the same article a car dealer explains that people still prefers fuel efficient Japanese cars over the American ones.
This means a lot of trouble, since we think that a Toyota is fuel efficient while a Chevy is not, people will have on their top of mind a Prius instead of a Cobalt.
Some rumors about the split up of the North American operation of G.M. – which loses money every month – and the international operation are getting bigger. But this won´t fix the main problem, how to make people buy their cars.
A company that lacks a genius on its ranks, with no serious change of direction for the future, is doom to be bought – like Chrysler – or sent to bankruptcy.
While most of us can´t stop thinking about the soon to come 3G iphone – and have seen Steve Job´s presentation a thousand times –many others are thinking about the new Corolla and how Google will help Yahoo on its fight against a Microsoft´s takeover.
G.M. is out of the picture when it comes to entrepreneur spirit, innovation, development and growth. That could reflect not only a change in a company structure, but how they ersatz towards the Japanese auto models to see if America can catch up.
For connoisseurs of G.M. failures the tricky point is this, fight to get a new direction on the company, or fight to see it fall into Tata´s hands in few more years. Either way the new leader will be Toyota, who saw an interesting opportunity selling fuel efficient cars, when the big three saw nothing but a waste of time and money.
We cannot be tickled by the current events, not when we always looked at G.M. as the number one, the undisputable leader that sold more than anyone else. This may not be right to say, but I feel that the same is happening to the US. For some reason people cling to the wrong leaders until things fall apart, instead of embracing change when things can improve.
We are not looking for cars to be beau ideal we want fuel efficient ones, we want comfort and a good engine, that uses less gas than our old pickup truck, Wagoner may know how to jargon to their believers, what he can´t do is convince the rest of us that he should stay one more day.
You may not agree that G.M will file for bankruptcy in the near future, but you may like to think about which car you are looking to buy next.
You may ask for a picture of my new to be bought Yaris, but only after you send me one of your new Prius. That is the way that Thomas Friedman drives.
jueves, 12 de junio de 2008
Current news (draft)
Note: I will post some comments on current news – even when articles haven´t been finished.
This will allow me to post what I think is relevant and to sort a brief analysis that may be helpful.American Politics: Hillary made a lot of mistakes on the primary campaign, the most notorious one was her political calculations at every stage, which in the end turned her into an opportunist. She is talented no doubt about it, she is tenacious, strong, decisive, but all those qualities are not good enough if you change your points of view for political gain. We saw a well position Hillary loosing ground in the middle of the fight, while a charismatic Obama was gaining the support of the superdelegates of the party. Hillary made a good ending, more balanced, more accurate, and with Bill kept aside from the stage, her image was improved by wide margins. Obama won the nomination and now faces a dirty Republican machine, which by the latest accounts will turn to see how many mistakes his wife makes during the campaign.
I run into a great article from Bob Herbert at the New York Times today –Savor the Moment – which takes on the matter that this is certainly a historic moment in US politics. The next step will be not to be amazed by an African-American or a woman running for president, the next step will be to see that as a normal thing. America still holds a change in keeping its place in the world as a super power. Things like this make the country a place where tolerance and equality sooner or later take a front stage.
I will like for Obama to be the next President, he won the primary and should get enough support from Hillary´s followers. Remember that candidates represent a movement, so you should cling to the movement not to the candidate. They have flaws and will let you down on some issues, but the big picture needs to be what you are looking for. But my support for Obama goes as the lesser of evil, which means that McCain - or any other Republican - will be the worst thing that could happen to America. Republicans need to find the right approach between pushing for a small government and letting private companies run without any accountability.
McCain will have a tough time detaching himself from Bush, from his policies and from the all “white” GOP. He still praises tax cuts, even when the economy is sinking under them; he still wants free market to run rampant, even when the housing bubble showed us how damaging it could be. We should not stop free market from working, but controlling and setting laws that protect the common good are necessary, so when the “free” market made adjustments, the economy won´t hit rock bottom as hard as it is happening today.
Global Economy: on a different approach to what economist think, let me set two important perspectives clear. The first one is that if the market works perfectly on its own, what is the need for us commenting about the future? The economy will always balance itself – that much we know – but sometimes that balancing will hit millions in severe ways, will rationalize food supplies, will raise the price of oil to records high, will destabilize entire regions, will threaten the well being of nature. Few examples on this:
1- Energy independence: The US did not acted quick enough to keep the price of oil above $4 a gallon to change from big monster SUV to smaller more fuel efficient cars. This has caused the three stooges to be nearly bankrupt closing plants all over the country in recent months. Rick Wagoner might as well be the worst CEO in recent memory. He took a life time opportunity of developing a fuel efficient car and turn it into a too slow too late policy, that is making Toyota take the lead as a “green” car maker. People were shocked the Friedman talked about taxing gas, now that gas is actually at $4 they still think that market should work on its own. LISTEN market will always do the right thing, but that could be costly, if we intervene we can mitigate the impact on our economy.
2- Petro-states: bravo, we fed Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Russia and many others, with hundreds of billions of dollars. They don’t care what you and I think, they have the money and the resources to makes us crumble. The US can´t even accuse Chavez of “helping” FARC, they can´t allow anyone to attack Iran, and sure Russia can arrest as many detractors as it wants to. Suddenly these states have become the wealthy ones, democracy has been threatened in this regions and the balance in the world has been lost.
3- Food supply is short, bringing down the cost of producing it will be impossible, transporting it is getting tough and with scarce supply on the world market, feeding the hungry on the adequate quantities seem to be impossible.
4- Green technologies: on a pure economic perspective, getting green technologies is not about saving the world, it is about being efficient and using resources as much as possible. If wind and sun light are free, then why not working so they can be use to our benefit. If water supply is scarce, then why not conserving it? On a over populated world with a unsustainable middle class, what we need is green technology that could provide fuel efficient cars, clean energy to our industries and houses, recycling on a world scale, conservation of natural resources and mass transit transportations. Selling millions of gassy cars a year is not any good for our ecosystem, but if you look at the traffic problem in major cities, you can see that is not good for the economy either.
5- Globalization: you can though numbers and prove that globalization has more pros than cons, but the main problem with this force is that we have no control over it. it could go either way, helping poor countries develop faster, helping rich countries expand their businesses, but in the end what is doing is creating the sense that frontiers won´t matter in the future. Why is this a problem? Because our weak international institutions are unable to police bad apples, so companies that hold industries in different countries won´t be accountable for their misbehaviors.
The second one is that the US has run imbalances that are creating chaos on the international markets. If the price of oil at $135 is a shocking number, would it be that high if it was priced on the Euro? Also interest rate this low on the US is weakening even more the already “worthless” dollar. A war that needs to be finance, job losses and unemployment running at 5.5% creates a sense that recession may be worst than previously thought. Unless the next US president assume a correct economic policy and let tax cuts expire, end a costly war, and put the budget on balance again, the US economy may hit a point of no return. The worst scenario will be when a country won´t want to sell you “goods” because your currency is trade so low, that you are not a desirable market. Don’t believe me? Latin America is exporting more and more to Europe rather than to the US, why? Because the euro is stronger bringing more purchasing power to exporting industries.
