If the European Debt Crisis and weak American recovery from the Great Recession was not enough, the so-called emerging markets are starting to show signs of slowing. Part of the reason stems from the Federal Reserve’s move to end its stimulus efforts, which flooded the global economy with easy money and diverted massive amounts of capital into underdeveloped countries as investors saw more room to grow, i.e. they got more money, far quicker by investing in foreign countries. Unfortunately, this means the growth seen in these emerging markets was built on an unsustainable subsidy that cost economic growth in the American Main Street economy. In other words, we created economic bubbles doomed to fail and hurt the Peoples of emerging markets while we hindered growth in the developed world, thus hurting the American People.
Clinton era globalization was built on a worldview that preached economies should be built to service global demand with each country offering a selection of specialized goods. Because this model creates a fragile global market built on global pricing of overly relied upon goods and price suppression, which is often seen in lower wages and suppressed tax revenues, it can only sustain poverty with marginal improvements in living standards for those in the emerging markets, until the system collapses as this model creates bubbles. A national economy must be built on industries that serve the local needs of its People with locally plentiful resources that are as local as possible with excess production being used to participate in the global economy. Although this latest news is distressing, it also demonstrates the wisdom in shifting how we approach economic development and globalization.
Comments
With the second round of Syrian ceasefire negotiations underway in Montreux, expectations are low. Unfortunately, politicians have a reputation for taking a long time to say they really do not know how to solve a problem, except to offer a nonviable solution, which allows them to say they tried and place blame for inevitable failure on the parties in need of help. In doing so, they manage to legitimize the existence of political organizations like the UN, yet fail to problem solve. As such, these talks may well only serve as a means for the International Community to deflect its ineffectiveness and nonexistent leadership on matters of war. It should go without saying that the Syrian People know their Civil War is their problem and their responsibility to resolve, but that does not mean they can. Absent an America or a France to offer direct military intervention against the will of the International body that could lead to a peacekeeping mission, diplomacy is currently the only option for the United Nation. Unfortunately, the UN is a peacetime organization addicted to peace at all costs, so it is very difficult for the UN to sufficiently address situations like the Syrian Civil War. Because the Syrian Civil War stems from President Assad’s desire to hold onto power and the rebels need for political change, while it also important to remember the Assad regime has essentially promised to purge the rebels once the conflict ends, the only solution must involve a transition of power away from Assad. This is, of course, the supposed purpose behind the Geneva negotiations in the accordance to Geneva 1 talks. Clearly, the Assad regime is, to say the least, resisting this keystone provision. Meanwhile, it is important to recognize the fractured nature of the opposition means peace cannot be achieved unless opposition fighters feel their interests are being met by an agreement; henceforth, the Assad regime must decide to go forward with a ceasefire and transition of power. Unfortunately, Iranian, Russian, and other pro-Assad support acts as an incentive for the Assad regime to hold on to power; whereas, any support of the opposition acts as a means of ensuring the fight continues and the Assad regime cannot retaliate against the opposition, their families, and their communities. Consequently, the UN and anti-Assad allies must focus on tipping Assad’s cost-benefit analysis in favor of a transition. Only when this is done can a diplomatic solution be successfully negotiated and implemented. Finally, we must remember pursuing failed negotiations often undermines the successful of future negotiations, even when prospects are far brighter. With the end of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day at hand and the Holiday enjoyed by most Americans, the true test of whether or not people actually remember Dr. King’s message is how they act on it. Politics is about raising your voice and hearing your neighbor’s concerns. I think what Dr. King wanted more than anything else was for the American People and the Peoples of the world to learn to listen to the needs, wants, and dreams of their fellowman, so we could build a society that is good for everyone. I like to say society is built on the balancing of interests while a healthy society is a society that adequately addresses and balances the interests of its members. In essence, our message is the same thing. Racism may not be as open and pervasive as it once was, but our society in many ways is still filled with the same kind of disparity, disenfranchisement, and lack of balance Dr. King experienced. As we move farther away from his Day, I think people should remember his message in what they say to others, in their choices, and in what causes they take up.
President Obama announced he will no longer allow the NSA to store the metadata of phone calls as he plans to add civil liberties advocates to the so-call FISA courts while he will end spying on foreign officials and extend some privacy protections to foreign citizens. Clearly, this announcement demonstrates a shift in the right direction; however, the effects of these goals and others to come will depend upon the details of how they are pursued. As the American People, and perhaps the President himself, do not know the full extent of the activities of our national security apparatus, telling agencies like the NSA what they cannot do will not necessarily address the core issues behind the Snowden revelations. Telling a spy what he can’t do just means he either needs to be sneakier or wait until someone else tells he can do it. Consequently, I think our nation needs to focus more on defining what our national security officials can do to accomplish their mission. After all, balancing their mission with the need for civil liberties does not appear to be a top priority in spite of what President Obama says.
Revelations over the theft of financial data from Target and other retailers keeps blanketing the news. With more and more businesses added to the list of companies who are part of the massive data breach, at least one-third of Americans have been affected with the list growing. Because the internet was built on the naïve assumption that no one would use it for criminal acts, the information technology we depend on everyday for our financial system is inherently vulnerable. As threats of this nature have increased in frequency, the tech and banking sectors have been in a race against technologically sophisticated criminals to protect our personal and financial data. Like a nuclear bomb getting into the hands of terrorists, this massive breach may represent a catastrophic turning point in that struggle to safeguard our financial system and our identities. As such, we can probably expect this drama to continue for some time while we will likely have to see some radical changes in public policies regarding the handling of financial data and personal information.
|
Read old posts
April 2020
|