Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Mr. Gbagbo, Mr. Lukashenko, Mr. Putin, etc., etc.,


As people from all around the planet open up more to eachother across borders via social media etc., there will be a tendency over time to appreciate, incorporate and employ ideas from those other areas of the world into our local society and culture. Our ability to instantly communicate without regard to borders in effect weakens those physical borders and causes other ideas and ideals to become operative over a broad spectrum of the planet - making each of us, in all our diversity, and without threatening that diversity, similar over time. So complacency in one place about the political system will experience change as the people connect with the rest of the world. The idea then is to aggressively and actively expand our mutual connections via all means possible so that states and leaders must become more and more transparent and open to public debate and scrutiny locally and globally. 

This is the future of our world. Uniquely and beautifully different, but ultimately united, whether some want to admit it or not. That is the inescapable future toward which we are headed. So the challenge becomes, "Do we participate together in shaping our much more connected world, or do we let things happen randomly hoping that it will be a good and just place where all people of all races, nationalities, systems of belief, and gender identification have their human rights protected and defended?"

The situation in Russia, in Belarus, in Nigeria, and Kenya, and in Cote d'Ivoire, and concerning some issues in the US and China, becomes more difficult to sustain in the light of day as people from all around the planet begin to require leaders and states to uphold international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All leaders, states, and organizations that operate across borders, must be held accountable to international law - if they are not held first accountable within their respective states. This applies to Mr. Putin, Mr. Gbagbo, Mr. Lukashenko, etc., etc., etc..

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Fareed on CNN tonight - 'How to Lead"

This should be a great program. The earlier show on "Restoring America" was great as well. As usual, Fareed's comments, and those of the contributors, are as applicable to America as they are to the entire world. Now comes the show on leadership. This will be great.

I my opinion, leadership has three essential elements - vision, planning, and action. Vision is by far the greater of the three elements and is generally the least understood, appreciated or applied. Planning is knowing and communicating how you're going to get there from here, and action gets the job done.

An old sage once said that 'my people die for lack of vision'. These aren't simplistic things like 'I think I'll fix two steaks tomorrow at 3pm', but rather grandiose awe-inspiring breath-taking things that are just outside your current reach. Vision has passion. Vision grabs the heart and mind and soul, and propels you and others forward, to a better place. It is a goal and purpose full of heart. Think of it as a purpose and goal with attitude. That is vision, and that is the first step toward a better more secure future for us and for the world - if we let it be true. Are we going to die for lack of vision, or do we set ourselves a vision to which we, as a global people can aspire?

Is there a vision to which the entire world can aspire? Is there something that can drive innovation and creativity and energize local and global economies? Something that is so big and visionary and awe-inspiring that no single nation or regional group of nations can do in isolation from or independently of the rest of the world? Yes! I believe there is such a vision, such a goal and purpose that it will drive economic growth worldwide, encourage strengthening of connections with other states on the planet, and give all of us a more secure and prosperous future, while encouraging innovation, creativity, enterprise, on a global scale.

I have an idea. Do you?

If we're going to lead the nation and our world into the future, and out of a past into which we can never return, then we must boldly set a course then go there. Plan, then act on that plan - that is the key. Words alone will not do it, but decisively knowledge based leadership will bring the future to us.

We can do this, but it requires vision. It also requires a foundation for the advancement of knowledge.

Every business, every home, every state needs to start training programs in engineering, in the sciences and math. We need to teach our employees, our children, and our grandchildren in new technologies and in the foundation for those technologies. We need to move into the future boldly, rather than hoping to go back to a past way or method or ideology that no longer works. We should honestly appraise our situation, aggressively pursue society-wide innovations in sciences and math, recognizing that we are not going to get back those industries that have already left our state or nation. So where then does our future lay?

Recognizing that knowledge and education in the sciences, in new technologies, engineering and in math is the central key to our success over time, and acknowledging the paramount need to re-train all our people from the ground up so that the US remains the pre-eminent innovator in the world, means that we must focus on building the right foundation for that success.

