Here are my Top 10 links from around the Internet at 10 to 12 pm, brought to you in association with New Zealand Mint for your reading pleasure.
I welcome your additions and comments below, or please send suggestions for Monday's Top 10 at 10 via email to bernard.hickey@interest.co.nz.
I'll pop any surplus suggestions I get into the comment stream.
1.Here's the problem - The Nation points to the end of globalisation because the consumption engine is broken in America.
It's every country for themselves in the Currency Wars.
This is today's must-read.
It shows that old thinking about globalisation is dying.
Even Andy Grove of Intel is disillusioned.
"I admire the Chinese for recognizing the world economy is still a jungle, despite all of its legal trappings," says Alan Tonelson, a conservative trade critic at the US Business and Industrial Council.
"But here's the problem. They don't seem to understand that unless the US economy recovers its financial and economic health, the entire world will come crashing down. The reason is, we won't be able to serve any longer as the import sponge that buys from everyone else."
We have reached the endpoint of globalization as we have known it. It cannot continue as before, because the United States is essentially tapped out. Goliath has fallen and cannot get up. Who will lend a hand?
Not China, obviously, but also not Japan and the Asian Tigers, or the European nations. All are dealing with their own problems. All but the smallest economies run perennial trade surpluses with the United States. Giving up some of those surpluses means surrendering some portion of domestic growth in order to stabilize the system. No one wants to go first. This is a dangerous impasse, the kind that can easily slip into a general unwinding—that is, depression—if not resolved smartly.
"The world is no longer in a common foxhole...but in many different foxholes," observes economist Paul McCulley of PIMCO, the world's largest bond house.
Japan and South Korea devalue their currencies to protect their exports (so has the United States). Brazil puts limits on capital inflows to stop foreign money from destabilizing its economy. Currency war is a surrogate for trade war, one of the few levers governments can still manipulate unilaterally.
2. Debt restructuring issues - Iceland is at the bleeding edge of the curve when it comes to dealing with the financial crisis. Here's some sobering detail from Bloomberg on what's going on oop north in the land of fire and ice.
Iceland’s first female Prime Minister, Johanna Sigurdardottir, will present what may be the world’s biggest debt relief proposal next week, risking alienating the International Monetary Fund and bank creditors. The 68-year-old is trying to prevent the 39 percent of households that are technically insolvent from losing their homes.
She was forced to back down from proposals requiring lenders to forgive $2 billion in mortgage debt -- 15 percent of Iceland’s economic output -- after pension funds blocked them. Now she’s looking for other ways to help families reeling from last year’s 20 percent drop in incomes.
The job has required “literally resurrecting Iceland from the ruins of collapse,” Sigurdardottir said in an e-mailed response to questions. “It’s demanded a new modus operandi -- new ethics.”
3. The Fed's backfiring blunderbuss - Mohamed El Irian from global bond fund Pimco nails the problems with the Fed's QE II programme.
Other government agencies are paralysed by real and perceived constraints, seemingly happy to retreat to the sidelines and let the Fed do all the heavy lifting. But liquidity injections and financial engineering are insufficient to deal with the challenges that the US faces. Without meaningful structural reforms, part of the Fed’s liquidity injection will leak right out of the US and result in yet another surge of capital flows to other countries.
The rest of the world does not need this extra liquidity, and this is where the second problem emerges. Several emerging economies, such as Brazil and China, are already close to overheating; and the eurozone and Japan can ill afford further appreciation in their currencies. Despite polite rhetoric to the contrary in the lead up to the Group of 20 leading economies summit in Korea this month, other countries are likely to counter what they view as an unnecessarily disruptive surge in capital flows caused by inappropriate and short-sighted American policy.
The result will be renewed currency tensions and a higher risk of capital controls and trade protectionism.
4. The 99ers - Many American unemployed people are nearing the end of their unemployment benefits after the requisite 99 weeks. Some are getting a bit nervous about what happens next. Here's Christian Science Monitor.