Economic future: the US will be on hold until the next November elections. McCain must be defeated so republican finally change their lame strategies. A monochromatic party that has caused so much damage to the country should already learn its lesson by losing all that it can lose. A nation that has neglected research, were social programs are unfunded, where health care is too costly, cannot focus on keeping its position as the number one country in the world. I believe that the US will recover after the third quarter of 2009, until then we will see some severe changes in public investing, tax cuts, health care and trade balances. Inflation will hit the American market in couple of months, while the price of food will keep climbing energy cost will take a toll on the travel industry, on the three stooges in Detroit, on purchasing behavior of millions of Americans.
Economists should stop considering all the variables possible that could take an economy down, it is bad enough that we get every fore cast wrong, we tell governments how to act and the economy is getting worst on a daily basis. We can take all the numbers available and correlate the impact of high fuel cost on the purchasing power of people, learning how much it will affect the service industry. So? Read Robert Driskill on a Foreign Policy article “Why Do Economists Make Such Dismal Arguments About Trade?”, to realize why so many people is detracting from our point of view.
Numbers about the future of the economy tell us nothing, more often when Bush talks about tax cuts working, even when we are on a recession, then you hear job losses and people like Michael T. Darda speculate how accurate the Labor Department could be.
The real numbers are on everyday people struggling to pay mortgages, trying to get their kids into college, facing extremely high prices at the gas pump. Sure they are to blame for being careless on their spending, but that is why we have governments, to make sure that we don´t worry about those things. If the GOP thinks that the big bad government is useless, and private companies with no oversight could do better, the Katrina, Iraq, food productions, energy conservation will be in great shape today.
This will allow me to post what I think is relevant and to sort a brief analysis that may be helpful.American Politics: Hillary made a lot of mistakes on the primary campaign, the most notorious one was her political calculations at every stage, which in the end turned her into an opportunist. She is talented no doubt about it, she is tenacious, strong, decisive, but all those qualities are not good enough if you change your points of view for political gain. We saw a well position Hillary loosing ground in the middle of the fight, while a charismatic Obama was gaining the support of the superdelegates of the party. Hillary made a good ending, more balanced, more accurate, and with Bill kept aside from the stage, her image was improved by wide margins. Obama won the nomination and now faces a dirty Republican machine, which by the latest accounts will turn to see how many mistakes his wife makes during the campaign.
I run into a great article from Bob Herbert at the New York Times today –Savor the Moment – which takes on the matter that this is certainly a historic moment in US politics. The next step will be not to be amazed by an African-American or a woman running for president, the next step will be to see that as a normal thing. America still holds a change in keeping its place in the world as a super power. Things like this make the country a place where tolerance and equality sooner or later take a front stage.
I will like for Obama to be the next President, he won the primary and should get enough support from Hillary´s followers. Remember that candidates represent a movement, so you should cling to the movement not to the candidate. They have flaws and will let you down on some issues, but the big picture needs to be what you are looking for. But my support for Obama goes as the lesser of evil, which means that McCain - or any other Republican - will be the worst thing that could happen to America. Republicans need to find the right approach between pushing for a small government and letting private companies run without any accountability.
McCain will have a tough time detaching himself from Bush, from his policies and from the all “white” GOP. He still praises tax cuts, even when the economy is sinking under them; he still wants free market to run rampant, even when the housing bubble showed us how damaging it could be. We should not stop free market from working, but controlling and setting laws that protect the common good are necessary, so when the “free” market made adjustments, the economy won´t hit rock bottom as hard as it is happening today.
Global Economy: on a different approach to what economist think, let me set two important perspectives clear. The first one is that if the market works perfectly on its own, what is the need for us commenting about the future? The economy will always balance itself – that much we know – but sometimes that balancing will hit millions in severe ways, will rationalize food supplies, will raise the price of oil to records high, will destabilize entire regions, will threaten the well being of nature. Few examples on this:
1- Energy independence: The US did not acted quick enough to keep the price of oil above $4 a gallon to change from big monster SUV to smaller more fuel efficient cars. This has caused the three stooges to be nearly bankrupt closing plants all over the country in recent months. Rick Wagoner might as well be the worst CEO in recent memory. He took a life time opportunity of developing a fuel efficient car and turn it into a too slow too late policy, that is making Toyota take the lead as a “green” car maker. People were shocked the Friedman talked about taxing gas, now that gas is actually at $4 they still think that market should work on its own. LISTEN market will always do the right thing, but that could be costly, if we intervene we can mitigate the impact on our economy.
2- Petro-states: bravo, we fed Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Russia and many others, with hundreds of billions of dollars. They don’t care what you and I think, they have the money and the resources to makes us crumble. The US can´t even accuse Chavez of “helping” FARC, they can´t allow anyone to attack Iran, and sure Russia can arrest as many detractors as it wants to. Suddenly these states have become the wealthy ones, democracy has been threatened in this regions and the balance in the world has been lost.
3- Food supply is short, bringing down the cost of producing it will be impossible, transporting it is getting tough and with scarce supply on the world market, feeding the hungry on the adequate quantities seem to be impossible.
4- Green technologies: on a pure economic perspective, getting green technologies is not about saving the world, it is about being efficient and using resources as much as possible. If wind and sun light are free, then why not working so they can be use to our benefit. If water supply is scarce, then why not conserving it? On a over populated world with a unsustainable middle class, what we need is green technology that could provide fuel efficient cars, clean energy to our industries and houses, recycling on a world scale, conservation of natural resources and mass transit transportations. Selling millions of gassy cars a year is not any good for our ecosystem, but if you look at the traffic problem in major cities, you can see that is not good for the economy either.
5- Globalization: you can though numbers and prove that globalization has more pros than cons, but the main problem with this force is that we have no control over it. it could go either way, helping poor countries develop faster, helping rich countries expand their businesses, but in the end what is doing is creating the sense that frontiers won´t matter in the future. Why is this a problem? Because our weak international institutions are unable to police bad apples, so companies that hold industries in different countries won´t be accountable for their misbehaviors.
The second one is that the US has run imbalances that are creating chaos on the international markets. If the price of oil at $135 is a shocking number, would it be that high if it was priced on the Euro? Also interest rate this low on the US is weakening even more the already “worthless” dollar. A war that needs to be finance, job losses and unemployment running at 5.5% creates a sense that recession may be worst than previously thought. Unless the next US president assume a correct economic policy and let tax cuts expire, end a costly war, and put the budget on balance again, the US economy may hit a point of no return. The worst scenario will be when a country won´t want to sell you “goods” because your currency is trade so low, that you are not a desirable market. Don’t believe me? Latin America is exporting more and more to Europe rather than to the US, why? Because the euro is stronger bringing more purchasing power to exporting industries.
Economic future: the US will be on hold until the next November elections. McCain must be defeated so republican finally change their lame strategies. A monochromatic party that has caused so much damage to the country should already learn its lesson by losing all that it can lose. A nation that has neglected research, were social programs are unfunded, where health care is too costly, cannot focus on keeping its position as the number one country in the world. I believe that the US will recover after the third quarter of 2009, until then we will see some severe changes in public investing, tax cuts, health care and trade balances. Inflation will hit the American market in couple of months, while the price of food will keep climbing energy cost will take a toll on the travel industry, on the three stooges in Detroit, on purchasing behavior of millions of Americans.
