We’re still going strong, but have you noticed where we are? We’re seemingly lost and confused. Our country is only 241 years old, practically a baby compared to many other historic countries such as Rome, Greece, India, or Egypt. We still have a lot of growing to do and we must understand exactly that means for us. America, land of the free and home of the brave, yet we hold consistent tragedy in our hands. We spend excessive time trying to maintain the sanctity and outdated values that have been set that we neglect the country that we’re steadily growing into. Roses are gold, but what’s in the heart of the unknown? It’s time that we speak; speak easily, speak clearly, and speak incredibly!
At the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we were nothing but a caterpillar. The caterpillar utilized a system of oppression to conquer and build the land that we call home today. During The Great Depression, Jim Crow, and The Civil Rights Movement, we found our way into a cocoon. In our cocoon, we dealt with planes taking down two of our most precious treasures. It was in 2008 that a progressive butterfly released itself with the game changing presidential election race. We as a country came together and let our land be what it was meant to be, beautifully diverse. Our butterfly consists of black, white, brown and many shades and tints in between. Some eat sashimi for breakfast, others like eggs benedict for lunch. Some prefer Giuseppe Zanotti for their shoe style, others prefer a pair of Chuck Taylors for their comfort. Yet we refuse to embrace that which makes us individuals. Instead, we constantly sting each other like vengeful wasps. Our diversity is what tears us apart.
READ MORE AT:
It’s Time For America To Wake Up | Thought Catalog
Showing posts with label Reality Check. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reality Check. Show all posts
3/5/21
USA: Reality Check: COVID, Russia and Biden's High Approval Rating –by Heather Cox Richardson
The first is that President Biden announced today that Merck, the pharmaceutical company, will pitch in to help make the Johnson & Johnson single-shot coronavirus vaccine. Along with high production rates from the other manufacturers, this should enable the government to produce vaccines for all U.S. adults—300 million of us—by the end of May, two months ahead of the previously projected schedule. The administration has facilitated this rate of production by using the Defense Production Act, a 1950 law that enables the government to manage production of materials deemed necessary for national defense. That law is used quite frequently, but while the previous president used it repeatedly during his administration, he was curiously reluctant to use it to address the coronavirus pandemic.
Read more at: Reality Check: COVID, Russia and Biden's High Approval Rating – BillMoyers.com
Read more at: Reality Check: COVID, Russia and Biden's High Approval Rating – BillMoyers.com
1/4/21
The UK’s European question is far from over – by Kirsty Hughes
As 2021 begins, the European Union and the United Kingdom have a new relationship, underpinned by their trade and co-operation agreement. This fractures, damages and complicates economic, political and social links between the UK and EU. And, alongside the 2019 withdrawal agreement, it ensures there is a customs and regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—meaning the fractures go within as well as beyond the UK.
This attempted distancing of the UK from the rest of Europe, in the pursuit of some illusory, right-wing, ‘global Britain’ ideology combined with continuing propaganda around regaining sovereignty, is bound to fail overall. Instead, the UK is moving into the position of being a rather large economic and political satellite of the EU. And while in some ways, as intended by the Brexiters, leaving the EU will certainly weaken EU-UK relations, Brexit will mainly have the result of leaving the UK with less influence, less voice and less say but still hugely dependent on, and interdependent with, its European neighbours
The political and media frenzy around the possibility of deal or no deal was deliberately stoked by the prime minister, Boris Johnson, and his entourage to encourage headlines of an ultimate UK victory in the talks (Johnson’s cowardice and self-interest always making a deal look the more likely outcome). The stand-off also served to take attention away from the fact that any deal was bound to put up trade and other barriers and to fracture the UK’s part in the EU’s economic and political institutions, and so to damage the UK. But now, in the face of a 1,246 page deal—and much more yet to be negotiated or unilaterally decided (on data, financial services and more)—the reality is laid clearly out for all to see..
Read more at: The UK’s European question is far from over – Kirsty Hughes
This attempted distancing of the UK from the rest of Europe, in the pursuit of some illusory, right-wing, ‘global Britain’ ideology combined with continuing propaganda around regaining sovereignty, is bound to fail overall. Instead, the UK is moving into the position of being a rather large economic and political satellite of the EU. And while in some ways, as intended by the Brexiters, leaving the EU will certainly weaken EU-UK relations, Brexit will mainly have the result of leaving the UK with less influence, less voice and less say but still hugely dependent on, and interdependent with, its European neighbours
The political and media frenzy around the possibility of deal or no deal was deliberately stoked by the prime minister, Boris Johnson, and his entourage to encourage headlines of an ultimate UK victory in the talks (Johnson’s cowardice and self-interest always making a deal look the more likely outcome). The stand-off also served to take attention away from the fact that any deal was bound to put up trade and other barriers and to fracture the UK’s part in the EU’s economic and political institutions, and so to damage the UK. But now, in the face of a 1,246 page deal—and much more yet to be negotiated or unilaterally decided (on data, financial services and more)—the reality is laid clearly out for all to see..
