If Barak Obama is to win the US election and he becomes the next US President, then the country will turn once again as the best one by a lot of measures. That he is black caused at the beginning concern among many Democrat supporters, that he was unprepared was my main concern. I still believe that if Hillary was more honest and more committed to her ideas rather than to her popularity, she would have been a terrific US President. But that is not Hillary, despite being tough and smart she is also ambiguous when it comes to policies. She tried to mingle conservatives and liberals in the same box – that is not possible.
Obama is not my favorite candidate, I don´t like his speeches and I consider Bill Clinton to be a better political figure. Obama lacks commitment to his ideas, when I see him I just don´t feel that he truly believes in a better future, he can´t enthuse the audience – nevertheless this time is anyone but McCain. But one thing that is irrelevant to me is that he is black. And that is exactly what makes this election wonderful. It has come the time when state by state is allowing gay marriage, I do not support gay marriage, but that gay people marry is irrelevant to me. I do not support abortion, but I strongly believe that the choice should be held by woman, whom should have all the tools to make the right decision. So even when I am against abortion I feel that it should not be banned, woman must be allow to have that choice, it is only up to them – and in some cases to her partners – to opt or not for that. Many conservatives on the other hand love to slouch to woman with pesky remarks about how despiteful they find abortion´s choice of “ending a life”.
There are many other issues that I am against, but I rather oppose them intellectually than support legislation that threatens to cut liberties. I did not grow up hunting so the need to hold Weirauch HW90 and chase deer is not part of my life – Sarah Palin will be shock – but it doesn´t mean that I will go around with banners pledging to restrict gun use. To the relief of the NRA.
A world that is more tolerant could be just as threatening as a world that is too conservative. Changes somehow seem to fit perfect in US politics. That a woman and a black man fought fiercely for the nomination at the most popular party in the US was good now, not 4 years ago. That gay marriage is being allowed in certain states and not in all of them is a good process now, not 10 years ago. That smarmy Republicans seem lost with their all white candidates with no woman representation is great now, not 8 years ago. Progress in certain liberties and some equal rights could not be brought all at once, that will shock the nation, that is why conservatives are always welcome to balance things.
You don´t want to see millions of bemused guys at home babysitting kids – when nature put woman in charge because they are better suit to do a greater job than man. It is a process in which woman by slow paces are working and not staying at home, or doing it after they took care of their kids until they were old enough to be left with more freedom. It is all about adapting the entire society to the new world, without creating a wave of failures that could threaten the country.
Conservatives in this new world must be consistent to the needs of the nation; if they want to strive against liberals they must embrace true values in a silky manner. They claim that a small government is needed and they run huge deficits, they want lower taxes and they cut them for the wealthy, they claim peace and they use aggressive rhetoric to run for war. People should show their backs to this type of wonky conservatism, mainly to those unprepared intellectuals that use moral authority as a way to push for a last century agenda, when the world is fast changing into a sole entity.
The new world has a US full of emigrants coming from Asia to Latin American, with various languages, different literature, cultural backgrounds that converge in new forms, mix of races that make us all look different and somehow closer. The GOP is an all white organization in a globalize world, is an old party with medieval ideas that caused the perfect storm in just 8 years in which their top representative hold the White House.
We need someone that says no to abortion, that says yes to gun rights, that opposes gay marriage, that wants to use force instead of diplomacy, that wants a tougher control on immigration. But these ideas should not be free tickets to get a free pass on terrible other ones that have nothing to do with moral views. You can feel that these concepts are profoundly wrong; you may even think that to follow this will be to highlight what you think is hubris. In the end you must admit that if there are no contra balances to liberalism it might mangle our society to the extent that it will underscore values that many have cling on to for so long.
Tax cuts on the wealthy, lower financial control over government agencies, deregulation on the market – to later end up giving $700 billion in aid – spending cuts in social areas to run huge deficits, appointing look alike people instead of prepare ones. All of this should not be compromised by the fact that we need conservatives to oppose liberal views.
All of these battles should be on the moral ground, we cannot tolerate that these issues threaten the entire world economy. Now we finally agree what I said a long time ago, Greenspan was the worst Fed chairman in history. Two bubbles under his tenure are just as bad as two recessions under George W. Bush.
A world view painted in the streets of New York was brought to its knees when no one trusted the American President and thought this was an isolated case in which Europe and Asia will not be affected.
There is no such thing as an all mighty nation that can sustain itself without having the rest of the world helping in. We learned that while Europeans claimed their system was sound, later their “sound” banks started falling off the cliff. No one can assume that their views were right about anything just about a month ago.