Economists should stop considering all the variables possible that could take an economy down, it is bad enough that we get every fore cast wrong, we tell governments how to act and the economy is getting worst on a daily basis. We can take all the numbers available and correlate the impact of high fuel cost on the purchasing power of people, learning how much it will affect the service industry. So? Read Robert Driskill on a Foreign Policy article “Why Do Economists Make Such Dismal Arguments About Trade?”, to realize why so many people is detracting from our point of view.
Numbers about the future of the economy tell us nothing, more often when Bush talks about tax cuts working, even when we are on a recession, then you hear job losses and people like Michael T. Darda speculate how accurate the Labor Department could be.
The real numbers are on everyday people struggling to pay mortgages, trying to get their kids into college, facing extremely high prices at the gas pump. Sure they are to blame for being careless on their spending, but that is why we have governments, to make sure that we don´t worry about those things. If the GOP thinks that the big bad government is useless, and private companies with no oversight could do better, the Katrina, Iraq, food productions, energy conservation will be in great shape today.
domingo, 1 de junio de 2008
A Food Crisis that Hard to Stop
Draft
Part 1
An economic approach to the current food crisis is raspy to understand. You have to push through substantial reforms that may threaten millions of lives while letting the free market fix the high prices of food. Every decision being made and the consequences of them can push even further to the abyss poor nations -that struggle as they try to mitigate the famine that their citizens are facing. Our effete standing toward food aid is hurting places such as Sudan where hundreds of thousands will die if we don´t act soon.
It is imperative that alternatives should be consider with correlation of the effects that they have on the budget of hundreds of millions of people living with less than a dollar a day -read an article from the Economist "On the poverty line" to understand how the World Bank measures the purchasing power of people, they analyze the effects and numbers comparing various years using purchasing-power parity (PPP), so you have an idea that statistic could be misleading as they tend to draw a poverty line that is done according to a subjective perspective. Still we have to address this matter taking into account how to reach an agreement between farmers trying to profit from their production and billions getting the food needed to survive.
A big obstacle we face is that the world is moving too fast, our governments are incapable of building the necessary infrastructure that our current industries demands they shun to the responsibility of creating a XXI century world. More disturbing, private companies are also getting behind our needs and this has become a major conflict now that we need more food to be produced.
You have to wait to get a new Prius, your phone calls made through your cell phone get cut all the time, private insurance has gotten to a point where companies are struggling to pay for it, investment in new energy sources have not driven down the prices of those new alternatives so the mass can adopt them, recycling companies are too few for all the waste that humans produce, this just to name a few examples on critical industries that are failing to meet our needs. But the most critical one -the food industry- is the only that can crash a country in no time bringing the toll of deaths – caused not only by famine but from public unrest – to numbers that we have never seen before.
Food shortage has become a sordid problem that the world seems unprepared to handle – it has always been around – but the current scale makes it impossible to solve in the short term.
The factors that caused this food crisis to go out of control are various; some of them can be blame on economic mishandlings but many others are related to the rise of China and India, Global Warming and the high price of oil. Even when many politicians could cri de coeur matters will stay the course until arid soil could be turn into productive land.
On the economic perspective of the food crisis we have some serious analysis to make. Here is where we can blame our governments for poor investment on infrastructure and poor criteria when giving subsides to agriculture – such as CAP in Europe. Although we can trace how much this subsides had affected third world countries that couldn´t compete with low prices, the main reason to have them was the invaluable feeling that food should always be grown locally as much as possible, in case of a world food crisis you can always count that you won´t starve to dead. It is cinch to assume then that Europe won´t do anything to change its policy toward CAP in the near future.
There has been some recent criticism in Europe to the CAP approach. On a recent Economist article title "Let them eat cake" the French minister Michel Barnier was quoted saying that he does not “believe in industrial farms”, also implying that he is looking for a different approach on who gets subsides and how. The article goes on explaining that some American imports are ban due to "health" concerns – poultry washed in chlorine is a good example – this keeps the prices high, but the problem is that now that the rise of food prices has been constant, Europe is not taking serious steps to let the market set the prices, they are keeping subsides as if prices were low and they thwart any efforts to drive cut subsides.
The lack of efficient infrastructure investment in third world countries made agriculture a not desirable business to get into. When products were grown by rural agriculturist there were no roads to take them to bigger markets in cities, so a lot of the production was lost and the one that made to the markets was taken by intermediaries whom made the biggest profits. With no leverage to negotiate prices they barely survive and agriculture was not a business creating entrepreneurs, was something that was inherited and the only thing that this poor people could do.
This obviously discouraged many small growers that couldn´t afford to transport their products to nearby cities, it also left a lot of land unproductive. Not only this affected the prices to the final consumer, it made the development of new growing techniques impossible.
The crisis is worth to be seen from this angle – from the poor countries side – they are the ones that will suffer the most while this crisis last. Two factors are critical as they hit vulnerable people, one is that rich countries will always get access to food no matter how expensive it gets, they also give billions of dollars a year on subsides to its agriculturist. This means that producers from poor countries will want to export their products to these rich markets despite the local outcome of their decision. If prices are higher around the world they will get more money from exporting than from selling in their local markets – see the Argentina´s case. The second factor is climate change, agriculture has always been a risky business – as it counts on the good will of nature – but with droughts in Australia, “el niño” hitting many countries in South America, Africa facing drops on production due to little raining and several other countries watching their agriculture facing extreme weather conditions –the the risk is higher than ever.
One cruel example of how countries are using high food prices to their advantage is Thailand's proposal to make a "rice cartel" with Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos. They think about manipulating prices just like OPEC does – even when Mr. Samak denies this. The outcome could be devastating if they manage to keep price of rice at current levels, we can forget about affordable rice in the near future. Thailand exports around 10 million tons a year, three times as much as the United States, according to an article from Thomas Fuller, this means that they could become the Saudi Arabia of rice, and with countries like Brazil, Egypt, India and Vietnam talking about cutting their exports to ensure local supply we know that the "cartel" hold more power than we think.
This brings us to the food aid debacle. As prices keep skyrocketing food aid donors need to put more money to maintain the past levels steady. At the beginning of May Bush proposed to give $770 million on new US aid – according to Reuters – on the same article Robert Zoellick was quoted saying that two billion people could suffer severely from this food crisis. So Bush's proposal could actually be effective as it somehow slows famine in several countries. The problem is that if demand grows at current levels and supply stays stagnate, prices will be higher than expect by food aid donors, which means that more money will be necessary just to maintain people from dying, bringing to cero all the progress made to decrease malnutrition.
The rise of an undesirable middle class from India and China that will only exacerbates global contamination, food shortage – as they turn from rice to meat – and push prices of other goods to records high, is making the competition for food even worst. They have the money to get the food that they need, while many African countries that depend on international aid are seeing their daily meals running short of what is expected. Sure the approach of the WFP was stupid enough to give “free” food instead of investing in agriculture so these countries could produce their own, but local conditions made it very difficult in some areas to pass through corrupt governments and civil wars, like the genocide in Darfur.