Where do we start? We need to emphasize teaching the metric system exclusively so that we do have the proper foundation for sciences, engineering and math. To do other wise is to overly burden our innovators of the future with cumbersome conversions between those systems in the US verses those in the rest of the world. With the foundation of a easy to use, base ten measuring system, then we can build up our sciences. Until we convert to the metric system exclusively in the US, we will continue to be second rate in sciences, engineering and math.

And, that is leadership - vision, planning, action.

Tim Williamson
Brookwood, Alabama
            1-205-765-6090      
globaleconomy101@gmail.com

Ivory Coast, and other nations flaunting international laws

This proposed UN Security Council Resolution has been posted to leaders in Ivory Coast, the UN Police Forces and UN delegation in Ivory Coast, to the UN Security Council members, the International Criminal Court at  the Hague, and to the Human Rights Council at the Hague.

The actions of Mr. Gbagbo necessitate his immediate arrest for the issues outlines in this resolution.  It is not the responsibility of any single state or association of states to carry out enforcement of the globally recognized conditions specified in  Ivorian national law, or international law, or obvious violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The solution is for the UN to enforce applicable international laws decisively and quickly by strengthening the UN Police mandate to accomplish this obvious goal.  

Excellency:

Acknowledging that as you are fully aware, the situation in Ivory Coast is in violation of national law, international law and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all of which have been acceded to by all the member states.

Recognizing that Mr. Gbagbo lost the national election, but refuses to cede power to the rightful winner of that election and is now using intimidation and force to try to maintain his unjust authority.  

Knowing with certainty that the actions presently taken by Mr. Gbagbo are violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other international laws, and the laws of Ivory Coast.  

Admitting that the situation with Mr. Gbagbo, acting as President of Ivory Coast, having rightfully and legally lost the election to that office, is unjust, illegal, untenable and unsustainable for the rule of law to hold legitimate importance over time, for the people of Ivory Coast, for the African region and for the world.  

Thus for the international community to allow Mr. Gbagbo to continue to flaunt the rule of national and international law is an affront, threat and challenge to the people of Ivory Coast, to Africa, and to the world.

Further stating that UN police action is warranted, just, required and demanded against the illegitimate actions of Mr. Larent Gbagbo.

Further stating that this degree of police action rightfully falls under the purview and authority of the UN,and that this degree of decisive action is not an action that needs to be taken by individual nations, or even regional associations of nations, but is rather a just international issue demanding quick and immediate resolution by the UN.

Requires that the permanent and temporary members of the UN Security Council and the members of the UN General Assembly (if needed) give the UN Police Force presently on the ground in Ivory Coast, with re-enforcements in personnel and materiel as appropriate, the active and decisive authority necessary to detain and or arrest Mr. Larent Gbagbo on violations of national law, international law and the Universal Declaration of Human rights.  

Tim Williamson
tl#  1-205-765-6090
Brookwood, Alabama, USA

Friday, December 24, 2010

Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the Situation in Cote d'Ivoire


Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the Situation in Cote d'Ivoire
Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
December 23, 2010





Today’s special session of the Human Rights Council concerning the ongoing crisis in Cote d’Ivoire underscored the international community’s commitment to ensure respect for human rights and to address serious abuses. We applaud the African Group for leading this session.

The United States joins the international community in condemning the growing violence, the grave human rights violations, and the deterioration of security in Cote d’Ivoire. We stand with the Council in calling for the immediate end to the violence and other abuses, and we will work to hold those responsible for these human rights violations accountable.

When the United States joined the Human Rights Council, we promised to work from within to improve its effectiveness as we strive to achieve our common goals. Today’s special session exemplifies this new approach and reaffirms that the Council has an important role to play on all issues where human rights are in question.