Things did change and were unnoticed, things surrounded us for a long time but we loath discuss them, or at least the intellectual powerful felt blinded by current events and missed the big picture.
We will emerge much different after Obama is the new US President and the war in Iraq comes finally to an end. When CEOs are forced to quit with no much compensation, when Republicans cling to their values without being idiotic about economic policies. When jingoism is a forgotten issue. The world will always look to balance itself, it will go to a middle ground, just like people always gather in big numbers, like cities are the center of an area, like big countries the center of a region. We all tend to go the “down town”, and so the world will always be there.
The old world view has no black presidents in white countries, no high ranked woman in Middle East ones, no white CEOs in Asian companies and the highfalutin attitude of leftist governments in Latin America still shines in the horizon.
The new world center is much more liberal than the past one, and the US government will be more European than the last. The new world view has not more discussions about these issues – they are settled – the new world view will talk about real problems and not about this old social transformation. We tried to muddle archaic conservatism but it will resurge much cleaner and powerful – to incite huff in many people.
As we have entered this new century we fill that the old one looks distant – passé – we can stand on Sussex Drive in Ottawa and watch people from all over the world walking indifferent of their race. All you care about is respecting the new land in which you live, all that matters is how prepare you are, how hard working you have become. You live in an accent tongue new land that somehow is more beautiful and diverse that anything seen in the past. Sadly the hapless Republican Party still lives in a white culture that is eerie of what lies ahead; their old world view is gone, they need to embrace the new world or become the minority party of the future.
lunes, 13 de octubre de 2008
lunes, 15 de septiembre de 2008
The Mystery of Unbroken Fears
It is sicken and comical to watch a candidate blatantly lie in front of millions with untroubled manner. This has happened before and will occur forever, until that is when the world is over.
What is troublesome is that even when they are wicked creatures who deceive for personal gain, they are just like lawyers, torturous and necessary. Like a story that is passé the old complain about politicians should come to reality. None of the prolific speech tellers are willing to rule for the common good if it interferences with his personal achievements.
But there is no other way to make things work, society is a moving entity that follows unknown patters that are God´s guess how they work. In any case, the citizen of a country is left to believe that change is always the solution for the problems that the country is facing. We know this much, everyone always offer change, that is because we never think that our country is working as good as it should be.
You may not care about a singular voting process in the middle of the world, but there is a remarkable aspect in the human sick that is best to describe.
Ecuador will go to the polls in a couple of weeks to vote for a referendum asking if the new constitution – written under the regime of Rafael Correa – should be approved. The fact that there is a voting on the constitution is pretty important – even so – it is heinous to branch it as the best we ever had. Some trouble appeared when questions rose that the text that was voted on the assembly floor was different from the one that will appear on the Yes or No voting.
Correa´s allies on the assembly admitted that the actual text have some differences from the original one, but called those mistakes of “good faith”. They parrot responses given by the President over and over until they get transformed into a well design script. This is not unique of Ecuador, most politicians will read somebody else’s speech making you thinking that they know it by rote.
Most of the process ended up as a bunk, we are still struggling to understand if the pros of the new constitution are better than the cons. Overall it seems to me that this is the least concern that we should have in our heads.
Personally I don´t trust democracy, I do feel the need of it, but we all face the mistakes done by a majority that not always takes elections as serious as they are – or to be even clearer are too dumb to think. The problem of democracy is that just like free market it will always lead to the right thing, but only after we all pay a high price.
In this particular voting process the flaws are basically the same ones that we had before. The “wise” Rafael Correa – who by the way is an economist – poor soul, talks about change, about a better future that will start as soon as the new constitution gets a Yes from the majority of voters. What is troublesome is that most of that is just talk, the fact is that you see the same old habits, only that this time he screams that he is not part of the old “policies”. Sounds familiar? Looks like someone has the same tactics that Karl Rove used for the G.O.P.
The situation is sometimes disturbing as it seems that the government flogged the constitution and then threw it to the people – some of them who barely understand that the future of the country is at stake. My response to the nay voters is that they are wasting their time making false assessment about articles in the constitution. The main problem surrounding this whole process is the process itself.
You can proclaim change when people are in woe and, lo, nothing seems to happen for better. That is a cheap strategy but it will certainly work, even more when people in distress are clinging to a leader that they see as honest and hardworking.
The resemblance of today´s division in Ecuador looks like what happened years ago in Venezuela, it puts a wanton weight over the few that acknowledge the dangers of letting the starving claim a better future. And it is not that the poor do not have the right to claim change, the problem is that it is easier for politicians to trick them. To me this is the case today.