The 99ers are growing fast. Some 2 million to 4 million Americans have already exhausted their benefits, according to Michael Thornton, writer/editor of an online publication, the Rochester Unemployment Examiner.
This month, some 91,000 UI claimants join their ranks every week, he estimates. Many 99er activists aim to keep fighting for UI benefits until jobs start growing robustly. "We are desperate," says Mignon Veasley-Fields of Los Angeles, who exhausted her UI benefits in June. King says she became a "zealot for the unemployed" as an antidote to her previous "deep depression" caused by joblessness.
A former legal compliance officer at a San Diego mortgage-lending firm, she couldn't land any full-time work before her UI benefits ran out this March. "I said I'm not going down without a fight," she says. Last year, learning about the possibility of legislation extending unemployment benefits – what became Tier 3 and Tier 4 of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program – she got involved.
Her activism eventually led to her joining examiner.com to produce a blog, launch a blog-talk radio show, and create the website Jobless Unite Tier 5 to Survive!!!!, among other projects. "I am back to having a happy persona," she says. "Even though I'm scared to death, I am able to keep a joyous attitude, and through contact with others in my position, I can keep a perspective on how blessed I am."
5. The problem with Bank of America - Jonathan Weill from Bloomberg asks some uncomfortable questions about Bank of America.
The problem for anyone trying to analyze Bank of America's $2.3 trillion balance sheet is that it's largely impenetrable. Some portions, though, are so delusional that they invite laughter. Consider, for instance, the way the company continues to account for its acquisition of Countrywide Financial, the disastrous subprime lender at the center of the housing bust, which it bought for $4.2 billion in July 2008.
Here's how Bank of America allocated the purchase price for that deal. First, it determined that the fair value of the liabilities at Countrywide exceeded the mortgage lender's assets by $200 million. Then it recorded $4.4 billion of goodwill, a ledger entry representing the difference between Countrywide's net asset value and the purchase price. That's right. Countrywide's goodwill supposedly was worth more than Countrywide itself.
In other words, Bank of America paid $4.2 billion for the company, even though it thought the value there was less than zero. Since completing that acquisition, Bank of America has dropped the Countrywide brand. The company's home-loan division has reported $13.5 billion of pretax losses. Yet Bank of America still hasn't written off any of its Countrywide goodwill.
6. The battle of the Aussie banks - First it was the bigger than OCR rate hike. Now it's the unpaid tax. The battle between Australia's big four banks and politicians from both sides of politics is raging across the Tasman. Here's the latest from the SMH.
THE major banks managed to lower the proportion of tax they paid over the past year, with some, such as Westpac, paying just a fraction of the overall corporate tax rate.
The revelation is expected to reignite calls for a super profit-style tax across major banks, similar to a big bank tax levy which is being introduced across Britain, France and Germany.
The British tax scheme is forecast to raise tens of billions of pounds in additional revenue.
The calls come as shadow treasurer Joe Hockey yesterday pressed the opposition's political advantage in the bank row by proposing a private member's bill to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission further powers to investigate price signalling that ''leads to collusion and anti-competitive behaviour among the big banks''.
7 .Speed dating financial advisors - The Eureka Report picks out some astonishing stories about the 'soft dollar' commissions paid to Australian financial advisors, including tickets to Disneyland and 'speed dating' sessions for single financial advisors. Seen similar things here besides the usual golf trips to Fiji for finanancial advisors funnelling money into Bridgecorp.
# In November 2008, BT subsidised a “speed dating” function for single advisers in Queensland.
# Suncorp issued one lucky ANZ adviser special accommodation at SeaWorld in 2007; while another ANZ planner was given “tickets to Disneyland” in 2005.
8. Spectacularly irrelevant video with great NZ music - Here's a timelapse photography video with music from Nigel Stanford, one of the founders of TradeMe. HT Sam via Twitter.
9. Utterly irrelevant video - This is a legendary Kiwi music video from 1984 when I was young and cared more about these things. It's still hilarious. Elephunk in my soup.