On a New York Times article "Food Crisis Meets Chaos in Horn of Africa" Jeffrey Gettleman talks about Somalia and how Africa "was about the last place on earth that needed a food crisis." People there haven't eaten for weeks and the animals they had – due to a severe drought – were dying increasing the chaos there. Gettleman mention Jeffrey D. Sachs as saying that some countries in Africa face a perfect storm. He explains that food aid is also scarce because local violence in places like Darfur makes it really hard for aid to be delivered. Another problem Gettleman described is that Americans launched air strikes on Somalia accusing it of hiding Al Qaeda terrorists; this has caused a "wave of revenge threats against Western aid workers". This is added to the already terrible shape of international aid. Like in Myanmar when aid was not accepted, African regions could face famine not only because aid is short, but also because they don't want to receive it.
This is a storm that was formed while we enjoyed talking about global warming and thinking that climate change won´t hit us anytime soon. We know that prices are up because demand is higher than production, but what has caused all of this?
Low production is the first problem to face. If demand is big you would expect that high prices will encourage many more individuals to start producing and get their products in the market, therefore products will be available in more quantities and demand will balance with what is offered. Also demand will contract over non necessaries items, bringing the pressure on prices to lower levels making them go down significantly.
We encounter two big differences on the analysis of this food crisis. On one hand we know that demand will eventually go down on its own, although this will cause famine in many regions –Africa will face the worst of it – malnutrition in others and severe changes in ecological systems that will be turned into farm lands, as they become more attractive to investments. On the other hand we encounter that even if supply increases it will be slow on certain regions that are suffering from severe droughts such as Australia. A problem is that supply is also going to satisfy the need of biofuels that pay much more than a hungry Sudanese child.
So even when supply increases not all of it will go to feed people, some will go to feed animals –grains that go to cattle –and other to “feed” our cars. This will bring the balance as follows: food demand will raise bringing prices to the roof; food supply will catch up eventually when the world faces an economic downturn that finally stabilizes the unsustainable growth of China, India and south East Asian nations. But food prices won't go down as alternative biofuels take much of the production and turns it into ethanol.
The inevitable force that will make farmers need more land to grow food will be a heavy toll on protected areas. Brazil may cut even more trees when farm lands are a better deal than standing forests. Rivers that in some places are already polluted will take water from habitat areas to agricultural ones lowering the quality of life for millions.
As production increases so will the need to improve transportation, the need to control the kind of production that goes into the country, safety measures will be harder to implement, speculators will play with futures, but most important as the economic cycle ends, millions of kilometers of grown areas will be left abandoned when prices drop. This will create a devastating effect on the people that bet too late on food and will leave an irreparable damage to nature.
The excessive and threatening demand from China and India, that is excessive because it happens too fast, and threatening because the world can´t handle a middle class this big, is bringing the prices of every product on earth to records high. They sure have the right to ask why they can't enjoy what the West has had for decades? But they also are entitled to answer, are they willing to destroy the world for that right?
Both countries hold about 36% of the world population, both are deploying millions of its citizens around the world on business trips to get as much rough materials as possible. A growing middle class from this countries can put on the street millions of new cars a year – China bought 8.3 million last year alone , millions computers – China bought 2,5 million notebooks on the first half of 2007 , a millions of cell phones, one billion cell phones were sold on 2007 on the world, just to name a few. Even when producing these goods is done on sustainable basis the wastes produced by them contaminate on great scale our fragile nature. Sure clothes will be available to everyone.
Clothing them is one thing, when it comes to feed two giants things get rough. If you move from eating rice and vegetables to meet, you are creating demand for inefficient food sources, such as cattle, in the United States on factor farming production cattle that is fed of corn is called corn-fed of grain-fed, this means that they don´t have a diet composed of forage but they have a diet that involves corn. How about giving to cattle the corn needed to stop famine in places in Africa and Asia – I am being ironic by the way.
According to a Foreign Policy article title "The List: The World's Most Dangerous Food Crisis", some countries will be hit mercilessly by short food supply. North Korea for example will face "the worst food crisis the world has ever seen", the price of rice it’s up 186% since April 2007. About half of the population in Pakistan suffer from food insecurity, and "the average food prices have risen 35% since last year". Indonesia is on the list, Ethiopia where 45 percent of its population is undernourished has no problems with food supply, but its population simply can't afford high food prices, so according to Josette Sheeran "food is on the shelves" but people lack the money to purchase them. Yemen is the last country on the list, and the article mentions that "the World Bank has warned, Yemen’s food crisis could wipe out all the gains made in poverty reduction between 1998 and 2005."
But we have much more to discuss: the price of food correlated to fuel surge, the rise in price due to the use of corn for biofuels, how CAP is not the answer to solve this food crisis, the millions of dollars that the fertilizer sector is making this days, how much food is needed to stop millions from facing famine.
Most important are the answers on how to solve this problem, they are basic to endure a long term reaction that applies economic development to a sustainable growth of developing world countries. Gordon Brown, Robert Zoellick, Jeffrey Sachs, Josette Sheeran and others will be quoted proposing measures that may reduce the threat of global famine that could appear on a scale that we have never seen before, I will also state some conclusions on the direction that I think is needed, and some on the direction where I think we are heading. On the second part of this article we will see the plethora of opportunities that we have as society to solve what could be, a long lasting crisis.
Part 1
An economic approach to the current food crisis is raspy to understand. You have to push through substantial reforms that may threaten millions of lives while letting the free market fix the high prices of food. Every decision being made and the consequences of them can push even further to the abyss poor nations -that struggle as they try to mitigate the famine that their citizens are facing. Our effete standing toward food aid is hurting places such as Sudan where hundreds of thousands will die if we don´t act soon.
It is imperative that alternatives should be consider with correlation of the effects that they have on the budget of hundreds of millions of people living with less than a dollar a day -read an article from the Economist "On the poverty line" to understand how the World Bank measures the purchasing power of people, they analyze the effects and numbers comparing various years using purchasing-power parity (PPP), so you have an idea that statistic could be misleading as they tend to draw a poverty line that is done according to a subjective perspective. Still we have to address this matter taking into account how to reach an agreement between farmers trying to profit from their production and billions getting the food needed to survive.
A big obstacle we face is that the world is moving too fast, our governments are incapable of building the necessary infrastructure that our current industries demands they shun to the responsibility of creating a XXI century world. More disturbing, private companies are also getting behind our needs and this has become a major conflict now that we need more food to be produced.
You have to wait to get a new Prius, your phone calls made through your cell phone get cut all the time, private insurance has gotten to a point where companies are struggling to pay for it, investment in new energy sources have not driven down the prices of those new alternatives so the mass can adopt them, recycling companies are too few for all the waste that humans produce, this just to name a few examples on critical industries that are failing to meet our needs. But the most critical one -the food industry- is the only that can crash a country in no time bringing the toll of deaths – caused not only by famine but from public unrest – to numbers that we have never seen before.
Food shortage has become a sordid problem that the world seems unprepared to handle – it has always been around – but the current scale makes it impossible to solve in the short term.
The factors that caused this food crisis to go out of control are various; some of them can be blame on economic mishandlings but many others are related to the rise of China and India, Global Warming and the high price of oil. Even when many politicians could cri de coeur matters will stay the course until arid soil could be turn into productive land.
On the economic perspective of the food crisis we have some serious analysis to make. Here is where we can blame our governments for poor investment on infrastructure and poor criteria when giving subsides to agriculture – such as CAP in Europe. Although we can trace how much this subsides had affected third world countries that couldn´t compete with low prices, the main reason to have them was the invaluable feeling that food should always be grown locally as much as possible, in case of a world food crisis you can always count that you won´t starve to dead. It is cinch to assume then that Europe won´t do anything to change its policy toward CAP in the near future.