President Alassane Dramane Ouattara is the legitimately elected and internationally recognized leader of Cote d’Ivoire. We reiterate our call for former President Laurent Gbagbo to step down immediately. The rights of the Ivoirian people can only be fully realized when democracy is respected and the rule of law restored in Cote d’Ivoire.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

The Question of Sovereignty

The Question of Sovereignty

Typically those in power in a nation/state, and certain ultra-nationalists within those states, will always push for and proclaim that nationalism and sovereignty are being threatened by an ever growing number of external and internal factors.  They are fearful that somehow their state will be diminished and their national identity lost by any hint of need or association with the rest of the world.   If they must interact with others outside their borders, then they feel some anally retentive need to control every aspect of the process at the exclusion of reason.  They fear a loss of their sovereignty to and through NGO’s that operate across borders, regional and global governance, treaties and treaty organizations, and multi-national corporations (unless those corporations are their own of course).These people want to either hold onto the power they currently wield over their people, through either historical revisionism, political, ideological or religious/cultural means, or through thuggery, fear, graft and greed, or they want to return to the 'old' days during a romanticized time in the past that was more often than not based mostly in fiction and not historical fact. The states, and some extremists within their borders, want their people to believe that sovereignty is of singular and utmost importance, and that their nation/state can survive independent of the rest of the world - as an island unto itself so to speak.  

It’s natural for people to feel an ancient and fundamental need to belong to a special group or tribe or cave or clan.  The evolution of this innate idea over time began long before there were Homo sapiens, long before Homo antecessor, or Homo erectus or Ardipithecus. This need was bred into humanity as a survival trait from the days when we needed to band together to fight off the lions and gather food as we began our decent from the trees to roaming the savannahs of east Africa and as we expanded beyond Africa to conquer the rest of the world taking our friends and families along the way.  Protecting our clan, cave or tribe allowed us to survive as a homogeneous  group completely independent of neighboring clans - thus  the beginning of the concept of sovereignty and identity - ‘my clan did not need your clan, or anything you had. If my clan needed something, I could find my own or take yours’, was the prevalent idea.  The identity, the myths, superstitions and fairy tales that evolved from these ancient groupings are the foundations from which all our beliefs, religions, cultures, political ideologies and ideas of sovereignty and state identity originated.  Some modern people and states still have their heads and hearts stuck in the ancient past in those Neanderthalic caves even today not realizing or acknowledging that our ‘clan’ now includes all of humanity all around the world.   

The degree of Sovereignty maintained by a clan is in reality an evolving concept.  Every treaty forged down through time between states, agencies, businesses, individuals, regional and global organizations in reality yields some state sovereignty to all the participants of the treaty or agreement.  The more treaties between parties, the less effective sovereignty reserved to the individual, state, or group who are signors of that treaty  The vast majority of people around the world know that we are becoming more and more inescapably interconnected and inter-dependent with each new business transaction, with each new ‘friend’, link or contact on the Internet through our smart phones and computers from some other part of the world, with each new financial, economic, currency, banking, trade transaction and agreement. This trend is non-reversible - we can not put the genie back in the bottle ever again. The trend toward mutual reliance and dependence upon others for resources, technology, finished and un-finished products, labor, services, knowledge, prosperity, enterprise, peace, security, equal human rights for all (men, women, children, gays, lesbians, etc) is accelerating at an exponential rate.  We need and depend upon eachother.  The people know this, but static states and extreme nationalists, otherwise known as Neanderthals, clans men and backward tridal elders, are stuck in an untenable past and fearful of the changing paradigm and can not accept the changing reality around the world.  But, change they must and will. The idea of sovereignty can no longer be bound by physical borders.  Such a narrowly defined idea is no longer sustainable in our modern world.

