Good-bye Maggie - Alvaro Vargas Llosa

Goodbye, Maggie

By Alvaro Vargas Llosa 

The Independent, Tuesday April 9, 2013

Margaret Thatcher’s death caught up with me in the worst of places: a speech in Argentina. What to do? Should I follow my conscience and say a few words in memory of her—and risk offending an audience sensitive to the legacy of the Falklands War—or should I keep silent? I opted for saying a couple of words, asking them not to take offense and expressing respect for their feelings. Some disapproving noises came back from the audience. After I finished speaking, I faced some aggressive reproaches.
In death, as in life, Thatcher is a polarizing figure. There are classical liberals who object to her excessive conservatism and conservatives who judge her to have been too libertarian; the left hates everything about her and Argentines consider her a war criminal. I spent a few years in London during her time in office. There are some things everyone, left or right, should value.
First, she transformed the British right, which was an oligarchic club, into a association in which merit rather than origin, and effort rather than lineage, became the dominant features. When she took over the leadership of the Conservative Party in 1975, being a grocer’s daughter from Grantham was a stigma among Tories; self-made success and social mobility were anathema to them. By 1990, those were emblems of a new Tory Party.
Thatcher brought back ideas into politics. Neither the left, which had been dominant since the end of WWII and accelerated Britain’s decadence, nor the right, which had accepted the fundamentals of a socioeconomic model imposed by the left, believed in ideas anymore. We can debate whether she went as far as she could in applying hers, but there is no debating her love of ideas. The ones she absorbed at the Institute of Economic Affairs and the ones she learned reading everything from Edmund Burke to Friedrich Hayek shaped her discourse and many, many of her actions.
Because her mission was not to do away with the state, she did not do so. In some areas, such as defense, she enlarged it. But she launched a process that devolved the responsibility for wealth creation and the pursuit of happiness from the state to civil society. In so doing, she transformed the right and the left. She instilled idealism and a reformist zeal into the political right; she helped modernize part of the left. Although Tony Blair’s Labor Party made government somewhat bigger, on the whole he maintained her legacy and reaped the benefits. This fostered the rebirth of the left under the banner of the “third way”, which impacted Europe, the United States (under Bill Clinton) and Latin America (with Brazil’s Lula da Silva).
Contributing to the implosion of Soviet communism, something that is often attributed to her, was no small feat. It required going up against vested interests and widespread perceptions in a democratic Europe that had lost all hope of change on the other side of the Iron Curtain. She was accused of being blinded by ideology; but when she understood that Mikhail Gorbachev was seriously interested in reform, she declared that the West could “do business with him” (and caused whispers among the American right). Thatcher was not an ideological animal, but a political animal with ideas. Both the right and the left owe much to what she did, in peaceful combat, to tear down the Berlin Wall. The right defeated an enemy, of course, but the moderate left shook off a dead weight.
Thatcher mistrusted European integration. Many of us thought she did so primarily for nationalistic reasons (and later a discomfort with a unified Germany) rather than because she feared the bureaucratic aspects. Time has shown she was right about some of what she said. The European construct has many flaws; the crisis of 2007/8 brought them into the open.
She was a rare politician. It will be decades before Europe produces anything like her. Rest in peace, Maggie.

Think Again: BRICS - Antoine van Agtmael (Foreign Policy)

Think Again: The BRICS

Together, their GDP now nearly equals the United States. But are they really the future of the global economy?

BY ANTOINE VAN AGTMAEL | Foreign Policy, NOVEMBER 2012

"The BRICS Are in a Class by Themselves."

Yes and no. There is no question that the BRICS -- Brazil, Russia, India, China, and the group's newest member, South Africa -- are big. They matter. In terms of population, landmass, and economic size, their pure dimensions are impressive and clearly stand out from those of other countries. Together, they make up 40 percent of the world's population, 25 percent of the world's landmass, and about 20 percent of global GDP. They already control some 43 percent of global foreign exchange reserves, and their share keeps rising.

COMMENTS (8)SHARE:

Share on twitterTwitter

 

Share on redditReddit

 

More...

Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs put the spotlight on the rise of the original four of these big new economic powers when he gave them the name BRICs in 2001, and their collective growth began to soar. But in reality their economic success had been a long time coming. Twenty years before that, when I was at the World Bank's International Finance Corp. (IFC), we were identifying the opportunity to rebrand these countries, which, despite their enormous economic potential, were still lumped together with the world's perennial basket cases as "underdeveloped countries" stuck in the "Third World." At the time, Third World stock markets were simply off the radar screen of most international investors, even though they were starting to grow; I gave them the name "emerging markets." Local investors were already quite active in Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, and elsewhere, as homegrown companies became larger and more export-competitive while market regulation became more sophisticated. But until the IFC built its Emerging Markets Database and index in 1981, there was no way to measure stock performance for a representative group of these markets, a disabling disadvantage when stacked against other international indices, which were skewed in favor of developed countries such as Germany, Japan, and Australia. This brand-new research on markets and companies provided investors with the confidence to launch diversified emerging-market funds following the success of individual country funds in markets such as Mexico and South Korea.

The BRICs, however, took much longer to get ready for prime time. Until the beginning of the 1990s, Russia was still behind the Iron Curtain, China was recovering from the Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen Square unrest, India remained a bureaucratic nightmare, and Brazil experienced bouts of hyperinflation combined with a decade of lost growth. These countries had largely muddled along outside the global market economy; their economic policies had often been nothing short of disastrous; and their stock markets were nonexistent, bureaucratic, or supervolatile. Each needed to experience deep, life-threatening crises that would catapult them onto a different road of development. Once they did, they tapped into their vast economic potential. Their total GDP of close to $14 trillion now nearly equals that of the United States and is even bigger on a purchasing power parity basis.

Here's the problem, however, with asking whether the BRICS "matter": Big is not the same as cohesive. The BRICS are part of the G-20, but not a true power bloc or economic unit within or outside it. None is fully accepted as "the" leader even within its own region. China's rise is resented in Japan and distrusted throughout Southeast Asia. India and China watch each other jealously. Brazil is a major supplier of commodities to China and has relied on it for its economic success, but the two powers compete for resources in Africa. Russia and China may have found common cause on Syria, but they compete elsewhere. And though intra-BRIC commerce is growing rapidly, the countries have not yet signed a single free trade agreement with each other. Then there's South Africa, which formally joined this loose political grouping in 2010. But being a member of the BRICS doesn't make it an equal: South Africa doesn't have the population, the growth, or the long-term economic potential of the other four. Indonesia, Mexico, and Turkey would have been other logical contenders -- or South Korea and Taiwan, for that matter, which have comparable GDPs but much smaller populations than the original BRICs.

The BRICS are also nowhere near economically cohesive. Russia and Brazil are way ahead in per capita income, beating China and India by a huge amount -- nearly $13,000 compared with China's $5,414 and India's $1,389, according to 2011 IMF data. And their growth trajectories have been very different. What's more, the BRICS face stiff competition from other emerging powerhouses in the developing world. While China and India seemed to have a competitive edge for a while due to their low labor costs, countries like Mexico and Thailand are now back on the competitive map. And while growth in the BRICS seems to be slowing, many African countries are receiving more foreign investment, may be more politically stable, and are at long last moving away from slow or no growth toward much more robust economies.

ALEXEI NIKOLSKY/AFP/GettyImages

"The Continued Rise of the BRICS Is Inevitable."

True, but their growth is slowing. Forecasts by Goldman Sachs and others project China will overtake the United States in GDP before 2030. China, meanwhile, dwarfs the other BRICS, whose combined economic size isn't expected to catch up to China during that period. The BRICS will approach the total size of the seven largest developed economies by 2030, and by the middle of this century they are projected to be nearly double the size of the G-7.

BRICS consumers are also beginning to rival their American counterparts in terms of total purchasing power. More cars, cell phones, televisions, refrigerators, and cognac are now sold in China alone than in the United States. Even with slower growth, the economic engine of the BRICS should be more important than that of the United States or the European Union for most of the 21st century.

Then again, there's no guarantee that the BRICS can maintain their torrid growth rates. Just as their expanding economies took the world by surprise over the past decade, the big shock for the next decade may be that they will grow less quickly than assumed. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have already shown that growth rates slow down once a basic level of industrialization has been reached. The unquenchable thirst for "goods" tends to moderate when basic infrastructure is in place and consumers want more health care, education, and free time.