Millions of grievous citizens are feeling the heavy investing that the government has put into infrastructure; roads have been built, schools improved, health care given. So if you are as the majority of Ecuadorians – poor – then you will be an ingrate if you voted No.
My particular position is that in some cases projects seem like profligate investments. I understand that investment is needed in poor areas as much as big buildings need to rise in big cities. What the government must do is to find balance between these parts; if you want to execute leverage you need that first. The country as a whole does not have a path to follow; we lack that distinctive get together to go to the moon theme, that open our market so we can manufacture everything that the world needs, that unite the continent so we will be stronger.
What I always grumble about is that good words written on a paper are not relevant to change, the dim future exasperate the brightest and hardest working people, they usually don´t benefit from a herd of delinquents that plague our government. Change is a cultural matter that starts with basic and unpopular measures. This will affect not only the pockets of the rich, but some benefits that the poor get. Medicine and education could not be taken away from people, and food to children should be provided by the government if necessary. Any other wickedness by the government may as well damage our free future.
We are not committed to a better future with the rest of the country, we face the same problems that Thomas L. Friedman and Paul Krugman entitle to the Bush administration for making people go out shopping instead of asking them to face the war with all the sacrifice needed. Our path is not limpid – not to the common citizens at least – it may be blight to some of us, but crystal clear to the dark Machiavellian advisors that Correa has. He appears talking from one non sequitur to another, in the end I even doubt the evidence and hope on a glimpse of light that never appears on the horizon.
We are facing a deep transformation that may start just like every other one done in the past, with flaws, corruption charges, a youth full of stoicism, personal attacks that end up on the opposition taking umbrage on Correa´s regular tasteless remarks. We hear the wail of the hunger and a hand willing to give them help. That is a strength that populist have, it is not fundamentally wrong, what complicates it is the fact that it violates the foundations of democracy and free market. Price control and other measures are not welcome in the long run, they help create black markets and distort the real output that the economy can achieve.
I don´t believe in a transcended transformation that cannot address the most underlying problems in this tumultuous times. You should not spend as if the price of oil will be over $140 a barrel forever – Ecuadorian oil prices are much lower – cause as it happens today is falling below the $100 mark. We need a fundamental transformation that focuses on what we do best and what we will do best. We have had more than enough constitutions to play with, now comes one more. Correa may have the charisma to blatantly lie without being caught, we may be so desperate to let that happened with no accountability. We sure missed another shot at creating a unique opportunity for our children. Shame on everyone that let this happen, mainly on the passive voices that watch change without knowing that change is not synonymous of better; change is just different and there are out there a millions ways to be different and get it wrong.
You can read the next constitution as much as you want, if we as a society are not willing to enforce it as we haven´t done before, we may need to make a better one in the next ten years. We are scornful citizens prompt to depression as we pull away from each other, and there are no signs of détente between the President that has polarized Ecuador – just like Chavez successfully did in Venezuela – and a weak opposition that sure can´t make their case right. Think again, this is not about a Yes or No on the ballot, it is about starting that “better” future with the wrong foot.
What is troublesome is that even when they are wicked creatures who deceive for personal gain, they are just like lawyers, torturous and necessary. Like a story that is passé the old complain about politicians should come to reality. None of the prolific speech tellers are willing to rule for the common good if it interferences with his personal achievements.
But there is no other way to make things work, society is a moving entity that follows unknown patters that are God´s guess how they work. In any case, the citizen of a country is left to believe that change is always the solution for the problems that the country is facing. We know this much, everyone always offer change, that is because we never think that our country is working as good as it should be.
You may not care about a singular voting process in the middle of the world, but there is a remarkable aspect in the human sick that is best to describe.
Ecuador will go to the polls in a couple of weeks to vote for a referendum asking if the new constitution – written under the regime of Rafael Correa – should be approved. The fact that there is a voting on the constitution is pretty important – even so – it is heinous to branch it as the best we ever had. Some trouble appeared when questions rose that the text that was voted on the assembly floor was different from the one that will appear on the Yes or No voting.
Correa´s allies on the assembly admitted that the actual text have some differences from the original one, but called those mistakes of “good faith”. They parrot responses given by the President over and over until they get transformed into a well design script. This is not unique of Ecuador, most politicians will read somebody else’s speech making you thinking that they know it by rote.
Most of the process ended up as a bunk, we are still struggling to understand if the pros of the new constitution are better than the cons. Overall it seems to me that this is the least concern that we should have in our heads.
