South Korea and the global financial crisis
Wed, Dec 3 02:20 AM
The Republic of Korea (South Korea) has recently taken proactive measures to cope up with the implications of American financial crisis, which has become global in nature. It is said that all the countries which are closely linked with the American financial system are going to be severely affected by it. Even if Richard Murray, the IMF's Pacific region director, assures that South Korea is much better positioned to weather the current economic downturn, there are apprehensions expressed about the impact of crisis on South Korea.
A closer look at the South Korean economic fundamentals makes it obvious that there is more fiction and fewer facts in most of the formulations of doomsday sayers. It is necessary to keep economic fundamentals central to any predictions about the impact of this crisis on South Korea. Basically, some recent problems of the South Korean economy could be attributed to two other reasons, which have no direct correlations with the American financial crisis. The first is an unexpected surge of global oil prices in the mid-2008. Korean expenditure on the import of crude oil reached up to $17.7 billion and it got reflected in increasing current account deficit of the country. As of August 2008, the current account deficit of the country reached around $12.6 billion. However, after the price of crude oil has come down around 30%, there is a strong probability that the current account deficit of Korea would improve significantly. The second source of the problem is unreasonable doubts over the health of the Korean economy. Thus, it is important not to overlook the positive trends to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the crisis on South Korea.
It is inappropriate to understand the impact of present crisis on Korea by comparing it with the 1997 financial crisis as both are quite different in their origin and nature. Whereas, the 1997 crisis was a product of domestic financial mismanagement, the present crisis is evidently exogenous in nature. If we compare the economic indicators of South Korea during the 1997 crisis and now, it is obvious that both are quite different. In the first scenario, Korean foreign reserve was only $8.4 billion, but it has now climbed up to $240 billion. In 1997, the South Korean total external debt to foreign reserve was 1,957%, which is now 173% only. In addition, in the 1997 crisis, the South Korean Bank's Non-performing Loans (NPL) ratio was 6% which in now less than 0.6%. Unlike in the 1997 crisis, most of the economic fundamentals of the Korean economy are quite sound. Now, Korea has less than one third of its foreign loans as short-term and it has a comfortable $240 billion of foreign reserves to deal with any unforeseen situation.
On the basis of these strong fundamentals, it could be said that though South Korean economy would get affected by the American financial crisis, the effect could not be compared to the 1997 crisis. An export-led South Korean economy would undoubtedly face problem because of the shrinking American and European markets but the North America and EU constitute only 13.3% and 15.1% of the South Korean export market. In contrast, China, Asean, Japan and other countries constitute 22.1%, 10.4%, 7.1%, and 19.1% of Korean export market respectively. Furthermore, the basket of South Korean export is also quite diversified. In the wake of crisis, the South Korean export to the US and EU would get affected, but the crisis would propel South Korea to concentrate more on intra-regional trade and explore new export destinations. It is interesting to mention that the South Korean export to China has grown despite the recent slowdown of China's exports. The South Korean export to China expanded 33.7% in the second quarter of 2008. China has been working to boost its domestic demands and it would be a good opportunity for Korea to capture upcoming market in China. Recently, South Korea, without being unnecessary perturbed by the crisis, has set an ambitious target of increasing its exports to $500 billion by 2009.
The doubts about the South Korean external debt, banking and housing sectors are also not sustainable. For example, the external debt is around $420 billion but $152 billion of it is risk-free. Similarly, South Korean banking sector has moderate loan growth in 2008 with a continued low level of delinquency. Also, South Korean banks do not have currency mismatch problem which was there in the 1997 crisis and South Korean housing sector has maintained balanced growth rates supported by robust mortgage regulations in recent years.
When there is crisis of faith in market, genuine or imagined, it is the responsibility of the state to intervene and provide assurance about the economic health of the country. South Korean government has taken various proactive steps to curb potential negative fallouts of the crisis. On October 19, the go|||too long so did not bother.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Is the left just as Imperialistic as the neo-cons?
http://blog.seattlepi.com/davidhorsey/20鈥?/a>
Look at this leftist cartoon, which attacks the "evil" Muslims and the "wicked" Slavs as viciously as any of the neo-cons. Of course, the claim is that "women are oppressed" in these countries. It is linked to a column calling for a "Crusade" to "free" and "empower" women in these countries (presumably by destroying families, just as the feminists have done in our own country). In fact, it is arguable that the main reason why we are still in that pointless Afghan War is because it is a "Crusade" to "empower" the women of Afghanistan.
If these leftists weren't the historically ignorant Imperialists that they are, they wouldn't be using words like "Crusade" to call for even more Imperialism in the Middle East. If the "towelheads" find out, it might remind them of the real Crusades, where Europeans invaded the Middle East and massacred everybody in their path, whether (Eastern) Christian, Jew ("Christ-killer"), or Muslim ("Saracen"). Eventually, of course, the barbarian Crusaders became somewhat civilized and took back many aspects of Islamic civilization (and many lost classics of Greco-Roman civilization that the Arabs had preserved).
Actually, what these leftists are advocating bears more resemblance to the "White man's burden" than anything else. This was the justification used for Imperialism at the turn of the 20th century.
While I'm sure that the cultures of the Islamic world and of Eastern Europe have their flaws, ours has just as many flaws. The cartoon I linked to labels Sudan the "genital mutilation capitol of Africa," but it ignores the fact that the USA is the "genital mutilation capitol of North America" (most newborn boys in the USA are victims of male genital mutilation, although there is a proposal to ban this practice in San Francisco). It accuses Iran of "stoning women" for 3000 years, but I think Iran also stones men (this seems to me to be alot more fair than our double standard of criminal justice where the women rarely get equal punishment for their crimes). Allegedly, "sex slavery" thrives in Eastern Europe, but I'm pretty sure that they are conflating voluntary capitalistic acts (prostitution) with slavery (I have noticed that the "human trafficking" hysterics combine the anti-prostitution fanaticism with anti-immigrant bigotry). Our own country deprives men of equal rights and treats us as second class citizens (of course, most men in the USA are either unaware of this or support this state of affairs, just as most women in the Islamic world support the current state of affairs there).