As our global inter-connection and inter-dependence inevitably strengthens, there will be those at the state and individual level who will resist the change and expansion of the concept of sovereignty and national identity.  It’s only natural.  They will continue to refuse to accept the historical facts and trends that change is coming and will seek to stymie that change.  The challenge we face is one of helping and encouraging others to see and appreciate, and not fear, the fact that sovereignty is evolving and expanding to include the entire world and is no longer narrowly defined by physical borders as in the past.  Those days are over.  So how do we make this new paradigm work?  Each day brings a new treaty between states and global bodies.  Each day sees more proof that our economies are intertwined to such a degree that what one person does affects  another somewhere on the planet at the granular local level.  How do we as a people, as a state, a world deal with this new reality?  Do we tuck our heads in the sands of time and pretend it isn’t real, or do we seek real solutions for our local, thus global, peace, security, prosperity, growth and unity challenges?  Do we look to an idealized romanticized fictional past, or do we look to a better future where all of mankind is sovereign as a people with all our vast and wonderful differences acknowledged?  Do we acknowledge the trends and participate in developing the best possible global governance systems, or do we sit back and let the rest of the world dictate their view of the new future to us?  Like the states in the US gave up some of their sovereignty to belong to the larger more inclusive and successful federal government, the world is going in that same direction today.  This is the new sovereignty.  This is the new reality.  We are a global and sovereign world with states squabbling over the degree to which they accept this new definition even as their people know the truth.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

An Anti-International United States by Barbara Crossette

Obama was just beginning to repair US-UN relations. Now that Republicans have taken back the House, resurgent cold warriors and neo-isolationists could make 2011 a risky year for internationalism.

---------------
Release Date: 15 December 2010
Word Count: 1,256
Rights & Permissions Contact: Agence Global, 1.336.686.9002, rights@agenceglobal.com 
-------------------

An Anti-International United States 
by Barbara Crossette

While President Obama was just beginning to make headway against the often-cynical approach to human rights at the United Nations, and had begun to repair US-UN relations and the image of the United States globally, Republicans were warming up for another chance to bully the world. With a shift in power, arrogant and often ignorant resurgent cold warriors and neo-isolationists could make 2011 a risky year for the UN, where the United States is still the dominant voice.

The Republican right, now fortified by a dose of Tea Party patriotism, has a list of targets: international agreements that might dare to constrain the United States, money spent on some UN development programs, foreign aid generally and soft diplomacy. The enemies are foreigners who criticize American policies and power. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Republican from Miami who will chair the House Foreign Affairs Committee, says she’s ready to play “hardball.”

"I plan on using U.S. contributions to international organizations as leverage to press for real reform of those organizations, such as the United Nations,” Ros-Lehtinen, a relentless foe of her native Cuba, among other nations, said in a statement when she was chosen committee chair on December 8. She added that she will “not hesitate to call for withdrawal of U.S. funds to failed entities like the discredited Human Rights Council if improvements are not made.”

 She also promised to cut the “fat” from foreign aid. A recent WorldPublicOpinion.org poll from the University of Maryland showed that Americans still wildly overestimate the percentage of the federal budget spent on international assistance. Respondents to the poll said that they thought, on average, that aid accounted for about a quarter of the budget; in reality it is barely 1 percent.

In the Senate, a narrower Democratic majority could make it even more difficult to round up the votes necessary for action on foreign policy steps Republicans oppose.

Threats to the UN, or even American membership in it, are all too familiar in Washington, but no less disturbing, given the recent history of Republican-inspired assaults. Some actions were farcical, others more damaging.

In the 1990s, Congress outlawed the naming of Unesco World Heritage Sites in the United States without its approval on the absurd theory that Unesco threatened national sovereignty. In 2001, American contributions to the UN Population Fund were eliminated by a campaign originating in the House that falsely accused the fund of abetting forced abortions in China. At least 200 million women are now thought to be seeking but not finding contraception as world population rises to 7 billion next year -- almost all the growth in the poorest countries where maternal deaths rates are high. American contributions were restored by Obama, but another campaign by anti-abortion activists against the Population Fund and progressive, secular nongovernmental agencies supported by USAID cannot be ruled out.