There has been some recent criticism in Europe to the CAP approach. On a recent Economist article title "Let them eat cake" the French minister Michel Barnier was quoted saying that he does not “believe in industrial farms”, also implying that he is looking for a different approach on who gets subsides and how. The article goes on explaining that some American imports are ban due to "health" concerns – poultry washed in chlorine is a good example – this keeps the prices high, but the problem is that now that the rise of food prices has been constant, Europe is not taking serious steps to let the market set the prices, they are keeping subsides as if prices were low and they thwart any efforts to drive cut subsides.
The lack of efficient infrastructure investment in third world countries made agriculture a not desirable business to get into. When products were grown by rural agriculturist there were no roads to take them to bigger markets in cities, so a lot of the production was lost and the one that made to the markets was taken by intermediaries whom made the biggest profits. With no leverage to negotiate prices they barely survive and agriculture was not a business creating entrepreneurs, was something that was inherited and the only thing that this poor people could do.
This obviously discouraged many small growers that couldn´t afford to transport their products to nearby cities, it also left a lot of land unproductive. Not only this affected the prices to the final consumer, it made the development of new growing techniques impossible.
The crisis is worth to be seen from this angle – from the poor countries side – they are the ones that will suffer the most while this crisis last. Two factors are critical as they hit vulnerable people, one is that rich countries will always get access to food no matter how expensive it gets, they also give billions of dollars a year on subsides to its agriculturist. This means that producers from poor countries will want to export their products to these rich markets despite the local outcome of their decision. If prices are higher around the world they will get more money from exporting than from selling in their local markets – see the Argentina´s case. The second factor is climate change, agriculture has always been a risky business – as it counts on the good will of nature – but with droughts in Australia, “el niño” hitting many countries in South America, Africa facing drops on production due to little raining and several other countries watching their agriculture facing extreme weather conditions –the the risk is higher than ever.
One cruel example of how countries are using high food prices to their advantage is Thailand's proposal to make a "rice cartel" with Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos. They think about manipulating prices just like OPEC does – even when Mr. Samak denies this. The outcome could be devastating if they manage to keep price of rice at current levels, we can forget about affordable rice in the near future. Thailand exports around 10 million tons a year, three times as much as the United States, according to an article from Thomas Fuller, this means that they could become the Saudi Arabia of rice, and with countries like Brazil, Egypt, India and Vietnam talking about cutting their exports to ensure local supply we know that the "cartel" hold more power than we think.
This brings us to the food aid debacle. As prices keep skyrocketing food aid donors need to put more money to maintain the past levels steady. At the beginning of May Bush proposed to give $770 million on new US aid – according to Reuters – on the same article Robert Zoellick was quoted saying that two billion people could suffer severely from this food crisis. So Bush's proposal could actually be effective as it somehow slows famine in several countries. The problem is that if demand grows at current levels and supply stays stagnate, prices will be higher than expect by food aid donors, which means that more money will be necessary just to maintain people from dying, bringing to cero all the progress made to decrease malnutrition.
The rise of an undesirable middle class from India and China that will only exacerbates global contamination, food shortage – as they turn from rice to meat – and push prices of other goods to records high, is making the competition for food even worst. They have the money to get the food that they need, while many African countries that depend on international aid are seeing their daily meals running short of what is expected. Sure the approach of the WFP was stupid enough to give “free” food instead of investing in agriculture so these countries could produce their own, but local conditions made it very difficult in some areas to pass through corrupt governments and civil wars, like the genocide in Darfur.
On a New York Times article "Food Crisis Meets Chaos in Horn of Africa" Jeffrey Gettleman talks about Somalia and how Africa "was about the last place on earth that needed a food crisis." People there haven't eaten for weeks and the animals they had – due to a severe drought – were dying increasing the chaos there. Gettleman mention Jeffrey D. Sachs as saying that some countries in Africa face a perfect storm. He explains that food aid is also scarce because local violence in places like Darfur makes it really hard for aid to be delivered. Another problem Gettleman described is that Americans launched air strikes on Somalia accusing it of hiding Al Qaeda terrorists; this has caused a "wave of revenge threats against Western aid workers". This is added to the already terrible shape of international aid. Like in Myanmar when aid was not accepted, African regions could face famine not only because aid is short, but also because they don't want to receive it.
This is a storm that was formed while we enjoyed talking about global warming and thinking that climate change won´t hit us anytime soon. We know that prices are up because demand is higher than production, but what has caused all of this?
Low production is the first problem to face. If demand is big you would expect that high prices will encourage many more individuals to start producing and get their products in the market, therefore products will be available in more quantities and demand will balance with what is offered. Also demand will contract over non necessaries items, bringing the pressure on prices to lower levels making them go down significantly.
We encounter two big differences on the analysis of this food crisis. On one hand we know that demand will eventually go down on its own, although this will cause famine in many regions –Africa will face the worst of it – malnutrition in others and severe changes in ecological systems that will be turned into farm lands, as they become more attractive to investments. On the other hand we encounter that even if supply increases it will be slow on certain regions that are suffering from severe droughts such as Australia. A problem is that supply is also going to satisfy the need of biofuels that pay much more than a hungry Sudanese child.
So even when supply increases not all of it will go to feed people, some will go to feed animals –grains that go to cattle –and other to “feed” our cars. This will bring the balance as follows: food demand will raise bringing prices to the roof; food supply will catch up eventually when the world faces an economic downturn that finally stabilizes the unsustainable growth of China, India and south East Asian nations. But food prices won't go down as alternative biofuels take much of the production and turns it into ethanol.
The inevitable force that will make farmers need more land to grow food will be a heavy toll on protected areas. Brazil may cut even more trees when farm lands are a better deal than standing forests. Rivers that in some places are already polluted will take water from habitat areas to agricultural ones lowering the quality of life for millions.
As production increases so will the need to improve transportation, the need to control the kind of production that goes into the country, safety measures will be harder to implement, speculators will play with futures, but most important as the economic cycle ends, millions of kilometers of grown areas will be left abandoned when prices drop. This will create a devastating effect on the people that bet too late on food and will leave an irreparable damage to nature.
The excessive and threatening demand from China and India, that is excessive because it happens too fast, and threatening because the world can´t handle a middle class this big, is bringing the prices of every product on earth to records high. They sure have the right to ask why they can't enjoy what the West has had for decades? But they also are entitled to answer, are they willing to destroy the world for that right?
Both countries hold about 36% of the world population, both are deploying millions of its citizens around the world on business trips to get as much rough materials as possible. A growing middle class from this countries can put on the street millions of new cars a year – China bought 8.3 million last year alone , millions computers – China bought 2,5 million notebooks on the first half of 2007 , a millions of cell phones, one billion cell phones were sold on 2007 on the world, just to name a few. Even when producing these goods is done on sustainable basis the wastes produced by them contaminate on great scale our fragile nature. Sure clothes will be available to everyone.
Clothing them is one thing, when it comes to feed two giants things get rough. If you move from eating rice and vegetables to meet, you are creating demand for inefficient food sources, such as cattle, in the United States on factor farming production cattle that is fed of corn is called corn-fed of grain-fed, this means that they don´t have a diet composed of forage but they have a diet that involves corn. How about giving to cattle the corn needed to stop famine in places in Africa and Asia – I am being ironic by the way.