We are also facing a fiscal crisis. Our national debt is over 100% of GDP and our deficit is $1.6 trillion a year and growing (the administration's predictions for 2012 and onward assume record levels of revenue growth in the next few years). The state governments are broke, just like the federal government. We can't even afford to pay the "unfunded liabilities" for old-age entitlements (Social Security and Medicare), let alone the bipartisan foreign policy of Imperialism. This fact trumps all of the arguments for continued Imperialism.
Shouldn't we reject the Imperialists of both the left and the right and try to fix our own problems before we go around trying to "fix" the problems of countries on the other side of the world?|||Yes they are. But their sheep followers will only tell you republicans are when your source and other facts prove that both parties are|||There really is no left or right anymore, there are two parties whose Representatives play both sides but at the end of the day report to the same corporations. The rest is theater to keep US in the game, paying taxes and supporting the shift to globalism, and government of the corporations for the corporations.|||You mean like Obama meeting with the UN to discuss plans for war against the Libyan government?
Look at this leftist cartoon, which attacks the "evil" Muslims and the "wicked" Slavs as viciously as any of the neo-cons. Of course, the claim is that "women are oppressed" in these countries. It is linked to a column calling for a "Crusade" to "free" and "empower" women in these countries (presumably by destroying families, just as the feminists have done in our own country). In fact, it is arguable that the main reason why we are still in that pointless Afghan War is because it is a "Crusade" to "empower" the women of Afghanistan.
If these leftists weren't the historically ignorant Imperialists that they are, they wouldn't be using words like "Crusade" to call for even more Imperialism in the Middle East. If the "towelheads" find out, it might remind them of the real Crusades, where Europeans invaded the Middle East and massacred everybody in their path, whether (Eastern) Christian, Jew ("Christ-killer"), or Muslim ("Saracen"). Eventually, of course, the barbarian Crusaders became somewhat civilized and took back many aspects of Islamic civilization (and many lost classics of Greco-Roman civilization that the Arabs had preserved).
Actually, what these leftists are advocating bears more resemblance to the "White man's burden" than anything else. This was the justification used for Imperialism at the turn of the 20th century.
While I'm sure that the cultures of the Islamic world and of Eastern Europe have their flaws, ours has just as many flaws. The cartoon I linked to labels Sudan the "genital mutilation capitol of Africa," but it ignores the fact that the USA is the "genital mutilation capitol of North America" (most newborn boys in the USA are victims of male genital mutilation, although there is a proposal to ban this practice in San Francisco). It accuses Iran of "stoning women" for 3000 years, but I think Iran also stones men (this seems to me to be alot more fair than our double standard of criminal justice where the women rarely get equal punishment for their crimes). Allegedly, "sex slavery" thrives in Eastern Europe, but I'm pretty sure that they are conflating voluntary capitalistic acts (prostitution) with slavery (I have noticed that the "human trafficking" hysterics combine the anti-prostitution fanaticism with anti-immigrant bigotry). Our own country deprives men of equal rights and treats us as second class citizens (of course, most men in the USA are either unaware of this or support this state of affairs, just as most women in the Islamic world support the current state of affairs there).
We are also facing a fiscal crisis. Our national debt is over 100% of GDP and our deficit is $1.6 trillion a year and growing (the administration's predictions for 2012 and onward assume record levels of revenue growth in the next few years). The state governments are broke, just like the federal government. We can't even afford to pay the "unfunded liabilities" for old-age entitlements (Social Security and Medicare), let alone the bipartisan foreign policy of Imperialism. This fact trumps all of the arguments for continued Imperialism.
Shouldn't we reject the Imperialists of both the left and the right and try to fix our own problems before we go around trying to "fix" the problems of countries on the other side of the world?|||Yes they are. But their sheep followers will only tell you republicans are when your source and other facts prove that both parties are|||There really is no left or right anymore, there are two parties whose Representatives play both sides but at the end of the day report to the same corporations. The rest is theater to keep US in the game, paying taxes and supporting the shift to globalism, and government of the corporations for the corporations.|||You mean like Obama meeting with the UN to discuss plans for war against the Libyan government?
Is this why the Federal Reserve won't say where the $10 trillion went?
.... to foreign governments....at your risk and peril?
Unbelievable .. but it could explain why the Federal Reserve will not disclose the recipients of the approximately $10 trillion it has "loaned" over the past 18 months
See this article from Huffington today
"US Injecting Billions into Foreign Central Banks"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17鈥?/a>
some quotes from the article (capitalization added for emphasis)
"For more than a year, the U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE System has been increasingly ACTING AS THE WORLD'S CENTRAL BANK, injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign government treasuries in an effort to increase liquidity in those countries.
THE FOREIGN CENTRAL BANKS HAVE USED THE U.S. CURRENCY TO BAIL OUT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THEIR BORDERS. THE FED PROGRAM LINKS ITS BALANCE SHEET DIRECTLY TO THE FATES OF FOREIGN CENTRAL BANKS AT A TIME WHEN THEY'RE ON THE ROPES.
THE PROGRAM HAS SO FAR GONE UNREPORTED IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA and is a major expansion of Federal Reserve involvement in the global economy. It represents a stark break from the prior role of the Fed, moving it into territory more traditionally occupied by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The program puts both the Fed and the foreign central banks at increased risk. If the bailed-out banks can't repay the loans, the foreign central bank is still on the hook to the Fed. It would have to raise the money by selling debt -- which most Europeans are finding difficult today -- or raise taxes or cut spending, actions that further exacerbate the economic crisis. OR, THE FOREIGN CENTRAL BANK COULD DEFAULT, LEAVING THE U.S. HOLDING A BAG OF FOREIGN CURRENCY OF PLUMMETING VALUE.