10. Totally irrelevant video - Lady Gaga never did it like this. Good thing too.
44 Comments
Here's Harvard Economics professor Martin Feldstein at FT.com on QE II
The Federal Reserve’s proposed policy of quantitative easing is a dangerous gamble with only a small potential upside benefit and substantial risks of creating asset bubbles that could destabilise the global economy. Although the US economy is weak and the outlook uncertain, QE is not the right remedy.
A 20-basis-point reduction in mortgage rates would have little effect on homebuying at a time when house prices are again falling. The increase in banks’ liquidity would do nothing since banks already have massive excess reserves. Big corporations are sitting on vast amounts of cash. Small businesses that are not spending because they cannot get credit will not be helped, because the banks on which they depend have a shortage of capital.
The truth is there is little more that the Fed can do to raise economic activity. What is required is action by the president and Congress: to help homeowners with negative equity and businesses that cannot get credit, to remove the threat of higher tax rates, and reduce the out-year fiscal deficits. Any QE should be limited and temporary.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ba381d0-e6b5-11df-99b3-00144feab49a.html
cjeers
Bermard
"The truth is there is little more that the Fed can do to raise economic activity. What is required is action by the president and Congress: to help homeowners with negative equity and businesses that cannot get credit, to remove the threat of higher tax rates, and reduce the out-year fiscal deficits. Any QE should be limited and temporary."
I knew this was coming . LETS BAIL OUT HOME OWNERS WHO WERE BASICALLY GREEDY AND STUPID AND ACTED LIKE MORONS BY USING THEIR HOUSE LIKE AN ATM MACHINE!
If they do this then expect domestic terrorism to go ballistic because bailing out the haves (homes) and leaving the homeless/ renters/have nots to ROT who essentially behaved and did ALL the right things by not falling into the ponzi scheme for idiots will create a very dangerous president. Same here in NZ. Let the stupid fail!
In the wash-out from the mid-term elections , we have a grid-locked congress , which is a good thing for the US . Particularly so because Obama is a dictatorial president , unable to seek consensus with his opponents . When he gets off his ideological platform , and starts the work that needs to be done , to re-balance the economy , he may regain support in the polls .
The Daily Mail has noticed Britain's Zombie Households. HT Tristan via email.
Leading economist Danny Gabay warned that a full-scale recovery will not take place until banks tackle the problem of the families who took out loans far beyond their means.
The former Bank of England expert’s warning about the ‘zombie households’ which could be tipped into financial oblivion when interest rates rise were echoed by a series of finance experts last night.
But we don't have this sort of problem in Noddy...the poodle media said we didn't...and they must be right...right!
So who owes the 180 billion in residential mortgage debt....and the rest in credit card and car loan debts...and don't forget govt debt, which is your debt, because no way will the pollys pay.
No worries right...the bank economists have all said wonderful growth awaits round the corner...Key has promised the export sector will save the nation....ha.....and the banks and media are hard at it, flogging more debt into the residential property ponzi bubble that to be honest is all Noddy's economy amounts to with some sheep on top and Hobbits underneath eating milkpowder rusks.
The burning platform has some interesting stats on the growth of US military spending,. The chart is a cracker. HT Gertraud via email
And here's some useful charts on America's debt HT Gertraud.
The reason why we have had an almost unbelievably high standard of living over the past three decades is because we have piled up the biggest mountains of debt in the history of the world. Once upon a time the United States was the wealthiest country on the planet, but all of that prosperity was not good enough for us. So we started borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and we have now been living beyond our means for so long that we consider it to be completely normal.Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-of-the-debt-bubble-2010-11#ixzz14PH21peq
So when you borrow for 30 years....which pretty much destroys any credibility of neo-classical economics and right wing politics of course, how long does that take to pay back.
I cant see it being less than a decade....2 is more likely, so the US and therefore us are screwed for many years....and thats assuming a business as usual scenarion....which with Peak oil and BB retirements simply isnt the case.
Be afraid of your wallet, very afraid....
regards
The Nation points to the end of globalisation?