To some extent, this is already occurring. Leading Chinese economists now expect China's annual growth to slow down from rates of 10 to 12 percent to 6 to 8 percent by the end of this decade. Dreams of India reaching sustainable annual growth of 8 percent or more have been lowered to 5 to 6 percent after the country hit an inflation barrier and offshore gas production disappointed. Brazil has also struggled to return to its exuberant pre-crisis growth, while Russia has been staggered by Europe's economic problems. The projections by Goldman Sachs and others always expected slower growth for the future, but some enthusiasts did not read the footnotes.

VANDERLEI ALMEIDA/AFP/Getty Images

"The Financial Crisis Was Good for the BRICS."

Not for long. The 2008 financial crisis did not emanate from emerging markets. Instead, the BRICS came to the rescue when the United States, Europe, and Japan collapsed due to their overspending, fiscal imprudence, and overreliance on just-in-time production that made them too dependent on a consumer economy that quickly blew up. After the BRICS suffered brief, V-shaped recessions of their own, as swift in their decline as they were in their recovery, the BRICS' demand helped pull the global economy out of its initial slump.

It certainly wasn't clear initially that this was how the crisis would play out. The Financial Timeswarned (and many investors feared) that the banking systems of emerging markets would succumb to the same massive financial problems that plagued the United States and Europe, but Asia and Latin America had learned their lessons from earlier financial crises and put their houses in order. The Chinese had ample reserves for a fiscal stimulus that was not only massive, but, unlike its U.S. counterpart, also disbursed funds quickly. The BRICS' central banks, along with those in other emerging markets, cooperated on global monetary easing. Without it (and without China's quickly disbursed stimulus at home), Western stimulus and easing would have been inadequate and ineffective. With it, demand for commodities stabilized and the world avoided a depression.

These crisis interventions came at a significant cost, however, the full price of which is not yet clear even today. The real estate bubble, which played such a big part in the United States and Southern Europe, didn't burst in the BRICS. Inflation also increased well beyond the comfort zone of central banks in China, India, and Brazil. Although all this did not provoke another crisis, it might have planted the seeds for future problems. Economic history teaches us that the next crisis usually comes from the region where the applause and self-satisfaction were loudest the previous time around. If that holds true, the next economic shock will more likely than not come from the BRICS.

FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images

"The BRICS Are Unbeatable Competitors."

No. The BRICS benefited for several decades from cheap labor, higher productivity, massive (but far from universal) investment in infrastructure and education, and a hunger to catch up with wealthier rivals. Their transformation was remarkable: With better-off populations, domestic markets finally became economically attractive, South-South trade exploded, and leading corporations transformed themselves from second-rate producers of cheap goods into world-class manufacturers of smartphones, semiconductors, software, and planes. China's Lenovo took over IBM's PC business. Brazilian and South African beer companies became leading global brewers. Just as had been the case with the Russians after Sputnik and the Japanese in the 1980s, the BRICS became feared and formidable competitors, even if some of the fears about their rise were exaggerated.

But the story is not over. Cheap, abundant energy from shale gas is attracting new investment in the United States, giving energy-intensive industries a renewed competitive edge. Abundant shale gas could also make Russian Arctic drilling and Brazilian pre-salt production too expensive. Stagnant U.S. wages and soaring pay in China and India are eroding the BRICS' labor-cost advantage, while their seemingly bottomless labor pool has suddenly started emptying out, leaving them with shortages of trained labor.

Mechanization is also allowing the developed world to make a comeback. Increasingly affordable and sophisticated robots can now do what 10 or more human workers did until recently. They work 24 hours a day and do not ask for higher wages or better benefits. Smartphones and tablets may still be made in Asia, but the BRICS lag behind in taking advantage of the productivity gains they bring. As a result, traditional multinationals are fighting back after years of retreat, from General Motors winning the biggest market share in China to General Electric's foray into producing low-cost medical equipment to Nestlé's invention of the wildly successful Nespresso machines, turning high-end coffee from a store-bought luxury into an at-home convenience. The competitive edge may be turning back to the West much faster than we thought.

ALEXANDER JOE/AFP/Getty Images

"The BRICS Are the Best Place to Invest."