UN officials are often targeted by critics before the facts are in. In 2004, then Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota called in the Wall Street Journal for the resignation of Secretary-General Kofi Annan because of his handling of corruption surrounding the oil-for-food program in Iraq during a period of UN sanctions. The campaign to oust Annan took a physical toll on him, little mitigated when an investigation led by Paul Volcker found that the billions Saddam Hussein reaped from illegal deals were largely bribes from private corporations (some American) or government trading agencies such as the Australian Wheat Board.  A former French ambassador to the UN and India’s foreign minister were implicated as recipients of Iraqi financial favors, but not Annan. The United States, as a Security Council member with the power to stop the undercover deals, had been turning a blind eye to much of what was going on in order to keep its Iraq sanctions policy in place. 

As for the Human Rights Council, a favorite target on Capitol Hill, even the mainstream media has difficulty understanding how it works. The council is a UN body only in the same way the Security Council is -- a group of nations making its own rules completely out of the control of the secretary-general or any other UN official. Its rights monitors are independent, pro-bono experts who not infrequently criticize the United States or give a pass to nations with far worse records. The Obama team was beginning to demonstrate that the only way to influence this body is to get inside, blow whistles, demand show-your-face votes and reject weasel consensuses.  An impatient Congress would argue for the opposite course -- just get out, and stay out. That was George W. Bush’s policy.

Certainly doomed next year and beyond will be any action on two generally harmless (to national sovereignty) international conventions on the rights of children (important to those battling global child trafficking and child prostitution) and on the elimination of discrimination against women. Senators, who are responsible for ratifying treaties, are lining up to block the Convention on the Rights of the Child, although the United States is virtually alone among UN member nations in refusing to ratify it. The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, generally known as CEDAW, had a half-chance of ratification this year until Republicans seized and complicated the agenda of the lame duck Congressional session. 

 Also likely to be out of the picture for the foreseeable future are a ratification of US membership in the International Criminal Court, which tries the masterminds of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and probably the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which went down to defeat in the Senate in the late 1990s under a similarly anti-international sentiment on the Hill. And what about the climate change deniers? Will they have the power to keep the United States from joining global agreements?

Whether the Republican distaste for the UN, which not a few representatives and senators threaten to quit entirely if it balks at being run by Congress, will create problems for another secretary general is another question. Boutros Boutros-Ghali was denied a second term in the era of Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms. In an interview later he said that one of his sins -- apart from being foreign -- was that he was critical of Israeli incursions in Lebanon. Annan opposed the war in Iraq and was hounded ever after.

The incumbent, Ban Ki-moon, whose relations with Washington are correct and amiable but not especially warm, has spoken out against Israeli tactics in Gaza. He has also recently warned that the departure of US troops from Iraq will make it difficult for the UN to operate there without a large infusion of money. The United States and the UN are not always on the same page in Afghanistan, particularly over the effects on civilians of NATO military tactics.

Curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons, stopping terrorism, managing global migrations, reducing trafficking and other cross-border crimes, managing world resources, developing poor societies, stopping pandemic diseases and advancing human rights -- nearly a fifth of UN member nations criminalize homosexuality, and women’s rights are widely abused or nonexistent -- all require international cooperation and compromise. Rising powers are challenging American and European assumptions of dominance as never before. In this new world, hardball won’t work, and weakening the UN in the name of “reform” can only be counterproductive. Obama and Hillary Clinton say repeatedly that they understand this and assign an important role to the UN. But atmospherics matter. If the administration of Bill Clinton is any guide, Democrats are willing to throw internationalism overboard if it gets in the way of domestic politics.


Barbara Crossette, United Nations correspondent for The Nation magazine, is a former New York Times correspondent and bureau chief in Asia and at the UN.

Copyright © 2010 The Nation -- distributed by Agence Global

---------------
Released: 15 December 2010
Word Count: 1,256
----------------

For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757

Agence Global is the exclusive syndication agency for The Nation and Le Monde diplomatique, as well as expert commentary by Richard Bulliet, Rami G. Khouri, Peter Kwong, Patrick Seale and Immanuel Wallerstein.