What a surprise. They have predicted the end of free markets and free trade since its first edition.
The “Vabanque-Strategy” of the Federal Reserve poses now a serious risk for the worldwide financial and economic stability.
Remember the 3rd of November 2010 - a day of world economic history !
..two interesting articles here:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-11/04/c_13591391.htm
http://www.thenation.com/article/155848/end-free-trade-globalization
I placed the same comment into the blog on another issue late last night, because it is a very important one, I do it again here.
In addition to above:
The weakening greenback has prompted warnings of a wave of protectionism and capital control measures by Asian nations to stave off so-called hot money, potentially inflaming tensions ahead of next week's Group of 20 summit in South Korea.
Xia Bin, a member of the Chinese central bank's monetary policy committee, branded the stimulus plan "abusive" and warned it could spark a new global downturn.
Looks like someone on Zero hedge had a bit of a Bernard Hickey moment
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-requiem-america
Sobering reading
From your link, Fred, and re your view on 'a house has terminal value on completion'.
"We found money where it did not really exist, such as in the delusional value of our homes. We lost patience. We had no discipline. We suspended logic. We rationalized that it was all okay because everyone else was doing it.
"
It's a fiat money scam. Housing was just the last bubble to be blown. Australia's foreign debt position is a surprise, how is that when they have been exporting minerals for yonks? The bankers got in and sold them deposits and took their promissary notes and bundled them up into securities (that are not supposedly allowed over there) and flicked them off.
I remember in the late '80's, when one of my colleagues came back from a posting in Europe excited about the new 'securitisation programmes' that he was going to introduce in Oz, and thinking " Isn't that just letting us sell the same debt, twice?". But then, it all made sense, at the time...
I have been trying to work out what has kept the system going for so long after the closing of the gold window in 1971 when the French wanted gold in exchange for the dollars. Just a little question that was bugging me. If it was a problem for the French back then, then what's kept them happy for so long since, what has been done to appease them. The answer is the Euro. The Euro is backed by US treasuries.
It's described in detail here https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4490468598422095060&postID=864… (if the link works and I'll past the relevant pieces here (Quoting FOFOA it's excellent stuff)
"Hello Derrick,
You asked: "I'm a bit lost on this point:
"run a balance of payments current account deficit to provide liquidity for the conversion of gold into US dollars."
Why must dollars flow out of America to carry on with the status quo at the time?
Why can't gold holders just sell their gold for dollars and the two quanitties switch hands amongst buyers and sellers? I don't understand why new dollars must be created (thus forcing them to engage in a trade deficit).
From 1933 until 1971 the US dollar outside of the United States had value from its being equal to 1/35th of an ounce of gold. In fact, dollars outside the U.S. were more valuable than dollars inside. They purchased more real goods than internal "fiat 33" dollars because they were "golden."
But the U.S. Treasury had most of the world's monetary gold. At the peak of Bretton Woods the U.S. had about 22,000 tonnes while all the other central banks only held about 8,000 tonnes combined.
Can you imagine (hypothetically) perfectly balanced trade, (no deficit or surplus)? That would mean a perfectly equal value of real goods flowing in and out of the U.S. No net gold flow in either direction would exist because the flow of real goods in either direction is perfectly balanced by the flow of goods in the other direction. Gold flows to balance (supplement) the flow of real goods. If you don't produce enough goods you ship some gold as well. Foreign central banks collect the excess dollars in their zone (when foreign exporters exchange them at the bank) and then those central banks either hold those dollars in reserve or cash them in for gold to balance their zone's trade surplus.
If the U.S. ran a trade surplus, if it moved from this (hypothetical) perfect balance into surplus territory, that would mean more real goods value flowing OUT of the U.S. than in. It would mean the U.S. was like China, making stuff for the rest of the world. All external dollars would be used to purchase this excess of U.S. exports abroad and the CB's would not accumulate ANY dollars. In fact, they would face a SHORTAGE of dollars (shortage of liquidity) and a DEMAND for dollars as people went into banks to BUY dollars to purchase U.S. exports.