No longer true. Until 2008, the BRICS performed far better than other emerging equity markets -- or developed markets, for that matter. And by a lot: For the five years ending in 2007, investors in the four original BRICs earned an annualized 52 percent return, compared with just 16 percent in the G-7 markets. But in the past five years, through Aug. 31, that figure was -3 percent for the BRICs and -1 percent for the G-7. This was in part a correction to exaggerated expectations, which drove up valuations and currencies to unsustainable levels. It also seems, however, that the BRICS' competitive edge is now being questioned in more fundamental terms. Of course, it makes perfect sense for investors to diversify and not ignore such a huge, successful part of the global economy, but that is different from blind euphoria.

Each of the BRICS is very different, and so are the question marks that accompany their economies. For example, China's wage costs had been so much lower than Mexico's for several decades that Mexico had difficulty competing, despite its closeness to the U.S. market. But that wage gap has closed in recent years -- Chinese labor rates have grown from 33 percent of Mexico's in 1996 to 85 percent in 2010 -- and now investment is flowing back to Mexico. Even when Indian growth rates went through the roof, bureaucracy, budget deficits, and infrastructure bottlenecks remained serious impediments. Brazil successfully turned around its floundering economy in the 1980s and then benefited from three windfalls: China's thirst for commodities, energy discoveries, and a competitive edge as an agribusiness giant. Now, however, China's slowing economy and the world's shift toward ubiquitous shale gas is changing the picture. Or consider Russia, which, to its peril, has squandered its oil-and-gas weapon by pooh-poohing the potential of shale gas, opening up export opportunities for the United States in Europe.

PETER PARKS/AFP/Getty Images

"The BRICS Will Surpass the West."

Not so fast. Yes, the BRICS will remain the main source of growth in tomorrow's world, as they already are today. Together they will dominate the global economy later this century the way Europe and the United States once did.

Just as the pendulum swung far toward the BRICS but then swung back hard in recent years, there are signs of new forms of BRICS competitiveness. Research and development in the BRICS is paving the way for increasingly high-value-added production. Ninety-one percent of U.S. plants are more than a decade old, versus only 43 percent of China's plants, according to a 2007 IndustryWeek survey. While 54 percent of Chinese companies cited innovation as one of their top objectives in the survey, only 27 percent of U.S. respondents did. Chinese telecom equipment-makers are giving more traditional players a run for their money, Indian-made generic drugs are making inroads, Brazilian protein producers dominate world markets, and Russian oligarchs are making smart investments abroad. The BRICS are going through a rough patch right now, yet they're poised for a roaring comeback.

But though the era of American or Western domination may be over, BRICS domination is still some time off. What is already a fact is that the clear delineation between developed and "backward" countries is a thing of the past. Western multinational companies are seeking to expand in the BRICS as growth in their home markets has dried up. Chinese and Indian corporations are building their brands in other emerging markets and the West. More than ever, developed countries' economic fates are tied to those of emerging markets.

Intellectual property remains a strong suit of advanced economies. The United States, Japan, and Germany -- just three advanced economies -- accounted for 58 percent of patent filings in 2011, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization. But even here the BRICS are catching up: China's applications soared 33 percent in 2011, Russia's filings were up 21 percent, Brazil's 17 percent, and India's 11 percent. Compare that with 8 percent growth for the United States and 6 percent for Germany. Chinese telecommunications equipment giant ZTE Corp. dislodged Japan's Panasonic from the global top spot with 2,826 patent applications. China's Huawei Technologies was in third place, while a previous American leader, Qualcomm, dropped from third to sixth place in 2011. Why does it matter? Because patents are a key indicator of future economic strength.

TEH ENG KOON/AFP/Getty Images

"Politics Could Be the BRICS' Undoing."

True, and you disregard them at your peril. The spread of democracy and free markets in much of Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe is impressive, but some BRICS have been laggards rather than leaders in this area. Legitimacy in these countries often depends on meeting sky-high expectations for economic success, while political checks and balances remain in their infancy. So forget about all those paeans to "authoritarian capitalism" you read in the op-ed pages. Just because Beijing has a fancy new airport and President Vladimir Putin can bulldoze entire neighborhoods at will doesn't mean China's and Russia's politics give them an edge. Even in democratic India, politics are often overwhelmed by corruption, and politically open Brazil struggles with crippling crime stats and political scandals.