THE U.S. TAXPAYER HAS ALSO BAILED OUT FOREIGN BANKS INDIRECTLY BY PUMPING BILLIONS INTO AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP, which announced Sunday that it had forwarded that cash to counterparties that include foreign banks such as Societe Generale, Deutsche Bank, Calyon, Credit Suisse, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays.
(end of quote) 鈥lick the link.
For a breakdown of the approximately $10 trillion the Fed has "loaned", see this recent article from Bloomberg
U.S. Bailout, Stimulus Pledges Total $11.6 Trillion (Table)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=n鈥?/a>|||Exactly my Dear, they have to protect the owners. lol
Thanks for this outstanding post.
Regards.|||Thank You, I'm truly honored.
Regards.
|||Anybody with a grain of sense will take out all their savings and either buy gold or if they have enough money, a small holding and start growing their own food.
This is the beggining of the end, people, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.|||Man, that is ridiculous. The past leader of this country brought us down for 8 years, and now the new Leader is bringing us down. When will American learn who to vote for? Ron Paul!!|||I think it's not just the U.S. who has that kind of problem.Come to think of it ;how much more if your country belongs to the third world who has a very low GDP and value of their foreign money. Don't you think U.S. is still lucky compare to this poor countries?! Open your eyes to the most deprest people of the world, you will see the TRUTH behind of it all.
Unbelievable .. but it could explain why the Federal Reserve will not disclose the recipients of the approximately $10 trillion it has "loaned" over the past 18 months
See this article from Huffington today
"US Injecting Billions into Foreign Central Banks"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17鈥?/a>
some quotes from the article (capitalization added for emphasis)
"For more than a year, the U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE System has been increasingly ACTING AS THE WORLD'S CENTRAL BANK, injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign government treasuries in an effort to increase liquidity in those countries.
THE FOREIGN CENTRAL BANKS HAVE USED THE U.S. CURRENCY TO BAIL OUT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THEIR BORDERS. THE FED PROGRAM LINKS ITS BALANCE SHEET DIRECTLY TO THE FATES OF FOREIGN CENTRAL BANKS AT A TIME WHEN THEY'RE ON THE ROPES.
THE PROGRAM HAS SO FAR GONE UNREPORTED IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA and is a major expansion of Federal Reserve involvement in the global economy. It represents a stark break from the prior role of the Fed, moving it into territory more traditionally occupied by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The program puts both the Fed and the foreign central banks at increased risk. If the bailed-out banks can't repay the loans, the foreign central bank is still on the hook to the Fed. It would have to raise the money by selling debt -- which most Europeans are finding difficult today -- or raise taxes or cut spending, actions that further exacerbate the economic crisis. OR, THE FOREIGN CENTRAL BANK COULD DEFAULT, LEAVING THE U.S. HOLDING A BAG OF FOREIGN CURRENCY OF PLUMMETING VALUE.
THE U.S. TAXPAYER HAS ALSO BAILED OUT FOREIGN BANKS INDIRECTLY BY PUMPING BILLIONS INTO AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP, which announced Sunday that it had forwarded that cash to counterparties that include foreign banks such as Societe Generale, Deutsche Bank, Calyon, Credit Suisse, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays.
(end of quote) 鈥lick the link.
For a breakdown of the approximately $10 trillion the Fed has "loaned", see this recent article from Bloomberg
U.S. Bailout, Stimulus Pledges Total $11.6 Trillion (Table)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=n鈥?/a>|||Exactly my Dear, they have to protect the owners. lol
Thanks for this outstanding post.
Regards.|||Thank You, I'm truly honored.
Regards.
Report Abuse
|||Anybody with a grain of sense will take out all their savings and either buy gold or if they have enough money, a small holding and start growing their own food.
This is the beggining of the end, people, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.|||Man, that is ridiculous. The past leader of this country brought us down for 8 years, and now the new Leader is bringing us down. When will American learn who to vote for? Ron Paul!!|||I think it's not just the U.S. who has that kind of problem.Come to think of it ;how much more if your country belongs to the third world who has a very low GDP and value of their foreign money. Don't you think U.S. is still lucky compare to this poor countries?! Open your eyes to the most deprest people of the world, you will see the TRUTH behind of it all.
Is history repeating itself?
In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. While Great Britain's maritime power and its far-flung empire had propelled it to a dominant position among the world's industrialized nations, only the United States challenged Argentina for the position of the world's second-most powerful economy.
It was blessed with abundant agriculture, vast swaths of rich farmland laced with navigable rivers and an accessible port system. Its level of industrialization was higher than many European countries: railroads, automobiles and telephones were commonplace.
In 1916, a new president was elected. Hip贸lito Irigoyen had formed a party called The Radicals under the banner of "fundamental change" with an appeal to the middle class.... See More
Among Irigoyen's changes: mandatory pension insurance, mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income housing construction to stimulate the economy. Put simply, the state assumed economic control of a vast swath of the country's operations and began assessing new payroll taxes to fund its efforts.
With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs, the government's payouts soon became overly generous. Before long its outlays surpassed the value of the taxpayers' contributions. Put simply, it quickly became under-funded, much like the United States ' Social Security and Medicare programs.
The death knell for the Argentine economy, however, came with the election of Juan Per贸n. Per贸n had a fascist and corporatist upbringing; he and his charismatic wife aimed their populist rhetoric at the nation's rich.
This targeted group "swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated."
Under Per贸n, the size of government bureaucracies exploded through massive programs of social spending and by encouraging the growth of labor unions.
High taxes and economic mismanagement took their inevitable toll even after Per贸n had been driven from office. But his populist rhetoric and "contempt for economic realities" lived on. Argentina's federal government continued to spend far beyond its means.
Hyperinflation exploded in 1989, the final stage of a process characterized by "industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on increased wages, and growing state intervention in the economy..."
The Argentinian government's practice of printing money to pay off its public debts had crushed the economy. Inflation hit 3000%, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic . Food riots were rampant; stores were looted; the country descended into chaos.