Friday, December 10, 2010

What can replace US manufacturing?

What does the US have to offer its people and the world in place of the constant and inevitable global migration of manufacturing away from US shores?  Where does the future of the US reside? What can replace the manufacturing sector in the US, and not threaten its status as the world’s number one consumers - a status that helps keep the rest of the world moving, but that is unsustainable if the US is to grow?  Can the US change the downward path it’s on today?  

The current and future success, prosperity and growth of the US, its people and its economy can only realistically be found in advancing, encouraging and promoting our inventiveness, our creativity in the sciences, engineering, new technology and mathematics. Knowledge and its continued advancement is the key to a revival of the US. The freedom to openly and honestly explore new ideas, concepts and frontiers has been the foundation of US growth since its founding. Since globalization is a fact of our modern life,  we must adapt to this new paradigm or we will be relegated to third world status within two or three decades. The US is currently on the trail to that third world economic and technological status, but it is not too late to change.  What must we do?

Public policy in the US must be focused toward making science, engineering and math fun and exciting, and must also provide the framework for national standards in compliance with global standards if the US is serious about its success.  Media should help in this regard as well. But where does the US start?  

If the US wants to prove that it is serious about moving forward, then a foundational change must be made nationwide.  The metric system is one of the foundational changes needed in the US.  The metric system is logical and consistent and global in the sciences, engineering, trade and commerce.  The best way to quickly convert to the metric system throughout the US is to begin teaching it exclusively starting with elementary school students.  Within four years of starting this program for elementary students then change to teaching only the metric system in all schools in the nation across the board.  The students will adapt to the change. Do not confuse the issue with other measurement systems or conversion between systems.  Teach only the metric system.  

As for the rest of the nation - within four years of starting on this program, all products and signage in the country should also be converted from the single listing of English only measurements and the dual listing of English and metric to metric only.  

Advancing sciences, engineering, math and new technologies in the US as a replacement for the global migration of manufacturing away from the US requires a concerted effort to lay the proper foundation for knowledge.  Converting quickly to the metric system nationally would be proof positive of US seriousness and commitment in this regard. To do less would aid US decline.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

The Dollar, Gold and the World

The dollar, gold and the world

**part of the Global Economy 101 series**

by:  Tim Williamson
18 Nov 2010


Until now the dollar has been the gauge against which other currencies and economies are assessed and valued, but that situation is not tenable nor even desirable over the long-term. As other economies grow and mature, the strength and sustainability of other currencies matches, and in some cases exceeds, the metrics that define the overall palatability of the dollar as a hedge of stability, trade and finance for the rest of the world. It is only natural that as other economies mature, they would and should take their place as equal partners in sharing responsibility for protecting, promoting and insuring measured global economic growth and global governance. Either the dollar, and those who manage it, must accept this new multi-currency equality paradigm on the world stage, and the world continue to suffer wildly erratic economic cycles with multiple disjointed currencies, with their own separate fiscal and monetary policies, or we, as in the whole world, must pursue a new way to achieve sustainable, long-term, measured, and thus less volatile, global economic growth as a team through concerted and realistic global governance. Which will it be?

Tying a currency to a commodity is also not wise. All commodities are subject to price manipulation, bubbles, investor fears, supply, demand, institutional and personal avarice, state control of production, and so on, ad infinitum. These influences upon the commodity, no matter which commodity or basket of commodities is being discussed, are not manageable by any reasonable or rational system in the way that a single currency, and the amount of that currency in circulation, would be controllable. Why is control and manageability a requirement? The short answer is that we must manage inflation and deflation, and we must control the rate of growth, locally and globally, so that the economy does not burn up or melt down. Commodities, on the other hand, being subject to the fickle nature of the markets, and to the supply and demand of those commodities, will go up and down, and any currency tied to the commodities would likewise experience the same volatility. Whereas the volume of a single currency can be independently managed to give better and more efficient control of growth for the long-term. A commodity based currency is a proven invitation for chaotic economic volatility.