The BRICS may seem stable now, but nobody knows what the future holds. Admiration for oligarchs easily turns into envy and anger. Ubiquitous mobile-phone cameras and instant Internet distribution constrain the use of public force. Under the surface and among the younger generation, pride in economic achievements and a sense of material well-being are now coupled with demands for better health care and national recognition. Increasingly, more is not the answer -- citizens of the BRICS want better. Local elites must act adroitly to keep this new mood from developing into a combustible mix. The current generation of leaders in China has not forgotten the lessons of the Cultural Revolution -- but the next generations may.

Some tailwinds that have benefited the BRICS these past decades may yet turn into headwinds. For instance, these countries have benefited from relatively low budget allocations to military spending -- a fruit of Pax Americana. That could change if conflict broke out on the Indian subcontinent or Iran acquired nuclear weapons. And serious political unrest could easily derail the rise of the BRICS: The Bo Xilai case in China, the upheavals following the Arab Spring, and the power blackout in India were recent red flags that showed the dramatic impact of sudden events.

Still, the BRICS are not going anywhere. Sure, they may face tough adjustments getting used to less lofty growth expectations while satisfying more demanding populations. But one way or another it's safe to say: These big emerging economies will put their stamp on the 21st century.

SAJJAD HUSSAIN/AFP/Getty Images

 

Antoine van Agtmael, a founder and former chairman of AshmoreEMM, is author of The Emerging Markets Century.

Tudo o que voce sempre quis saber e nunca teve a quem perguntar...

Agora já tem: Answers.com
Neste link: http://wiki.answers.com/

Selecionei apenas as perguntas de economia, mas existem milhares de outras mais...
Economics
Subcategories
2008 Economic Crisis
2008 Federal Bailout
2009 Economic Stimulus Plan
European Union
Gas Prices
Inflation
Poverty
Unemployment

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/FAQ/2394#ixzz1IsGN9tKr

[First page]23456789101112Next >[Last Economics page]

What are five factors that influence demand?
Concisely: (Y being Income) 1. Number of consumers (naturally, more consumers means more D) 2. Income & normal goods (as Y...

How was the French economy after World War 2?
After WW2 - The agricultural production in France had fallen of more than a third from 1938 to 1945, causing penury, resuppling...

What is laissez-faire?
Laissez-faire economics is the belief that economic imbalances are self-correcting, not requiring intervention by government so...

What is the world's wealthiest country?
There are several measures of the wealth of a country. I will list three of the most common measures. What these measures mean...

What determines the amount of money a country can print?
A countries central banking system generally decides what amount of money a country can print. Contrary to popular belief,...

What countries have a mixed economy?
The definition of mixed economy remains somewhat subjective. Both the US and Cuba have been refered to as mixed economies as all...

What is macroeconomics?
AnswerMacroeconomic deals with the functioning of the economy as the whole. It is concerned with economy wide issues such as...

What were the key elements of the program that came to be called Reaganomics?
Reaganomics (identified with the 40th President, from 1981 to 1989) was referred to as "supply side" economics (or the critical...

Why was the European Union formed?
Some of the reasons for the establishment of the European Union (EU) Already in the 1920s some politicians (such as Briand and...

How did money originate?
Ug gave his friend Org a pretty rock in exchange for a bite of Org's apple. Org later exchanged the rock for a bite of Iggy's...

What is difference between cross price elasticity demand and income elasticity demand?
Cross price elasticity of demand measures how much demand of one good, say x changes when the price of another good, say y...

What is political instability?
To my opinion, political instability is a situation where by a country is currently going through political turmoil. It may also...

What are the disadvantages of mixed economy system?
The disadvantages of a mixed economy really depend on how "mixed" it is. For instance, if it is mixed more towards a free-market,...

Should Newspapers and book publishers convert to electronic publishing over paper publishing as their primary product?
AnswerNO! Only a fraction of the worlds people have access to computers or the energy needed to operate them. How would a...

How do you explain GNI per capita?
A measure of the wealth earned by nations through economic activites all around the world. Gross National Income comprises the...

How much of a salary hike do you need each year just to keep pace with inflation?
AnswerGenerally, you need the same rate of increase or decrease in your salary as the inflation rate. If you make 10,000 and...

Why is Germany an economic rival of Great Britain?
All industrial nations are rivals with one another. They compete for resources and markets constantly. Britain, owing to...

What was the theory of mercantilism?
Mercantilism Mercantilism was the economic philosophy underlying early European colonial policy. The object of mercantilism was...