And by 1994, Argentina's public pensions -- the equivalent of Social Security -- had imploded. The payroll tax had increased from 5% to 26%, but it wasn't enough. In addition, Argentina had implemented a value-added tax (VAT), new income taxes, a personal tax on wealth, and additional revenues based upon the sale of public enterprises. These crushed the private sector, further damaging the economy.
A government-controlled "privatization" effort to rescue seniors' pensions was attempted. But, by 2001, those funds had also been raided by the government, the monies replaced by Argentina's defaulted government bonds.
By 2002, "...government fiscal irresponsibility... induced a national economic crisis as severe as America's Great Depression."
In 1902 Argentina was one of the world's richest countries. Little more than a hundred years later, it is poverty-stricken, struggling to meet its debt obligations amidst a drought.
We've seen this movie before. The current populist plans can't possibly work, because government bankrupts everything it touches. History teaches us that this new ObamaCare and unfunded entitlement programs will be utter, complete disasters.
Today's politicians are guilty of more than stupidity; they are enslaving future generations to poverty and misery. And they will be long gone when it all implodes. They will be as cold and dead as Juan Per贸n when the piper must ultimately be paid.|||I believe you are correct. Our train began it's collision course with the formation of our central bank in 1913. We are in the latter stages. There is a lot to say on this but there are some videos that explain this so well. watch these if you can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7s鈥?/a>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdb鈥?/a>
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=鈥?/a>|||Okay, we get it . Bush was an Angel sent from Heaven.
Truthfully, BOTH Obama AND Bush suck.
Both of them.
BOTH.|||Of course, but what can you expect? Today politics is all about popularity, or who looks the best. Its how Obama won the election. He used tactics like powerful speeches to inspire people and he made too many promises that he could not keep. I mean the American people base so much off of the looks and all the fru fru that politicians offer when the American public needs less looks and more facts. But today that might not just be possible.|||as far as Argentina goes they cant be a case study of either capitalism or socialism because both have failed mainly because when Argentina changes political systems they go too far right or too far left. Basically what im saying is you have to find a middle ground and they never do.
that being said you could compare Obama to Peron|||I think people are over-exaggerating with Obama. Is he a good president? No, but neither was Bush and he actually got us in war. Obama just has crappy plans. I think the right-wing is trying to hard to "get back" at the lefties for criticizing the right wingers when most of the country hated Bush
It was blessed with abundant agriculture, vast swaths of rich farmland laced with navigable rivers and an accessible port system. Its level of industrialization was higher than many European countries: railroads, automobiles and telephones were commonplace.
In 1916, a new president was elected. Hip贸lito Irigoyen had formed a party called The Radicals under the banner of "fundamental change" with an appeal to the middle class.... See More
Among Irigoyen's changes: mandatory pension insurance, mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income housing construction to stimulate the economy. Put simply, the state assumed economic control of a vast swath of the country's operations and began assessing new payroll taxes to fund its efforts.
With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs, the government's payouts soon became overly generous. Before long its outlays surpassed the value of the taxpayers' contributions. Put simply, it quickly became under-funded, much like the United States ' Social Security and Medicare programs.
The death knell for the Argentine economy, however, came with the election of Juan Per贸n. Per贸n had a fascist and corporatist upbringing; he and his charismatic wife aimed their populist rhetoric at the nation's rich.
This targeted group "swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated."
Under Per贸n, the size of government bureaucracies exploded through massive programs of social spending and by encouraging the growth of labor unions.
High taxes and economic mismanagement took their inevitable toll even after Per贸n had been driven from office. But his populist rhetoric and "contempt for economic realities" lived on. Argentina's federal government continued to spend far beyond its means.
Hyperinflation exploded in 1989, the final stage of a process characterized by "industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on increased wages, and growing state intervention in the economy..."
The Argentinian government's practice of printing money to pay off its public debts had crushed the economy. Inflation hit 3000%, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic . Food riots were rampant; stores were looted; the country descended into chaos.
And by 1994, Argentina's public pensions -- the equivalent of Social Security -- had imploded. The payroll tax had increased from 5% to 26%, but it wasn't enough. In addition, Argentina had implemented a value-added tax (VAT), new income taxes, a personal tax on wealth, and additional revenues based upon the sale of public enterprises. These crushed the private sector, further damaging the economy.
A government-controlled "privatization" effort to rescue seniors' pensions was attempted. But, by 2001, those funds had also been raided by the government, the monies replaced by Argentina's defaulted government bonds.
By 2002, "...government fiscal irresponsibility... induced a national economic crisis as severe as America's Great Depression."
In 1902 Argentina was one of the world's richest countries. Little more than a hundred years later, it is poverty-stricken, struggling to meet its debt obligations amidst a drought.
We've seen this movie before. The current populist plans can't possibly work, because government bankrupts everything it touches. History teaches us that this new ObamaCare and unfunded entitlement programs will be utter, complete disasters.
Today's politicians are guilty of more than stupidity; they are enslaving future generations to poverty and misery. And they will be long gone when it all implodes. They will be as cold and dead as Juan Per贸n when the piper must ultimately be paid.|||I believe you are correct. Our train began it's collision course with the formation of our central bank in 1913. We are in the latter stages. There is a lot to say on this but there are some videos that explain this so well. watch these if you can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7s鈥?/a>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdb鈥?/a>
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=鈥?/a>|||Okay, we get it . Bush was an Angel sent from Heaven.
Truthfully, BOTH Obama AND Bush suck.
Both of them.