Personally I don´t trust democracy, I do feel the need of it, but we all face the mistakes done by a majority that not always takes elections as serious as they are – or to be even clearer are too dumb to think. The problem of democracy is that just like free market it will always lead to the right thing, but only after we all pay a high price.
In this particular voting process the flaws are basically the same ones that we had before. The “wise” Rafael Correa – who by the way is an economist – poor soul, talks about change, about a better future that will start as soon as the new constitution gets a Yes from the majority of voters. What is troublesome is that most of that is just talk, the fact is that you see the same old habits, only that this time he screams that he is not part of the old “policies”. Sounds familiar? Looks like someone has the same tactics that Karl Rove used for the G.O.P.
The situation is sometimes disturbing as it seems that the government flogged the constitution and then threw it to the people – some of them who barely understand that the future of the country is at stake. My response to the nay voters is that they are wasting their time making false assessment about articles in the constitution. The main problem surrounding this whole process is the process itself.
You can proclaim change when people are in woe and, lo, nothing seems to happen for better. That is a cheap strategy but it will certainly work, even more when people in distress are clinging to a leader that they see as honest and hardworking.
The resemblance of today´s division in Ecuador looks like what happened years ago in Venezuela, it puts a wanton weight over the few that acknowledge the dangers of letting the starving claim a better future. And it is not that the poor do not have the right to claim change, the problem is that it is easier for politicians to trick them. To me this is the case today.
Millions of grievous citizens are feeling the heavy investing that the government has put into infrastructure; roads have been built, schools improved, health care given. So if you are as the majority of Ecuadorians – poor – then you will be an ingrate if you voted No.
My particular position is that in some cases projects seem like profligate investments. I understand that investment is needed in poor areas as much as big buildings need to rise in big cities. What the government must do is to find balance between these parts; if you want to execute leverage you need that first. The country as a whole does not have a path to follow; we lack that distinctive get together to go to the moon theme, that open our market so we can manufacture everything that the world needs, that unite the continent so we will be stronger.
What I always grumble about is that good words written on a paper are not relevant to change, the dim future exasperate the brightest and hardest working people, they usually don´t benefit from a herd of delinquents that plague our government. Change is a cultural matter that starts with basic and unpopular measures. This will affect not only the pockets of the rich, but some benefits that the poor get. Medicine and education could not be taken away from people, and food to children should be provided by the government if necessary. Any other wickedness by the government may as well damage our free future.
We are not committed to a better future with the rest of the country, we face the same problems that Thomas L. Friedman and Paul Krugman entitle to the Bush administration for making people go out shopping instead of asking them to face the war with all the sacrifice needed. Our path is not limpid – not to the common citizens at least – it may be blight to some of us, but crystal clear to the dark Machiavellian advisors that Correa has. He appears talking from one non sequitur to another, in the end I even doubt the evidence and hope on a glimpse of light that never appears on the horizon.
We are facing a deep transformation that may start just like every other one done in the past, with flaws, corruption charges, a youth full of stoicism, personal attacks that end up on the opposition taking umbrage on Correa´s regular tasteless remarks. We hear the wail of the hunger and a hand willing to give them help. That is a strength that populist have, it is not fundamentally wrong, what complicates it is the fact that it violates the foundations of democracy and free market. Price control and other measures are not welcome in the long run, they help create black markets and distort the real output that the economy can achieve.
I don´t believe in a transcended transformation that cannot address the most underlying problems in this tumultuous times. You should not spend as if the price of oil will be over $140 a barrel forever – Ecuadorian oil prices are much lower – cause as it happens today is falling below the $100 mark. We need a fundamental transformation that focuses on what we do best and what we will do best. We have had more than enough constitutions to play with, now comes one more. Correa may have the charisma to blatantly lie without being caught, we may be so desperate to let that happened with no accountability. We sure missed another shot at creating a unique opportunity for our children. Shame on everyone that let this happen, mainly on the passive voices that watch change without knowing that change is not synonymous of better; change is just different and there are out there a millions ways to be different and get it wrong.
You can read the next constitution as much as you want, if we as a society are not willing to enforce it as we haven´t done before, we may need to make a better one in the next ten years. We are scornful citizens prompt to depression as we pull away from each other, and there are no signs of détente between the President that has polarized Ecuador – just like Chavez successfully did in Venezuela – and a weak opposition that sure can´t make their case right. Think again, this is not about a Yes or No on the ballot, it is about starting that “better” future with the wrong foot.
lunes, 1 de septiembre de 2008
An Outstandingly Talented Candidate… that should have run against McCain
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.
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.
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.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)