Why are gas prices so high?
Gasoline comes from oil. Retail prices are determined by the sellers, based on their costs, and the prices paid to produce,...

Is China a threat to Indian Software Industry?
China's rapidly growing software industry will soon rival India's, not necessarily eclipsing it. Before the 1990s, China was...

How different is a market economy from centrally planned economy?
Central Planning: A centrally planned economy relies on a party in power to decide what resources should be allocated to various...

What is the advantage of free market economy?
Wikimedia Free Encyclopedia explains: A market economy (also called a free market economy or a free enterprise economy) is an...

What are advantages and disadvantages of market economy?
There are many advantages to a free market economy. They range from the moral issues to the practical issues. We will deal mainly...

What are the uses and advantages of price mechanism?
Basically the price mechanism acts as "an invisible hand" or signaling mechanism. They play a key role in allocating resources...

What are the advantages of leaving the allocation of a country's resources to the price mechanism?
If relatively weak conditions are satisfied, then whatever allocation of resources results from the use of the price mechanism...

What is Austrian Economics?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Austrian+Economics

What currency was used in the 1700s?
This depends on the country. Most currencies, however, were based on gold and silver. In America, in the 13 colonies, tobacco...

Why do some people believe that a mixed economic system solves basic economic problems?
It is because both the private sector and public sector have a say in answering the basic economic questions, thus there will be...

What is the law of variable proportion in economics?
Sometimes referred to as variable factor proportions, law of diminishing returns states that as equal quantities of one variable...

Does Europe the USA or China have the largest economy?
1- Europe (remember Italy, French, UK and Germany are 4 world's power) 2- USA 3- China. 2006 GDP Figures from the CIA World...

What are possible advantages to a multinational corporation of entering a high potential and high growth economy?
Possible advantages of a multinarional corporation are: 1.Multinational Companies are able to sell far more than other type of...

What is the marginal cost of capital?
Marginal or incremental cost of capital is cost of the additional capital raised in a given period

What is so gross about the national product?
Economics Answer: The Gross National Product in one definition is the sum of all final goods and services produces in an...

Show with examples that if the marginal product is always decreasing the average product is always above the marginal product?
Paper silver has been heavily shorted in the last few weeks. Low volume indicated by the 30& 60 day averages has not brought...

How do tax cuts affect the economy?
Tax cuts improve the economy by giving the people more spending power and higher consumer confidence which leads to them spending...

What is the role of marketing in the implementation of adaptive strategies for expansion?
The expansion of a company depends solely on the marketing of it's product or anything pertain to it.Actually marketing it's...

How best to define economics?
According to Princeton University, Economics is the study of the production, distribution and consumption of goods and...

What is the significance of foreign exchange rate risk and how can this risk be mitigated?
Foreign exchange risk is the level of uncertainty that a company must manage for changes in foreign exchange rates, that will...

How do economy's produce?
These questions are the basic economic questions to which all economies strive to answer. This is because there are a limited...

Who has the world's largest economy?
USA, although if treated as a single entity the EU is signifigantly larger.

When did the World Trade Organization start?

What are the examples of perfect competition in economics?
AnswerI have found one example on wikipedia where it says that ebay auctions can be seen as perfectly competitive. There are very...

What are the types of market economies?
Free-Market Economy (or Liberal Market Economy): An economic system comprised mainly of privately-owned enterprise (businesses),...

How does outsourcing affect the economy?
In principle, outsourcing makes things a little cheaper and should therefore increase profitabilty. However, some things need to...

Is zero inflation a good thing?
Yes and no, and here's why: Inflation is not a good thing because it slows down economic growth. For example, when inflation is...

What perceives the global economic system as responsible for the less developed global south countries dependence on and exploitation by the wealthy global north countries?

What were the economic causes of fascism in Spain?
If what you mean is "what were the economic causes of the social conflict and unrest which led to the civil war, of which the...

How many African-Americans currently live in poverty?
According to www.info.please there are about 39.2 million blacks in America of whom 24.7% have incomes below the federal poverty...

Who decides what goods services will be produced and sold in the US?
Mostly the American consumer. The US government also plays a large role in the nation's economy, constituting roughly 36% of GDP...

Who is Adam Smith?
Which one? You probably mean the Scottish philosopher/Economist. He is most famous for defining modern economic theory in a book...

What is globalisation and what are its effects on the Indian economy?
Largely positive. Globalization has brought many jobs and large sums of investment to India.