Gold is a commodity like any other. The only difference is that people unreasonably feel a need to possess gold in tough times. When people experience those tough times for extended periods beyond what they expect, then people rush to buy gold - like their fathers before them. This drives the price up, which in turn feeds more fear and 'onlooker' purchases, driving the price up again and again. This is the definition of a bubble - an unreasonable run-up in price. Gold is in a bubble now. We may not be at the peak yet. But it will fall and destroy lots of investors along the way when it crests the peak. It is a commodity. And thus subject to the whims of the market. By that very definition, gold is not even the best commodity to use to underpin a currency - its volatility is worse than using a less precious commodity. Which again strengthens the claim that commodities should not be used to 'back' a currency. Unless of course the entire world were willing to take that commodity out of all markets, restrict its supply, stop all prospecting, mining, and or production of that commodity, and give it a globally determined value between all states on the earth. Only then would it really work as a basis for defining the value of currency. But wait. If that is the case, then the commodity is not needed is it? Just a managed global currency would do the same without having to restrict a commodity or tie the currency to that commodity.

So the real solution is for the world to skip all the ancillary and intermediary explorations into ways that obviously will not resolve long-term economic issues and then create a strong global central bank and a single global currency for use by all peoples, states, businesses, and institutions worldwide. Some people, locally and globally, will not see long-term sustainable economic growth, nor a restoration of good jobs for themselves or their children, because apparently, by their actions or inaction, states would rather have their people continue to suffer, as they try to unilaterally adjust a complex and antiquated system that is not working, rather than give up a little of their supposed sovereignty on this issue for the sake of themselves and everyone else.

What steps should we pursue to encourage states to think outside their normal myopic self-interests when clearly a new way is demanded? While the real world grows smaller and smaller for all its people, the states and some people seem to be determined to turn inward in the face of facts. We either work together to form a better more unified and successful world or we will become squabbling isolated cavemen existing in insignificant tribes. Which do you prefer?

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Challenge local - Solution globale