According to a Foreign Policy article title "The List: The World's Most Dangerous Food Crisis", some countries will be hit mercilessly by short food supply. North Korea for example will face "the worst food crisis the world has ever seen", the price of rice it’s up 186% since April 2007. About half of the population in Pakistan suffer from food insecurity, and "the average food prices have risen 35% since last year". Indonesia is on the list, Ethiopia where 45 percent of its population is undernourished has no problems with food supply, but its population simply can't afford high food prices, so according to Josette Sheeran "food is on the shelves" but people lack the money to purchase them. Yemen is the last country on the list, and the article mentions that "the World Bank has warned, Yemen’s food crisis could wipe out all the gains made in poverty reduction between 1998 and 2005."
But we have much more to discuss: the price of food correlated to fuel surge, the rise in price due to the use of corn for biofuels, how CAP is not the answer to solve this food crisis, the millions of dollars that the fertilizer sector is making this days, how much food is needed to stop millions from facing famine.
Most important are the answers on how to solve this problem, they are basic to endure a long term reaction that applies economic development to a sustainable growth of developing world countries. Gordon Brown, Robert Zoellick, Jeffrey Sachs, Josette Sheeran and others will be quoted proposing measures that may reduce the threat of global famine that could appear on a scale that we have never seen before, I will also state some conclusions on the direction that I think is needed, and some on the direction where I think we are heading. On the second part of this article we will see the plethora of opportunities that we have as society to solve what could be, a long lasting crisis.
martes, 6 de mayo de 2008
No longer for a Clinton
As soon as my exporting is over, I will place the long awaited article about the food crisis.
But for now I wanted to talk about Hillary Clinton. First of all I supported her since the beginning, is not just that I don’t like Obama, it is that Clinton seem tough enough to take America back on track. But with the tax break proposal – following McCain on it – I must say that she will be the wrong person for the job.
How stupid is to propose easing a tax that will create little relieve to people while taking billions out of the government. No matter how you want to finance it, the problem with the US is that it is consuming too much gas, sending billions of dollars to countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
And opposing Nafta, that is the end of my support, at first I just thought she was trying to be nice and get votes from states that had lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but now that her economic proposals are simple wrong, I must say that she is in to take the country on the wrong direction.
As she drags the election to a bitter end, Obama seems like the lesser of evil, while he deserves to win against an “I don’t know much of economy” type of candidate, the country need a tough hand like Clinton´s. Sad enough she made all the wrong choices and I must say, she will do on her first term what is needed so she win a second one.
It is a tough choice to make, but looking at what all the candidates are doing, and how the economy is barely hanging, Obama has turned to be my choice for President.
Please read an excellent article on Foreign Policy – the last issue – title “When China met Africa”, and picture how that racing power is embracing investments around the world, while the US is being bought by Europeans and big banks are getting money from Abu Dhabi. The excess money in the world is enough to purchase big chunks on American iconic companies. But Clinton is pushing for tax breaks on the summer and is opposing Nafta.
Maybe her selfish and egocentric behavior was more powerful that her toughness and decisive character, too bad that she didn’t see the big picture, she could had been a great President. We will see what Obama can do for the country.
But for now I wanted to talk about Hillary Clinton. First of all I supported her since the beginning, is not just that I don’t like Obama, it is that Clinton seem tough enough to take America back on track. But with the tax break proposal – following McCain on it – I must say that she will be the wrong person for the job.
How stupid is to propose easing a tax that will create little relieve to people while taking billions out of the government. No matter how you want to finance it, the problem with the US is that it is consuming too much gas, sending billions of dollars to countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
And opposing Nafta, that is the end of my support, at first I just thought she was trying to be nice and get votes from states that had lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but now that her economic proposals are simple wrong, I must say that she is in to take the country on the wrong direction.
As she drags the election to a bitter end, Obama seems like the lesser of evil, while he deserves to win against an “I don’t know much of economy” type of candidate, the country need a tough hand like Clinton´s. Sad enough she made all the wrong choices and I must say, she will do on her first term what is needed so she win a second one.
It is a tough choice to make, but looking at what all the candidates are doing, and how the economy is barely hanging, Obama has turned to be my choice for President.
Please read an excellent article on Foreign Policy – the last issue – title “When China met Africa”, and picture how that racing power is embracing investments around the world, while the US is being bought by Europeans and big banks are getting money from Abu Dhabi. The excess money in the world is enough to purchase big chunks on American iconic companies. But Clinton is pushing for tax breaks on the summer and is opposing Nafta.
Maybe her selfish and egocentric behavior was more powerful that her toughness and decisive character, too bad that she didn’t see the big picture, she could had been a great President. We will see what Obama can do for the country.
domingo, 27 de abril de 2008
Iraq and Global Warming
(Part 2)
-draft-
Iraq is not entirely responsible for the incoming debacle in the US economy, but the resources that is using could had helped in making the recession less painful. Another problem with the $5000 a minute that is using -read part 1 of this article- is that it is financed with debt, and the billions needed to cover that debt are bringing the value of the dollar to its lowest levels in recent memory.
Part of the difficulty is that instead of raising taxes to finance the war, Bush proposed tax cuts during his first term. This put more pressure on the already weak dollar and it distorted the perception of a conflict that to most of the American citizens should end right now.
The US government policy is this, let the future generation pay for this conflict -since they will have to assume the current debt- we don't have to worry where that money will come from, we will be out of the office soon. This particular thought is what makes this war illegitimate, Bush was reluctant since the beginning to make the war against Iraq a matter of national commitment. He knew that if he taxed people in order to finance the invasion of Iraq, the support would have fallen right after the military operations started. The intellectual elite -not just the liberal media- supported the war based on insufficient prove, while millions went to the streets to oppose a war that they knew was phony. With taxes on regular citizens more people would have criticized or at least read more about a war that they would have to pay. This could have threatened the "war on terror" that was being developed by the Bush administration.
You can see how important are the financial priorities and its consequences over any policy that a government wants to take. Popular unrest starts mainly when our pockets are affected; international negotiations are more effective after the global community acts blocking a country on financial terms. The U.R.S.S fell because it didn't have enough resources to keep up its socialist model; China is destroying every natural resource that it has -no matter what the outcome- in order to keep growing and with that making its people happy. Iraq before the invasion, was a country devastated by the oil for food program, it couldn't even armed itself to the levels before the first Gulf War. The examples are various at showing just how important are to any organization and individual the money factor.
Sudan -as I have explained before- will skip any international condemnation as long as it continues to provide oil to China, whom will not be pressured to act against its economic priorities as long as it provides cheap merchandise to the West. No single policy is made without the consideration of the financial impact that it will have over the ruling industries.
Many conspiracy theories base a lot of their analysis taking the economic benefits that certain people will get from doing something evil and hidden. Take for example the claims made against Silverstain -right after the Twin Towers felt on the infamous terrorist attacks of 9/11- suggesting that he was well aware of the attacks, and didn't act properly because his insurance will cover the billions of loses inflicted by the falling of the buildings. It was also claimed that the United States wanted to keep the price of oil low when it invaded Iraq, and wanted to give billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts to big US companies. The outcome was much more different, the beneficiaries were third world countries that hold their debts in dollars, big US contractors, big oil companies, but the really big winners, speculators.