How has money evolved into the currency we use today?
Money as we know it, paper money (which will henceforth be called by its technical term, fiat - French for "fake" - money),...

How did the United States benefit from the World War I when it first started?
economic benefits were from the sale of exports to countries at war with Germany

How do reductions in government spending affect the economy?
Generally the government is very good at wasting money and resources so less spending, generally speaking, by the government...

What are the advantages of saving money?
Answer1.) You won't have to pay tens of thousands in interest when you borrow money. 2.) There's always some emergency that pops...

Is Egypt a rich nation?
No it isn't. Though this depends on how you define "rich." Egypt is quite affluent by African standards but remains a developing...

Why is the study of economics important?

Which countries are in the European Union?
There are 27 countries in the European Union. There were six founding members of what was then called the European Economic...

How do you calculate the equilibrium level of income?
you calculate it by adding consumption, investments, government spending, net exports and subtracting imports. EX:...

How do you create demand for your products or services?
Creating DemandThis has been a controversial question in economics. Some economists have argued that this is the role of...

How does the economics of welfare relate to the scarcity of resources?
Economics need to be studied to see where the economy is going, what can be removed from the economy and what can be added in...

[First page]23456789101112Next >[Last Economics page]

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/FAQ/2394#ixzz1IsCTqo8H

A irrelevancia do G20 - Walter Russell Mead

Pointless G-20 Summit Unfolds In Toronto
Walter Russell Mead
The American Interest, June 25th, 2010

The first task for anybody these days who wants to follow world news in an intelligent way is to figure out what to ignore. All over the world, commissions are meeting, legislatures debating, leaders are making speeches, demonstrators are marching, sabers are rattling and so on. Nobody can follow it all or make sense of it all. So, from the standpoint of the generalist or the engaged citizen the question is how to achieve ‘intelligent ignorance’: how to figure out what you don’t need to follow so that you can focus like a laser on what really counts.

The approaching G-20 summit in Toronto is an excellent subject to ignore — a classic pseudo-event that will be breathlessly and minutely covered by the ’serious’ press at which much will be said and little done. Over the last two weeks I myself have saved great swathes of time by skimming lightly across rather than delving deeply into such subjects as whether the United States and Germany will engage in a catfight over fiscal stimulus and whether China’s decision to loosen its control over its currency will reduce the pressure on China at the G-20. It is as close to certain as anything can be that nothing will take place at the G-20 that changes German or American fiscal plans or in any way shape or form affect China’s currency policy in any substantive way. There is no point whatever in covering these subjects, and just because journalists are stupid and lazy enough to write these pieces and editors are misguided enough to run them is no reason why you, dear reader, should waste your precious time reading them. Indeed, to the extent that you allow yourself to be deceived into the belief that what is happening in Toronto is an event rather than a pageant you will actually be degrading your ability to follow world affairs.

While the approaching G-20 summit, like previous G-20 and G-8 summits, is a pseudo-event as pointless as an American political convention, there is one useful purpose it can serve: it can help students of world affairs learn the difference between real events and fake ones, between (as Mark Twain said) a bolt of lightning and a lightning bug.

The first thing to observe is that the G-20 isn’t new. It is an expanded version of the old G-8 (which itself was the old G-7 plus Russia). These summit meetings of world leaders date back for a generation; they have always gotten lots of coverage in the serious press, and they have almost never meant anything or gotten anything done. World leaders like them because they provide a platform that lets presidents and prime ministers look like statesmen instead of politicians. Bureaucrats adore them because position papers must be written and revised and many obscure officials must rack up air miles preparing compromises and talking points for communiques and declarations. It doesn’t matter to the bureaucrats that the declarations have no binding force and that countries who sign onto them will generally go on and do exactly what they would have done had no declaration ever been made. Process! Paper! Junkets!

Now the one sure thing about vacuous talking shops is that increasing the number of participants decreases the importance of the meeting. If 7 or 8 leaders representing the world’s richest countries almost never agreed on anything important, how many important decisions will a group of 20 leaders from countries with even greater disparities in interest and outlook reach? If 7 or 8 leaders consistently produced empty communiques with few real world results, how much more vacuous and much less effective will the communiques produced by 20 world leaders be? There will be more empty posturing and vain grandstanding than before — and there will be less substance and less frank talk than ever.