BOTH.|||Of course, but what can you expect? Today politics is all about popularity, or who looks the best. Its how Obama won the election. He used tactics like powerful speeches to inspire people and he made too many promises that he could not keep. I mean the American people base so much off of the looks and all the fru fru that politicians offer when the American public needs less looks and more facts. But today that might not just be possible.|||as far as Argentina goes they cant be a case study of either capitalism or socialism because both have failed mainly because when Argentina changes political systems they go too far right or too far left. Basically what im saying is you have to find a middle ground and they never do.
that being said you could compare Obama to Peron|||I think people are over-exaggerating with Obama. Is he a good president? No, but neither was Bush and he actually got us in war. Obama just has crappy plans. I think the right-wing is trying to hard to "get back" at the lefties for criticizing the right wingers when most of the country hated Bush
Please I need help with my HW?
Please read and let me know how you would analyze this article:The Water Crisis: Analysis and Proposals
By Celine Tan
Water and sanitation is the first of five priority action areas under the
WEHAB plan for the post-WSSD implementation of sustainable development.
The challenge of providing safe and clean water and sanitary conditions for
an increasing world population, in the face of rising inequities, is
phenomenal.
Forty percent of the world’s population, in 80 countries, currently suffer
from serious water shortages. A billion people worldwide lack access to
safe drinking water and 2.4 billion people lack access to adequate
sanitation (Global Economic Outlook 2002).
Yet, the biggest threat to universal access to clean water and adequate
sanitation is not mother nature but corporate globalisation. Privatisation
of water is aggressively exported to the developing world under the rubric
of poverty reduction and debt relief strategies, free trade and economic
development. By turning a scarce resource into an economic commodity, the
world’s economic leaders and policy planners claim that existing water
resources can be managed and consumed efficiently in accordance with
competitive market principles. These claims are not only misguided, they
are deceitful. There are two myths being projected: first, that placing a
price on water will encourage conservation and wise water consumption.
Secondly, that market competition will lead to more consumer choice and
better services. In reality, the water sector is monopolistic when placed
in the hands of the market. It is thus alarming that the commodification of
water resources is now heralded as the answer to the world’s water woes.
Monopoly and subsidies for corporations
Water is a US$400 billion global business, controlled by a handful of
European transnational companies and consortiums, namely French
multinationals Vivendi and Suez Lyonnaise, SAUR and British water companies
Thames Water, Anglia Water and United Utilities. The global drive towards
privatisation of water services is thus pursued not by a collective of
democratically elected governments acting in the interest of the world’s
population, but by a cartel of corporations motivated by profit and market
conquest.
To make matters worse, these companies are subsidised by their governments
(and invariably their taxpayers) through support from domestic export
credit agencies, and by multilateral development banks, such as the World
Bank and the African Development Bank. They are also subsidised by
developing countries who raise credit from international financial
institutions to upgrade their water systems prior to private takeover. This
corporate subsidy comes at the expense of consumers, most of them in
developing countries, who are made to pay for what is a necessity of life.
For the poor this means no access to water.
Additional loans to facilitate the privatisation process are raised by
developing country governments from multilateral and bilateral sources.
Often, these loans are also used to finance the creation of an ‘enabling
environment’ for foreign water and wastewater investors. This includes the
drafting of local investor protection legislation to guard against
re-nationalisation of the water industry and to provide for hefty
compensation for any attempt to renege (for good reasons) against the
privatisation contracts.
In many cases, corporate access to a developing country’s water system is
paved by a loan or debt relief conditionality requiring the poor or
indebted country to privatise its water and sanitation services. For
example, the IMF insisted that Tanzania privatise its Dar es Salaam Water
and Sewerage Authority (DAWSA) as a condition of its debt relief package
under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative.
Fallacy of privatisation
Experience shows that the privatisation of water services cannot ensure
universal delivery of safe water and efficient sanitation. Privatisation
imposes additional financial obligations on governments. They may have to
bail out failed privatisation project, and also shoulder the costly legal
risks of rescinding a privatisation contract with a wealthy transnational,
even if the company’s performance is unsatisfactory. Argentina, Hungary and
Bolivia have found that the legal claims for compensation by private water
companies in Tucuman, Szeged and Cochabamba respectively, have made
terminating contracts prohibitively expensive.
The dominance of foreign water companies and the liberalised investment
climate - mostly facilitated by structural adjustment, and now under trade
agreements including those under the WTO Ð in developing countries will
also ensure that a large portion of profits from water privatisation will
not accrue to the countries themselves but are repatriated abroad instead.
The imposition of full-cost water pricing as a result of privatisation will
only deprive more and more people of access to clean and safe water by
forcing poor communities to seek alternative sources of water for
consumption, such as untreated well water and water from sewage-ridden
urban rivers.
Forced upon rich and poor, consumers and industrial producers, similar
rates for water use will also result in greater income disparity and deeper
social cleavages, leading to higher risks of civil unrest. In 2000, martial
law was declared in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba as a result of
city-wide riots precipitated by high water prices. A private consortium led
by International Water doubled the water prices to city residents. Water
bills went up by 35% and some, twice that. The World Bank supported
full-cost water pricing and prohibited any use of its structural adjustment
loans to subsidise water services for the poor.
Future fears and WSSD outcomes
There is no agreement on the text in the WSSD Draft Plan of Implementation
that commits governments to supporting the UN Millennium Development Goal
of halving, by 2015, the proportion of people unable to reach, or afford,
safe drinking water and access improved sanitation (paragraphs 7 and 7[alt]).
However, the most pressing concerns over universal coverage of water and
sanitation services are not expressed in these bracketed paragraphs.
Rather, they are reflected in the general lack of political will
demonstrated by developed countries to address the systemic issues leading
to a crisis of sustainable development in the south, and the alarming
emphasis placed on public-private partnership funding and implementation of
sustainable development programmes. The relinquishing of responsibility by
developed countries is marked by their reluctance to commit to specific
disbursements of ODA and by repeated references to voluntary partnerships
and initiatives as a means of financing WSSD programmatic outcomes.
In the absence of firm commitments by governments, Type II partnerships on
water and sanitation services will only increase private sector involvement
in this crucial area. The private sector is already identified as a key
implementer of the ‘Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) for All
Initiative’ involving 28 countries, six UN agencies, the World Bank, and
the Asian and African Development Banks.