Now that the US economy has fallen into recession, the priorities have changed for a majority of Americans. Iraq is no longer their main concern -keep in mind that they are not paying for it- it is their job stability and the future of the economy. According to The Economist about 92.000 jobs were lost this past March, bringing the unemployment rate to 5.1%. Global Warming could also be forgotten if in order to enact laws that protect the environment people will have to expend more money on heating, gas, or taxes.
This is why economic policies are a delicate subject that it is not easy to address. For that matter a lot of priorities are not developed with money that is available, they are rather done by creating debt that is intangible for the citizens. This being the case is what reshapes many of the current actions taken by the Fed and the US government. The first one is "bailing out" big investment banks that took reckless decisions putting billions on sub-prime mortgages that were a sure loss. The second is giving tax rebates to US citizens that -on a minor rate- also took a high risk in buying houses beyond their means.
Where this leaves the Iraq war?
The war in Iraq has three major impacts on the US economy:
1- It brought the price of oil to records high and there is nothing that the world can do to stop that. Venezuela is using the money needed to invest in oil fields to help Chavez hold into the presidency "forever". Iraq most of the time is extracting oil at levels before the invasion, Iran is consumed on political conflicts that distract the government from its job, Russia is nationalizing its oil fields kicking out foreign companies that have the technology to improve oil exploration, Sudan is sum in genocide that from time to time threatens their oil fields, Saudi Arabia does not provide an exact account about how much they can really produce, this means that we don't know if their reserves are in good condition or not.
2- The billions allocated to the war far exceed what was needed to finance an universal health care, the baby boomers social security retire benefits, food stamps -now that the US has fallen into recession-, college loans to millions of eligible students maybe even scholarships, the badly needed update of the US infrastructure, the finance of tech research, bio research, also it could have funded the energy independence that the country badly needs. Since none of those things were important to the administration, nor to the republican ideals, they were left into the darkness, cutting some of the most important programs for the elderly and the poor. Such things as the V chip were left without enough funding, amen of the opposition of powerful groups.
3- The billions of dollars needed to fund the war placed too much money in circulation, meaning that the availability of dollars in international markets will soon make it vulnerable to speculation and holders will sooner or later get better deals getting rid of the green buck. This created an overflow of reserves of dollars in Asian countries, that suffer billions in loses each time that the exchange rate is making the dollar less attractive. The impact of the war is felt through indirect prisms among various stages of the world economy. Several oil producers are now the new "rich", some others just turned more authoritarian. The majority of the world was affected by the outcome of the war. Even with high oil prices -and the possibility that this could help fight global warming by turning into profitable goods some alternatives energy resources- not major policies were taken in order to curve our damaging pollution behavior. Instead the food crisis that the world may face is the worst outcome of the "grow corps to produce an alternative to oil."
By increasing the price of oil in the world market, the war in Iraq exposed a profound crisis of the uncontrollable appetite of two fast growing powers, China and India. Both need to increase their GDP as fast as possible so they can create the wealth needed to maintain their people happy. Both lack the oil to make their industries grow as fast as they want to, both are the most populated countries in the world and they need vast sums of food impossible to produce in their lands. India with its $2500 Tata car could destroy the world as we know; China with a financial crisis could drag the US economy to a point of no return.
My principal concern is that after the Iraq invasion the United States lost its moral ground to police some authoritarian countries. China is able to use its leverage against the Tibetan independence movement with no serious objection from the United States. Also the economic ties that come with globalization had shift the political power away from governments to big corporations. So even if the United States and India want to help the Tibetans against the brutal oppression of China, Private Corporation could be more effective at making that opposition be superficial, leaving the economic priorities intact.
On that same matter the war in Iraq looks more of a business movement than a security priority. Take what happened with the private military contractors that shoot dead several Iraqis with no accountability toward their actions. Bush on a press conference transmitted on CNN was asked by a female student of South Asian studies at Johns Hopkins University – “… the uniform code of military justice does not apply to this contractors in Iraq?”, his answer was “I am going to ask him, go ahead” referring to his secretary of defense at the time – Donald Rumsfeld- later laughing and saying “help”. At the end he didn´t answer the question so the student that was left without an explanation on how a private military contractor is able to provide service to the United States with no accountability of its actions, not in the US nor in Iraq.
Billions of dollars are reported missing or overcharged to the US government, billions more are stolen from oil fields, all of this while the indebtedness grows at an unsustainable rate. The war in Iraq was good as a wakeup call to the unsustainable energy consumption, but unless we take the right steps to "detach" our economies from oil producing countries, there is no way the world could survive a "real" energy crisis.
The United States is not leading Western nations to develop technology that can supply the energy needed with the less pollution possible. It is not acknowledging either their internal problems with letting the private sector run everything in the economy. Even military contractors are free to fail big orders -pending a Supreme Court decision the pharmaceutical companies could not be held responsible for dead related to their products. Big companies manipulate how the world runs, big banks manipulate how economies behave, big investors speculate at the expense of the billions of poor inhabitants of the planet.
What three trillion dollars -read Stiglitz latest book, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict - could have done to the global economy will always be a guess. More than that, those trillions made the most powerful nation invade a country with no viable considerations of the outcome. Money has been the only factor behind human behavior since our beginning. The fun thing about it is that money has an intangible value, and we run our lives and the world base on the perception that it worth something. If you like to have a wide picture of what trillions could do read a January 2007 article on the New York Times from David Leonhardt where he puts in perspective what can be done with that kind of money, although the he talks of just 1.2 trillion dollars.
The ultimate thought is ought to be that no matter what we think is the correct policy, no matter what is the right thing to do, no matter how bad something can damage our future, we will make our decisions considering how much money will be out there for us. Iraq and Global Warming are a clear example of fail policies that did not take into consideration the monetary value that drive our sentiments. Unless we measure in our future policies what an irrational number is 3 trillion dollars for wars, and trillions for not take actions against Global Warming, we may never understand the whole damage that we are doing to our future.
Be true to yourself; put a price to your heart.
-draft-
Iraq is not entirely responsible for the incoming debacle in the US economy, but the resources that is using could had helped in making the recession less painful. Another problem with the $5000 a minute that is using -read part 1 of this article- is that it is financed with debt, and the billions needed to cover that debt are bringing the value of the dollar to its lowest levels in recent memory.
Part of the difficulty is that instead of raising taxes to finance the war, Bush proposed tax cuts during his first term. This put more pressure on the already weak dollar and it distorted the perception of a conflict that to most of the American citizens should end right now.
The US government policy is this, let the future generation pay for this conflict -since they will have to assume the current debt- we don't have to worry where that money will come from, we will be out of the office soon. This particular thought is what makes this war illegitimate, Bush was reluctant since the beginning to make the war against Iraq a matter of national commitment. He knew that if he taxed people in order to finance the invasion of Iraq, the support would have fallen right after the military operations started. The intellectual elite -not just the liberal media- supported the war based on insufficient prove, while millions went to the streets to oppose a war that they knew was phony. With taxes on regular citizens more people would have criticized or at least read more about a war that they would have to pay. This could have threatened the "war on terror" that was being developed by the Bush administration.