Yet, in a striking demonstration of the idiocy and futility with which our world is governed, as the G-8 morphs into the G-20 and becomes ever less likely to produce any meaningful result, it is getting more coverage and not less.

There are several reasons for this. First, the word ‘news’ is derived from the word ‘new’, not from the word ’significant’. Even the sclerotic world of serious journalism and diplomatic convention was beginning to weary of the G-7/G-8 story. With every passing summit, the vapidity of these events became harder to ignore; we were reaching the shark-jumping moment when not even bureaucrats could pretend to care. But now we have new characters and new plot lines. There is almost no chance that the G-20 meetings will accomplish more than the G-7 meetings, but what does that have to do with anything? Evidently, not much.

Second, pandering is one of the activities that bring politicians, journalists and diplomats together, and the G-20 summit is a panderfest of historic proportions. Politicians pander to the prejudices and aspirations of their constituents. Right now that means ‘looking busy’ about the world economy, so the politicians welcome a summit that can showcase their tireless efforts to make voters rich or at least get them jobs. Diplomats also pander: the powerful countries always need to stroke the less powerful but not insignificant. This was one of the most successful features of the G-7: Canada and Italy stood on (apparently) equal footing with the US, Japan, Germany, Britain and France. Then we pandered to Russia, desperate for signs of great power status, by turning the G-7 into the G-8. And now, drumroll, with the expansion of the G-8 to the G-20 we can pander to the vanity (sorry, we can recognize the importance) of a whole new bunch of countries. Also, we can do something that matters some — bringing China and India into the club — without dropping Canada and Italy. Expanding the club avoids giving offense even if it makes the summits even less focused and useful than before for real policy purposes, but expanding the membership is the better choice if the chief function of the group is to flatter rather than to do.

Amazingly, this obvious and quite relevant fact has not been a major feature in the coverage of what much of the ’serious’ press continues to treat like a major development. Rather than hounding politicians for boondoggling, useless junkets, vanity grandstanding and general time wasting, the serious press has generally supported the summit process and enthusiastically for the most part hailed the ‘rise’ of the G-20.

This is partly because summits work well for the press. The serious press likes these summits for the same reasons that the Weather Channel likes hurricanes — the summits are recurring events that are easy to cover. What will Canada’s position be on bank reform at the G-20? What is the French view on Chinese currency reform? Sources don’t mind talking to journalists about subjects like this so the stories are easy to research and write; as long as editors are willing to publish this swill journalists will gladly go on writing it. From this perspective the increasing difficulty of pretending that G-7 summits still mattered after decades of irrelevance was a problem for journalists; the shift to the G-8 and now G-20 format keeps hope alive.

But the press is also in the pandering business. Many readers are less interested in understanding the world than in receiving confirmation that their existing understanding of the world is correct. For many of the people who read the serious press, the belief that the world is moving smoothly into a new era of North South cooperation along a path of institutional development and reform is an important part of their world view. They also want and perhaps need to believe that the world’s political and economic authorities know what to do about the economic issues we face and are laboring earnestly together to solve common problems. The G-20 story reinforces these important if delusional narratives in ways that both the producers and the consumers of serious journalism find deeply appealing.

Ultimately I suspect that the air will lead out of the G-20 bubble. The world press once covered the meetings and the votes of the UN General Assembly with great attention. I am old enough to remember when General Assembly votes got headline treatment in major US papers. In due course the pretense that those votes mattered in the real world became unsustainable and the headlines died away.

Pending that day, the best way to handle the flood of coverage about events like G-20 summits is to employ the vital news technique of strategic defocusing. Don’t turn a blind eye completely: scan the headlines and even read the occasional op-ed if the columnist is using an approaching summit as a news hook for an interesting essay (rather than bloviating at length about, say, whether Chancellor Merkel will have a public fight with President Obama over the fiscal policies of their two countries). Every now and then a man will actually bite a dog at one of these summits; you can’t ignore them completely but with very little investment of time you can monitor the news flow to see whether by some bizarre twist of fate a real fact somehow manifests itself amid the empty pomp.

For the upcoming weekend, this is good news. We can all spend more time outdoors and less time with the newspapers, TV talking heads and news magazines until this whole pointless roadshow leaves town.

© The American Interest LLC & Walter Russell Mead 2009-2010