So the foreign CB's would then have to buy more dollars from the U.S. with their meager gold stocks, $35 for every ounce of gold they shipped to the U.S. Treasury. Now remember, the U.S. already had more than 70% of the world's "official" gold. So how long do you think Bretton Woods would have lasted under this scenario? Until the U.S. had ALL the gold? Or would the U.S. trading partners have forced a revaluation of the gold so that it wouldn't run out so fast? And a revaluation of gold would have meant a DEVALUATION of the dollar!
So, in order to keep the dollar valued at 1/35th of an ounce of gold, to prevent a dollar devaluation, the U.S. had to run a trade deficit, so that more real goods flowed INTO the U.S. than out, and the outflow deficit could be supplemented by shipping gold to the foreign CB's. This is what Wikipedia means by, "run a balance of payments current account deficit to provide liquidity for the conversion of gold into US dollars." Of course this ended in 1971 for obvious reasons.
Continued...
November 2, 2010 10:39 PM
FOFOA said...But today, the U.S. still runs its deficit, shipping U.S. Treasury debt now instead of gold. Apparently Treasury debt never runs out, unlike gold. Therefore it never gets revalued upward like gold does. Instead it gets devalued downward once it exceeds a level that can be reasonably returned at present real goods prices.
The interesting thing about Freegold is that when gold floats in price to its fiat currency, it never runs out either. Kinda like Treasury debt, only without systemic shocks every few decades.
You see, the government IS the deficit for any currency zone. Governments spend money and import lots of stuff like oil and airplanes, but they don't create any export goods. So a currency zone with a really big government (read: deficit) that runs a really big trade surplus (read: China) must be keeping its citizens in poverty.
On the other hand, a currency zone that MUST run a trade deficit in order to keep its currency valuable as the global reserve currency can grow both a really big government AND keep its population living large. Strangely, this continued for the U.S. even after 1971. How could this be?
The reason it continued is that the shocks of the 1970's gave the world a glimpse of what a global economic failure might look like. So right around 1979 the European CB's decided to speed up the process of creating a backup system (the euro) to avoid future global economic failure. And in order to do so, they had to support the U.S. dollar in its reserve currency role until their backup was brought online. And since gold was no longer being shipped from the U.S. Treasury, these European CB's agreed to buy U.S. Treasury debt in lieu of gold, at least until they had their new backup system up and running.
This process was expected to take about 10 years, but it took twice that long, from 1979 until 1999. And while they knew it was quite wasteful of their local zone's economic efforts to support the dollar by buying paper promises, they made the judgment that this was better than the alternative: a dollar collapse without a backup system in place.
And by the time the euro finally rolled out, the Chinese had picked up the Treasury debt accumulation role, and the dollar's paper gold market had blossomed into its majestic fullness. Which brings us to the present.
Today the dollar's last two support structures, the Chinese fascination with official U.S. paper promises and the public's willingness to surrender physical gold in exchange for paper gold promises, appear to be contracting. Can they contract to zero smoothly? Or will we get a "shock" out of the blue? Did the U.S. gold stockpile contract to zero smoothly? Or did we get a Nixon shock out of the blue?
Sincerely,
FOFOA
November 2, 2010 10:43 PM"
Gordon Brown said the same....as did every other PM to keep their voters happy....so we need a new planet....because there isnt anywhere on this one to export to.
The only way I can see Obama doing this is cutting the value of the dollar in half....OK lets day he does that....then he has to rebuild American manufacturing and emply Americans BUT he has to then import raw materials from make believe places (OZ? I cant see it ramping up the rape taht quick if ever) which are now twice as expensive in USD terms using oil thats twice as expensive....and export them somewhere........
All the while every other country is trying to do the same thing....
Can no one else see thats impossible?
So the so called free trade agreements which I consider already licences for the US to rape us financially will be ramped up. So when Hillary pops over to sign an agreement it really means just a sign a blank cheque of NZ army personnel off to the next theatre of US war and another one to cripple our sovreignty so the US companies can charge what they like and make sure congress blocks anythign reciprocal so they make sure we cant get anything out of it....