Another major threat to universal access to water and sanitation is
liberalisation under the WTO’s rules. Although Member countries have the
right to liberalise at their own pace, and even choose not to open up a
sector under the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), there
is tremendous pressure especially on developing countries to liberalise.
Thus in the ongoing negotiations at the WTO, developed countries are
submitting extensive ÒrequestsÓ that seek access to every sector in the
developing world, including water services and sanitation.
If developing countries succumb, privatisation of water services initiated
under World Bank and IMF structural adjustment programmes could become
permanent under the binding rules of the WTO. Once a country is locked into
the GATS regime, the right of its government to regulate liberalized
service sectors will be diminished, paving the way for foreign
transnationals to enter the domestic market. Any attempt to reverse the
situation would be subject to WTO disciplines and penalties.
Any real effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goal must therefore
include commitments to review loan conditionalities that impose
privatisation and countries must not be pressured to offer water services
under GATS liberalisation. Essential services should be exempted from GATS.
Conclusion
Privatisation does not address the deeper economic and ecological issues of
water shortages. Questions of why there are water shortages in countries
not under water stress are not resolved by shifting responsibility of
service provision to private companies. Water management and water
distribution are also key factors in determining water supply and universal
coverage. Until and unless rich countries fulfil their commitment to
provide resources for developing countries to build solid, cost-effective
water delivery systems which support the needs of the world’s population
equitably and ecologically, the water woes of the world will not go away.
At the same time, all governments need to recognise and support the
diversity and replication of community water management systems and
practices. These have proven in many countries to be the most sustainable
approach to rural water management for rural populations. The WSSD process
and the last 10 years of the work of the CSD have called for good and best
practices in sustainable development. However, where water resources are
concerned the trend and emphasis are privatisation which has proven
destructive.
Firm commitments must be made at the WSSD to reverse the trend of corporate
takeover in the water and sanitation sector, rather than to accelerate the
process of privatisation and corporate monopoly. Undermining the sovereign
power of governments to regulate supply of water in their countries and
passing the bucket onto private transnationals to steward the world’s water
resources would probably be a most anti-development and anti-ecological step.|||yikes thats alot to type ummm ask a friend whos got the same homework and brain storm or whatever its a waste of time putting that on this website coz no one is gonna read all of that|||Yo you really think that someone is gonna read that **** it is way too long for one time do your homework it probbably took you more time typing this is you woyuld have used the time than u could have just used your brain%26gt; daaaaa
|||No way am I going to read all that and do your homework for you!|||its pretty ok|||Grow up and do your own homework.|||by the time you typed all of that, you could have actually formulated an opinion on your own and finished your homework
By Celine Tan
Water and sanitation is the first of five priority action areas under the
WEHAB plan for the post-WSSD implementation of sustainable development.
The challenge of providing safe and clean water and sanitary conditions for
an increasing world population, in the face of rising inequities, is
phenomenal.
Forty percent of the world’s population, in 80 countries, currently suffer
from serious water shortages. A billion people worldwide lack access to
safe drinking water and 2.4 billion people lack access to adequate
sanitation (Global Economic Outlook 2002).
Yet, the biggest threat to universal access to clean water and adequate
sanitation is not mother nature but corporate globalisation. Privatisation
of water is aggressively exported to the developing world under the rubric
of poverty reduction and debt relief strategies, free trade and economic
development. By turning a scarce resource into an economic commodity, the
world’s economic leaders and policy planners claim that existing water
resources can be managed and consumed efficiently in accordance with
competitive market principles. These claims are not only misguided, they
are deceitful. There are two myths being projected: first, that placing a
price on water will encourage conservation and wise water consumption.
Secondly, that market competition will lead to more consumer choice and
better services. In reality, the water sector is monopolistic when placed
in the hands of the market. It is thus alarming that the commodification of
water resources is now heralded as the answer to the world’s water woes.
Monopoly and subsidies for corporations
Water is a US$400 billion global business, controlled by a handful of
European transnational companies and consortiums, namely French
multinationals Vivendi and Suez Lyonnaise, SAUR and British water companies
Thames Water, Anglia Water and United Utilities. The global drive towards
privatisation of water services is thus pursued not by a collective of
democratically elected governments acting in the interest of the world’s
population, but by a cartel of corporations motivated by profit and market
conquest.
To make matters worse, these companies are subsidised by their governments
(and invariably their taxpayers) through support from domestic export
credit agencies, and by multilateral development banks, such as the World
Bank and the African Development Bank. They are also subsidised by
developing countries who raise credit from international financial
institutions to upgrade their water systems prior to private takeover. This
corporate subsidy comes at the expense of consumers, most of them in
developing countries, who are made to pay for what is a necessity of life.
For the poor this means no access to water.
Additional loans to facilitate the privatisation process are raised by
developing country governments from multilateral and bilateral sources.
Often, these loans are also used to finance the creation of an ‘enabling
environment’ for foreign water and wastewater investors. This includes the
drafting of local investor protection legislation to guard against
re-nationalisation of the water industry and to provide for hefty
compensation for any attempt to renege (for good reasons) against the
privatisation contracts.
In many cases, corporate access to a developing country’s water system is
paved by a loan or debt relief conditionality requiring the poor or
indebted country to privatise its water and sanitation services. For
example, the IMF insisted that Tanzania privatise its Dar es Salaam Water
and Sewerage Authority (DAWSA) as a condition of its debt relief package
under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative.
Fallacy of privatisation
Experience shows that the privatisation of water services cannot ensure
universal delivery of safe water and efficient sanitation. Privatisation
imposes additional financial obligations on governments. They may have to
bail out failed privatisation project, and also shoulder the costly legal
risks of rescinding a privatisation contract with a wealthy transnational,
even if the company’s performance is unsatisfactory. Argentina, Hungary and
Bolivia have found that the legal claims for compensation by private water
companies in Tucuman, Szeged and Cochabamba respectively, have made
terminating contracts prohibitively expensive.