Challenge local - Solution Globalepar: Tim Williamson16 novembre 2010
QE2 est une tentative de court terme myope à résoudre un problème local. QE2 ne résout pas le plus important et beaucoup beaucoup plus importants défis à long terme qui se posent aux États-Unis et le monde - que de traiter équitablement et systématiquement et rapidement avec le fait incontournable que toutes nos économies distinctes sont étroitement liés et interdépendants. Si un État manipule sa monnaie directement, ou d'une autre le fait indirectement, par exemple en QE2, toute l'expérience des conséquences de ces actions à des degrés divers - certains gravement, et certains moins que d'autres.
Étant donné que nous n'allons pas revenir en arrière sur l'influence mondiale de l'Internet et l'informatique, que ce soit sur nos téléphones, ordinateurs de bureau ou ordinateurs portables, et que les entreprises vont se rendre dans les endroits où les coûts sont réduits, alors deux choses se feront sentir à au niveau local.
Tout d'abord, si les ressources humaines et naturelles ne sont pas facilement disponibles à un bon prix au niveau local, puis les entreprises, qui ne manqueront pas de suivre les principes du capitalisme, se déplacera à réduire leurs coûts afin qu'ils puissent vendre leurs marchandises à un prix compétitif localement et globalement, si elles veulent survivre. Dans le cours naturel des événements dans un état donné, une entreprise se déplace d'un endroit à l'autre que lorsque les coûts de production et de transport sont considérablement suffisamment faible pour justifier que déplacer et besoins de ses clients peut encore être atteint. Le monde est à ce point aujourd'hui. Et, ce mouvement ne fera que s'accélérer avec le temps. Il n'ira pas dans le sens inverse.
Un système de communication mondial, de réduire les coûts de transport, réduit les coûts de production dans différentes régions du monde, contribuent à cette évolution naturelle de la migration d'affaires autour de la terre. Nous n'allons pas être en mesure d'arrêter ce mouvement, nous devons donc œuvrer pour rendre les autres paramètres, sur lesquels nous avons certains disent, plus efficace et plus moderne. Cela m'amène à la deuxième.
Puisque nous ne sera pas en mesure d'arrêter le transfert des activités d'ici à là, et retour dans le temps, alors quelle partie du système local et mondial présente les plus grands défis à la stabilisation de l'ensemble de nos économies distinctes, offrant l'opportunité pour le développement durable et significative de l'emploi à long terme, et d'encourager la croissance des entreprises privées et d'entreprises et le développement? Y at-il une telle chose? Avec force, Oui! Mais seulement si nous avons le courage de le faire se rendre compte que d'un avenir stable et sûr pour chacun de nous, individuellement et collectivement est beaucoup plus importante que le maintien des sens de l'isolement et le protectionnisme au sein de deux Etats distincts. La solution réside dans l'amélioration des systèmes mondiaux de la finance, l'économie, la monnaie, les banques, le commerce et la gouvernance. Oui! C'est un défi de taille, mais pas celui qui n'est pas insurmontable.
Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire de chercher à améliorer les systèmes mondiaux? Le système actuel de réglementation massive et complexe entre les Etats est la rupture à cause de sa complexité, et parce qu'elle ne résout pas le problème réel - Une connexion de plus en plus et de dépendance entre les Etats. Les États-Unis face à cette difficulté dans son passé aussi. Le système des États-Unis au début des Etats séparés et souverains avec leurs propres banques centrales et les diverses politiques monétaires et fiscales et de devises à plusieurs reprises connu des turbulences économiques, jusqu'à ce qu'un plan a été élaboré qui a toutes les banques d'État en vertu d'une banque centrale nationale avec une monnaie unique national. Oui! Il a fallu de nombreuses années, mais la nation finalement mis en oeuvre le plan de Hamilton.Son plan a créé une banque centrale forte pour les États-Unis. Il a travaillé.
Nous avons besoin du même système à l'échelle mondiale. Nous avons besoin de créer une banque centrale mondiale forte et une monnaie mondiale unique pour être utilisé par tous les individus, les entreprises et institutions à travers le monde. Et, de façon réaliste, nous avons besoin d'un organe unique de gouvernance, à laquelle tous les Etats sont responsables, et pour lesquels l'organisme est responsable - tout en appliquant et l'application de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme dans le monde. Mais il faut faire davantage pour créer un avenir durable pour tous les niveaux local et mondial.
Sommes-nous vraiment sérieux au sujet de l'amélioration de nos économies locales et de l'état et la situation de tout notre peuple? Vraiment? Dans quelle mesure sommes-nous honnêtement prêts à nous aider et les autres à réussir sur le long terme? Ensuite, il est temps de cesser de jouer avec notre peuple à court terme des solutions d'huile de serpent myope et ensuite poursuivre à long terme des solutions concrètes.En l'absence de vision, le peuple, et les Etats, mourir. Si nous voulons sérieusement prospérer et de croître, alors nous avons besoin d'un vaste projet d'engager les entreprises et les États du monde. Quelque chose vers lequel toute la planète peuvent travailler. Quelque chose qui inspire l'imagination et stimule les entreprises privées à travers le monde. Nous avons besoin d'une projection globale à couper le souffle pluriannuel vers lequel nous pouvons tous travailler. Ensuite, vous verrez non seulement les économies locales à prospérer et de croître, et les personnes et les entreprises à prospérer, mais vous verrez d'énormes progrès dans les sciences, la médecine, l'ingénierie et la technologie disponible pour tous alors que nous poursuivons cette vision. Quel type de vision d'inspirer le monde entier? Toutes les idées?
Tim WilliamsonBrookwood, en Alabama, Etats-Unisglobaleconomy101@gmail.com