So when will the likes of JK finally see that ......
regards
Maybe he'd just read this before writing!
"The combined REO (Real Estate Owned -(Foreclosed homes)) inventory for Fannie, Freddie and the FHA increased by ... 92% compared to Q3 2009 (year-over-year comparison)."
That's nearly 300,000 of the suckers they have, not to mention the banks....
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/11/fannie-freddie-fha-reo-inventory.html
What gets me in terms of globalisation is its for companies and not individuals or even nations....the so called consumer markets are usually rigged ie we pay more than we need to, companies get cheap labour from where ever its cheapest, often getting subsidies to set up that we the voter pay for, and get materials as cheaply as possible usually through rigged deals with the Govn of the day...Meanwhile when it comes to us having the right to easily move to where the pay is better, or shipping in cheaper items from abroad, or reducing our individual tax, companies and Govns try and stop it.....So for me globalisation is just more ways to screw us over and rob from our future...
regards
Globalisation enriches us all . Production naturally moves to the most efficient and cheapest zones . Which is why the current seat of socialism , the EU , continues to susidise their inefficient farmers , 'cos they cannot compete with NZ & Oz . The EU parliamentarians are thickos ! Their best ( cost efficient ) production ain't milk or meat . Consumers in the EU and farmers in NZ will be winners , if the EU governers get out of the way , and allow the free market to operate efficiently .
True globalisation would benefit us all . Shame that politicians choose to stuff it up .
Go Global : Ye haaaaaaaaaaaa !
The EU ( well France, mainly) subsidise their farmers because they can recall when their people nearly starved to death after/during WW2, and they swore they would never again allow their populace to be threatened with that fate by being dependent upon others for their food. Whether or not it make economic sense is immaterial, if you're starving.
Jog my memory , St. Nick , but didn't the war end in 1945 ? 65 years later and they're still using that as an excuse to subsidise their farmers ! And it was the same rational that England used in 1970 when she joined the EU , and turned her back on the commonwealth countries which had assisted supplying her needs after WWll ............ Pommie ingratitude !
I guess if ,as you say, production moves to the most efficient areas; it would be like us doing the milk and food growing, and the French sending us Peugots and Airbusses ( or is that Airbice?). If NZ/France have another Rainbow moment, and we stop sending milk, we can do without cars, but they can't do without food. They haven't forgotten that, even after all this time!
A gourmand such as yourself , would know that the high end of French food production is expensive , but sensational champagnes , red wines , cheeses and such . ........... But that is not the issue here . Why should European farmers get a free ride through life , at the tax-payers' expense ? Similarly with USA sheep producers . If they can't compete in a free market then they oughta be in some other crop , or some other industry entirely .
Just as an aside , France is the centre of the worlds scenters , the perfume industry , Chanel , Lancone , Hermes , Estee Lauder , Yves Saint Laurent , Christian Dior , Givenchy ............ to name but a few . How would they react to some country arbitrarily deciding to create and subsidise a fragrance industry of it's own , to compete directly with French parfumeries , on the world's markets .
We either embrace globalisation and free trade , or we shuffle back to the gulags with steven . Which will it be ?
I wish you hadn't mentioned bubbly; I was going to have a night off; anyway....It's all great in theory; but just have a look at what the States are doing, now. When push comes to shove, forget about the rules or what you've lectured other people to do. Globalisation is good for everyone, unless it's not for you; in which case, alter the rules a bit......that's it's flaw. It's kind of like going into business with a partner. 50/50. It works, until one of you ( usually, you!) finds out that it's really not that equally proportioned.
Now you're getting to the nub of the problem ! Meddling politicians , salving the souls of malcontents who can't cut it , in their industry . Washington is corrupted utterly by lobbyists .
Globalisation is not the problem . Lazy , greedy , incompetent voters and their leaders are .