The dominance of foreign water companies and the liberalised investment
climate - mostly facilitated by structural adjustment, and now under trade
agreements including those under the WTO Ð in developing countries will
also ensure that a large portion of profits from water privatisation will
not accrue to the countries themselves but are repatriated abroad instead.
The imposition of full-cost water pricing as a result of privatisation will
only deprive more and more people of access to clean and safe water by
forcing poor communities to seek alternative sources of water for
consumption, such as untreated well water and water from sewage-ridden
urban rivers.
Forced upon rich and poor, consumers and industrial producers, similar
rates for water use will also result in greater income disparity and deeper
social cleavages, leading to higher risks of civil unrest. In 2000, martial
law was declared in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba as a result of
city-wide riots precipitated by high water prices. A private consortium led
by International Water doubled the water prices to city residents. Water
bills went up by 35% and some, twice that. The World Bank supported
full-cost water pricing and prohibited any use of its structural adjustment
loans to subsidise water services for the poor.
Future fears and WSSD outcomes
There is no agreement on the text in the WSSD Draft Plan of Implementation
that commits governments to supporting the UN Millennium Development Goal
of halving, by 2015, the proportion of people unable to reach, or afford,
safe drinking water and access improved sanitation (paragraphs 7 and 7[alt]).
However, the most pressing concerns over universal coverage of water and
sanitation services are not expressed in these bracketed paragraphs.
Rather, they are reflected in the general lack of political will
demonstrated by developed countries to address the systemic issues leading
to a crisis of sustainable development in the south, and the alarming
emphasis placed on public-private partnership funding and implementation of
sustainable development programmes. The relinquishing of responsibility by
developed countries is marked by their reluctance to commit to specific
disbursements of ODA and by repeated references to voluntary partnerships
and initiatives as a means of financing WSSD programmatic outcomes.
In the absence of firm commitments by governments, Type II partnerships on
water and sanitation services will only increase private sector involvement
in this crucial area. The private sector is already identified as a key
implementer of the ‘Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) for All
Initiative’ involving 28 countries, six UN agencies, the World Bank, and
the Asian and African Development Banks.
Another major threat to universal access to water and sanitation is
liberalisation under the WTO’s rules. Although Member countries have the
right to liberalise at their own pace, and even choose not to open up a
sector under the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), there
is tremendous pressure especially on developing countries to liberalise.
Thus in the ongoing negotiations at the WTO, developed countries are
submitting extensive ÒrequestsÓ that seek access to every sector in the
developing world, including water services and sanitation.
If developing countries succumb, privatisation of water services initiated
under World Bank and IMF structural adjustment programmes could become
permanent under the binding rules of the WTO. Once a country is locked into
the GATS regime, the right of its government to regulate liberalized
service sectors will be diminished, paving the way for foreign
transnationals to enter the domestic market. Any attempt to reverse the
situation would be subject to WTO disciplines and penalties.
Any real effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goal must therefore
include commitments to review loan conditionalities that impose
privatisation and countries must not be pressured to offer water services
under GATS liberalisation. Essential services should be exempted from GATS.
Conclusion
Privatisation does not address the deeper economic and ecological issues of
water shortages. Questions of why there are water shortages in countries
not under water stress are not resolved by shifting responsibility of
service provision to private companies. Water management and water
distribution are also key factors in determining water supply and universal
coverage. Until and unless rich countries fulfil their commitment to
provide resources for developing countries to build solid, cost-effective
water delivery systems which support the needs of the world’s population
equitably and ecologically, the water woes of the world will not go away.
At the same time, all governments need to recognise and support the
diversity and replication of community water management systems and
practices. These have proven in many countries to be the most sustainable
approach to rural water management for rural populations. The WSSD process
and the last 10 years of the work of the CSD have called for good and best
practices in sustainable development. However, where water resources are
concerned the trend and emphasis are privatisation which has proven
destructive.
Firm commitments must be made at the WSSD to reverse the trend of corporate
takeover in the water and sanitation sector, rather than to accelerate the
process of privatisation and corporate monopoly. Undermining the sovereign
power of governments to regulate supply of water in their countries and
passing the bucket onto private transnationals to steward the world’s water
resources would probably be a most anti-development and anti-ecological step.|||yikes thats alot to type ummm ask a friend whos got the same homework and brain storm or whatever its a waste of time putting that on this website coz no one is gonna read all of that|||Yo you really think that someone is gonna read that **** it is way too long for one time do your homework it probbably took you more time typing this is you woyuld have used the time than u could have just used your brain%26gt; daaaaa
Report Abuse
|||No way am I going to read all that and do your homework for you!|||its pretty ok|||Grow up and do your own homework.|||by the time you typed all of that, you could have actually formulated an opinion on your own and finished your homework
Is George Soros a communist?
He doesn't sound like one here.
The current state of the global economy points clearly to a second depression, but billionaire George Soros says that we can avoid another “great depression” if we follow three steps.
According to Forbes, the economic situation in Europe could lead to a depression around the globe. Both America and China are dependent on exporting goods to Europe. If Greece defaults and the purchase power of Europe drops, the effects could hit the United States hard.
Soros writes at the Financial Times:
“Three bold steps are needed. First, the governments of the eurozone must agree in principle on a new treaty creating a common treasury for the eurozone. In the meantime, the major banks must be put under the direction of the European Central Bank in exchange for a temporary guarantee and permanent recapitalization. Third, the ECB would enable countries such as Italy and Spain temporarily to refinance their debt at a very low cost.”
According to Soros, these three steps would not solve the global economy, but they would “calm the markets” and give Europe some time to solve the debt problem. Soros writes that we’ve been “kicking the can down the road” for a long time now, and we are finally out of road.
I believe that these steps would bring the acute phase of the euro crisis to an end by staunching its two main sources (weak banks and vulnerable sovereigns) and reassuring the markets that a longer-term solution is in sight.”