You can see how important are the financial priorities and its consequences over any policy that a government wants to take. Popular unrest starts mainly when our pockets are affected; international negotiations are more effective after the global community acts blocking a country on financial terms. The U.R.S.S fell because it didn't have enough resources to keep up its socialist model; China is destroying every natural resource that it has -no matter what the outcome- in order to keep growing and with that making its people happy. Iraq before the invasion, was a country devastated by the oil for food program, it couldn't even armed itself to the levels before the first Gulf War. The examples are various at showing just how important are to any organization and individual the money factor.
Sudan -as I have explained before- will skip any international condemnation as long as it continues to provide oil to China, whom will not be pressured to act against its economic priorities as long as it provides cheap merchandise to the West. No single policy is made without the consideration of the financial impact that it will have over the ruling industries.
Many conspiracy theories base a lot of their analysis taking the economic benefits that certain people will get from doing something evil and hidden. Take for example the claims made against Silverstain -right after the Twin Towers felt on the infamous terrorist attacks of 9/11- suggesting that he was well aware of the attacks, and didn't act properly because his insurance will cover the billions of loses inflicted by the falling of the buildings. It was also claimed that the United States wanted to keep the price of oil low when it invaded Iraq, and wanted to give billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts to big US companies. The outcome was much more different, the beneficiaries were third world countries that hold their debts in dollars, big US contractors, big oil companies, but the really big winners, speculators.
Now that the US economy has fallen into recession, the priorities have changed for a majority of Americans. Iraq is no longer their main concern -keep in mind that they are not paying for it- it is their job stability and the future of the economy. According to The Economist about 92.000 jobs were lost this past March, bringing the unemployment rate to 5.1%. Global Warming could also be forgotten if in order to enact laws that protect the environment people will have to expend more money on heating, gas, or taxes.
This is why economic policies are a delicate subject that it is not easy to address. For that matter a lot of priorities are not developed with money that is available, they are rather done by creating debt that is intangible for the citizens. This being the case is what reshapes many of the current actions taken by the Fed and the US government. The first one is "bailing out" big investment banks that took reckless decisions putting billions on sub-prime mortgages that were a sure loss. The second is giving tax rebates to US citizens that -on a minor rate- also took a high risk in buying houses beyond their means.
Where this leaves the Iraq war?
The war in Iraq has three major impacts on the US economy:
1- It brought the price of oil to records high and there is nothing that the world can do to stop that. Venezuela is using the money needed to invest in oil fields to help Chavez hold into the presidency "forever". Iraq most of the time is extracting oil at levels before the invasion, Iran is consumed on political conflicts that distract the government from its job, Russia is nationalizing its oil fields kicking out foreign companies that have the technology to improve oil exploration, Sudan is sum in genocide that from time to time threatens their oil fields, Saudi Arabia does not provide an exact account about how much they can really produce, this means that we don't know if their reserves are in good condition or not.
2- The billions allocated to the war far exceed what was needed to finance an universal health care, the baby boomers social security retire benefits, food stamps -now that the US has fallen into recession-, college loans to millions of eligible students maybe even scholarships, the badly needed update of the US infrastructure, the finance of tech research, bio research, also it could have funded the energy independence that the country badly needs. Since none of those things were important to the administration, nor to the republican ideals, they were left into the darkness, cutting some of the most important programs for the elderly and the poor. Such things as the V chip were left without enough funding, amen of the opposition of powerful groups.
3- The billions of dollars needed to fund the war placed too much money in circulation, meaning that the availability of dollars in international markets will soon make it vulnerable to speculation and holders will sooner or later get better deals getting rid of the green buck. This created an overflow of reserves of dollars in Asian countries, that suffer billions in loses each time that the exchange rate is making the dollar less attractive. The impact of the war is felt through indirect prisms among various stages of the world economy. Several oil producers are now the new "rich", some others just turned more authoritarian. The majority of the world was affected by the outcome of the war. Even with high oil prices -and the possibility that this could help fight global warming by turning into profitable goods some alternatives energy resources- not major policies were taken in order to curve our damaging pollution behavior. Instead the food crisis that the world may face is the worst outcome of the "grow corps to produce an alternative to oil."
By increasing the price of oil in the world market, the war in Iraq exposed a profound crisis of the uncontrollable appetite of two fast growing powers, China and India. Both need to increase their GDP as fast as possible so they can create the wealth needed to maintain their people happy. Both lack the oil to make their industries grow as fast as they want to, both are the most populated countries in the world and they need vast sums of food impossible to produce in their lands. India with its $2500 Tata car could destroy the world as we know; China with a financial crisis could drag the US economy to a point of no return.
My principal concern is that after the Iraq invasion the United States lost its moral ground to police some authoritarian countries. China is able to use its leverage against the Tibetan independence movement with no serious objection from the United States. Also the economic ties that come with globalization had shift the political power away from governments to big corporations. So even if the United States and India want to help the Tibetans against the brutal oppression of China, Private Corporation could be more effective at making that opposition be superficial, leaving the economic priorities intact.
On that same matter the war in Iraq looks more of a business movement than a security priority. Take what happened with the private military contractors that shoot dead several Iraqis with no accountability toward their actions. Bush on a press conference transmitted on CNN was asked by a female student of South Asian studies at Johns Hopkins University – “… the uniform code of military justice does not apply to this contractors in Iraq?”, his answer was “I am going to ask him, go ahead” referring to his secretary of defense at the time – Donald Rumsfeld- later laughing and saying “help”. At the end he didn´t answer the question so the student that was left without an explanation on how a private military contractor is able to provide service to the United States with no accountability of its actions, not in the US nor in Iraq.
Billions of dollars are reported missing or overcharged to the US government, billions more are stolen from oil fields, all of this while the indebtedness grows at an unsustainable rate. The war in Iraq was good as a wakeup call to the unsustainable energy consumption, but unless we take the right steps to "detach" our economies from oil producing countries, there is no way the world could survive a "real" energy crisis.
The United States is not leading Western nations to develop technology that can supply the energy needed with the less pollution possible. It is not acknowledging either their internal problems with letting the private sector run everything in the economy. Even military contractors are free to fail big orders -pending a Supreme Court decision the pharmaceutical companies could not be held responsible for dead related to their products. Big companies manipulate how the world runs, big banks manipulate how economies behave, big investors speculate at the expense of the billions of poor inhabitants of the planet.
What three trillion dollars -read Stiglitz latest book, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict - could have done to the global economy will always be a guess. More than that, those trillions made the most powerful nation invade a country with no viable considerations of the outcome. Money has been the only factor behind human behavior since our beginning. The fun thing about it is that money has an intangible value, and we run our lives and the world base on the perception that it worth something. If you like to have a wide picture of what trillions could do read a January 2007 article on the New York Times from David Leonhardt where he puts in perspective what can be done with that kind of money, although the he talks of just 1.2 trillion dollars.
The ultimate thought is ought to be that no matter what we think is the correct policy, no matter what is the right thing to do, no matter how bad something can damage our future, we will make our decisions considering how much money will be out there for us. Iraq and Global Warming are a clear example of fail policies that did not take into consideration the monetary value that drive our sentiments. Unless we measure in our future policies what an irrational number is 3 trillion dollars for wars, and trillions for not take actions against Global Warming, we may never understand the whole damage that we are doing to our future.
Be true to yourself; put a price to your heart.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)