Enjoy the bubbly . Me , I'm off the grog for 6 weeks ........... [ on a course of rabies shots ....... silly Gummy got caught up in a dog-fight .......... ahem ! ]
A third alternative - you could acquire some brain cells, and use them.
Steven isn't advocating the gulags, he (and anyone who can understand physics) is pointing out that that is where we will end up, if we keep on this path.
Some of us thing it's already too late, but that the only valid approach is the proactive one, regardless.
Sorry, it's nothing to do with globalisation, free trade, government expenditure, or any of the rest of the nonsense.
This is a case of no economic activity - none whatever - being able to be done without the expenditure of energy (and the using-up at an exponential rate, of finite resources).
This is a case of Thomas Malthus, Donella Meadows and M.King Hubbert, being right.
This is a case of us having hit the peak of energy supply rates, in 2005.
This is a case of the quality of energy diminishing, even as the volume will. Deep-water, sour crude. lignite, shale.....
Which leaves 'efficiencies' (and a side debate about whether that is the same as 'productivity'.
The info is all out there, GBH. Get with the programme. :)
It's not a case of agree or disagree, it's a case of physics, maths and fact.
And if I'm short on patience, it's becase continuance of BAU gives my kids a reduced and reducing chance of survival. Not wealth and cafe lattes, survival.
It just amazes me that so many folk took to 'economics' like they had hithertofore taken to religion - and how it brainwashed an era in exactly the same way.
It's not an 'opinion' that every economic transaction requires underwriting by energy, it's a fact, but you won't find that fact in any economic treatise.
It's not an opinion that money is a promisory note for goods and/or services to be obtained in the future, using resources from then. At an exponentially-increasing rate from a finte planet.
It's not an 'opinion' that we, despite our airs and graces (and high opinion of self) are still a species which lives, procreates, dies, and requires habitat conditions within certain parameters for continued survival.
Debate by all means, but please from the basis of facts....... :)
The facts are that growth within a finite system, has to peak at some point, and given that fact, the only important discussion is 'what to do about it".
Even the 'when' in unimportant, in comparison with that.
And the facts are simple there, to a certain extent: Less population, less consumption, localisation, recycling, staying withoin chemical limits.....
Globalisation enriches us all (yeah - talking to yourself Gummy) . Production naturally moves to the most efficient and cheapest zones.
Globalisation also leads to inequality and environmental problems. Often highly developed nations are using their power against others with unsustainable consequences.
A lot of work needs to be done to make globalisation - literally.
The way the world is going it does more harm, especially for minorities and the powerless
Production moves to the cheapest zones....you can be half as efficient as the main guy as long as you are 1/3rd the cost or less.... and/or zones with raw materials...
The US also subsidies it farmers....the main problem is or advantage to NZ is we can grow year round with a mild climate...on grass which is cheap, The Eu farmers cant compete even with subsidies....
Free markets is an oxy-moron....
Globalisation is dying....it relies on cheap transport fuel, which is no longer the case....we will be going back to locally produced...there is a trend for that and that should signal higehr emplyment which is a good thing for us.
regards
Efficiency can be a concatication of circumstances , as you suggest .
But globalisation , far from dying , is on the cusp of another leap forward . And how sweet it will be when the American model of how we should all behave will be challenged by the authoritarian economies of China and Russia .
Open your eyes Roger.
40 mil on foodstamps, a phoney war on drugs exporting misery to Mexico (see drugging America: A trojan horse), a phoney war on terrorism, agent orange, depleted uranium, rendition flights, that look on George Bush's face in the Michael Moore documentary on 9/11, highest incarceration rates inthe world, the tea party infiltrated and neutered, and a corrupt banking system.
There's hope, more Americans are seeing the truth, and yes life is still good for many. Have a read of Webster Tarpley's unaurthorised biography if you have time.
Got to agree Gummy Bear. Every time I go to Sky 34 there's plenty of sports action of Baseball and Football and the teams are playing to packed stadiums. So plenty people in the USA still doing ok, I suspect. There are some who aren't, but they've always been around.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.