What do you think of Soros plan? Is another depression avoidable?|||Seeing how he funded the overthrow of communist regimes in the old soviet Union.. I pick "No" for 1000 Alex.|||So, he wants a central bank like the Federal Reserve to control all independent banks?
He's a progressive, and there is a teeny tine fine line between Progressives and Communists. "Progressives" can put all the shiny names on their agenda that they wish, but if it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.|||Soros is a self-serving egoist with delusions of god-hood.|||there are no billionaires in communism
The current state of the global economy points clearly to a second depression, but billionaire George Soros says that we can avoid another “great depression” if we follow three steps.
According to Forbes, the economic situation in Europe could lead to a depression around the globe. Both America and China are dependent on exporting goods to Europe. If Greece defaults and the purchase power of Europe drops, the effects could hit the United States hard.
Soros writes at the Financial Times:
“Three bold steps are needed. First, the governments of the eurozone must agree in principle on a new treaty creating a common treasury for the eurozone. In the meantime, the major banks must be put under the direction of the European Central Bank in exchange for a temporary guarantee and permanent recapitalization. Third, the ECB would enable countries such as Italy and Spain temporarily to refinance their debt at a very low cost.”
According to Soros, these three steps would not solve the global economy, but they would “calm the markets” and give Europe some time to solve the debt problem. Soros writes that we’ve been “kicking the can down the road” for a long time now, and we are finally out of road.
I believe that these steps would bring the acute phase of the euro crisis to an end by staunching its two main sources (weak banks and vulnerable sovereigns) and reassuring the markets that a longer-term solution is in sight.”
What do you think of Soros plan? Is another depression avoidable?|||Seeing how he funded the overthrow of communist regimes in the old soviet Union.. I pick "No" for 1000 Alex.|||So, he wants a central bank like the Federal Reserve to control all independent banks?
He's a progressive, and there is a teeny tine fine line between Progressives and Communists. "Progressives" can put all the shiny names on their agenda that they wish, but if it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.|||Soros is a self-serving egoist with delusions of god-hood.|||there are no billionaires in communism
Why is there evidence that what happened in Norway was a false flag operation?
infowars.com
Prior to the events in Norway, the Department of Homeland Security released a propaganda video characterizing white middle class Americans as terrorists and members of white al-Qaeda, a term designed to conflate the image of the CIA-created Islamic terror group and “rightwing extremists” in America.
Anders Behring Breivik was at one time a member of the Progress Party, according to news reports. He was a member from 2004 to 2006 and in its youth party from 1997-2006 through 2007.
The Progress Party platform preamble identifies the organization as populist libertarian and its main declared goal as a reduction in taxes and government intervention. The CFR says the Progress Party and similar political parties in Sweden and Finland represent a European Tea Party movement on the rise. In the U.S., the Tea Party has opposed government bailouts to the banksters and has called for ending the Federal Reserve.
The EU, the IMF and the international bankers are worried about growing populism in Europe. “Rising political populism around Europe, driven by public anger over the impact of the financial crisis, threatens to make solving the euro zone’s debt woes increasingly difficult,” Reuters reported in April.
Millions of Europeans are opposed to raiding their treasuries to pay for debt contrived by the bankers and have turned in large numbers to political parties such as the True Finns.
The True Finns’ main campaign plank is opposition to funding a bailout for Portugal. In April, the Finnish party emerged from relative obscurity and moved into the political limelight. Its sudden popularity took the European establishment by surprise.|||Well, i have no idea but the sky is the limit with them..anyways.
Truth is stranger than fiction.....|||Conspiracy theorists, such as yourself, see conspiracies everywhere even when there are none to be found.|||I think you need to look up the definition of the word "evidence"|||Its hard to tell if you are woefully misinformed or in need of a padded cell.|||I hope that you don't speak for many americans, there is no way this was al-qaeda|||Take your meds.|||It was a coup by the Labor Party. Now they can get their political agenda through based upon everyone's fear of firearms, as well as allow more "multiculturalism" and importation of Muslims based upon their saying this guy was a "right wing nutjob."
Prior to the events in Norway, the Department of Homeland Security released a propaganda video characterizing white middle class Americans as terrorists and members of white al-Qaeda, a term designed to conflate the image of the CIA-created Islamic terror group and “rightwing extremists” in America.
Anders Behring Breivik was at one time a member of the Progress Party, according to news reports. He was a member from 2004 to 2006 and in its youth party from 1997-2006 through 2007.
The Progress Party platform preamble identifies the organization as populist libertarian and its main declared goal as a reduction in taxes and government intervention. The CFR says the Progress Party and similar political parties in Sweden and Finland represent a European Tea Party movement on the rise. In the U.S., the Tea Party has opposed government bailouts to the banksters and has called for ending the Federal Reserve.
The EU, the IMF and the international bankers are worried about growing populism in Europe. “Rising political populism around Europe, driven by public anger over the impact of the financial crisis, threatens to make solving the euro zone’s debt woes increasingly difficult,” Reuters reported in April.
Millions of Europeans are opposed to raiding their treasuries to pay for debt contrived by the bankers and have turned in large numbers to political parties such as the True Finns.
The True Finns’ main campaign plank is opposition to funding a bailout for Portugal. In April, the Finnish party emerged from relative obscurity and moved into the political limelight. Its sudden popularity took the European establishment by surprise.|||Well, i have no idea but the sky is the limit with them..anyways.
Truth is stranger than fiction.....|||Conspiracy theorists, such as yourself, see conspiracies everywhere even when there are none to be found.|||I think you need to look up the definition of the word "evidence"|||Its hard to tell if you are woefully misinformed or in need of a padded cell.|||I hope that you don't speak for many americans, there is no way this was al-qaeda|||Take your meds.|||It was a coup by the Labor Party. Now they can get their political agenda through based upon everyone's fear of firearms, as well as allow more "multiculturalism" and importation of Muslims based upon their saying this guy was a "right wing nutjob."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)