Read more at: The UK’s European question is far from over – Kirsty Hughes
1/1/21
US Economy: S&P 500, Dow close at record highs, dollar gains at end of tumultuous year
All three major indexes gained ground, with the Dow and S&P 500 picking up steam in the session’s final minutes to exit 2020 at record highs. Over the course of a historic year, the indexes both roared and plummeted as economic shutdowns to contain the coronavirus brought markets to their knees.
Read more at:S&P 500, Dow close at record highs, dollar gains at end of tumultuous year | Reuters
Read more at:S&P 500, Dow close at record highs, dollar gains at end of tumultuous year | Reuters
5/18/20
Wall Street Fata Morgana: Dow soars almost 4% main stock-market indexes turn positive for May on coronavirus vaccine hope
U.S. stocks soared on Monday, erasing May losses, on optimism that
the American economy might be percolating again, while the medical
community works toward a potential COVID-19 vaccine.
Risk assets also received a boost after Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell on Sunday night struck a more upbeat tone on the U.S.’s growth prospects, while highlighting that the central bank still retained tools to limit the economic downturn.
Note EU-Digest: Wall Street "Fata Morgana" goes in overdrive, as it clamps on to imaginary "positive" news. Stop dreaming. It's time for a reality check folks. The US economy is on life support.
Dow soars almost 4% main stock-market indexes turn positive for May on coronavirus vaccine hope - MarketWatch
Risk assets also received a boost after Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell on Sunday night struck a more upbeat tone on the U.S.’s growth prospects, while highlighting that the central bank still retained tools to limit the economic downturn.
Note EU-Digest: Wall Street "Fata Morgana" goes in overdrive, as it clamps on to imaginary "positive" news. Stop dreaming. It's time for a reality check folks. The US economy is on life support.
Dow soars almost 4% main stock-market indexes turn positive for May on coronavirus vaccine hope - MarketWatch
12/25/19
12/21/19
USA: There Will Be No Going Back: Wall Street's Confounding Optimism Over An Elusive Trade Deal With China - by Pedro Nicolaci da Costa
A sharp disconnect is emerging between
America’s economic reality and Wall Street’s curiously blind optimism
about the future, reflected in another record-setting streak for US
stock prices despite a weakening economic outlook.
US President Donald Trump’s multi-front
trade war has raised recession fears and contributed to a renewed
contraction in US manufacturing activity, forcing the Federal Reserve to
react by reversing course on interest rates and cutting them again
three times this year. The Atlanta Federal Reserve is now forecasting an
alarmingly weak 0.4 percent annualized rate of growth in the fourth
quarter.
Yet stocks are happy to keep on trucking
to new heights on even the tiniest rumor suggesting some progress on the
trade conflict between the United States and China, the world’s two
largest economies.
Long-term investors should be reticent, however.
For one thing, Trump has shown a distinct
inability to stick to even any modest deals he does manage to strike.
After pulling out of the long-standing North America Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada and following a painstaking renegotiation,
Trump nearly torpedoed the entire process with a surprise threat, later recanted to introduce tariffs on Mexico based on immigration quotas.
Perhaps, and more importantly for those
concerned about the long-term stability of the global economy, Trump’s
erratic and roughshod behavior has likely damaged the world’s trading
system irreparably.
That is not to say existing trade deals
were perfect. Far from it. Most failed to address crucial issues around
workers’ rights, the environment and even the democratic autonomy of
nation-states. Hopefully, the next US president can and will begin to
take on some of those concerns in earnest.
However, wrecking the system without any plans for what comes next as Trump is doing is even more destructive.
Read more at: There Will Be No Going Back: Wall Street's Confounding Optimism Over An Elusive Trade Deal With China - Emerging Market Views
10/15/19
Turkey - US Relations: Donald Trump authorized sanctions on Turkish Leaders, seeking to punish its historic ally for its offensive into N.Syria - Reality or fiction ?
Trump authorises sanctions, slaps steel tariffs on Turkey.
US President Donald Trump on Monday authorised sanctions on Turkey's leaders, reimposed steel tariffs and ended talks on a trade deal, seeking to punish the historic ally for its deadly offensive into Syria. VP Pence to go to Turkey to discuss with Erdogan.
US President Donald Trump on Monday authorised sanctions on Turkey's leaders, reimposed steel tariffs and ended talks on a trade deal, seeking to punish the historic ally for its deadly offensive into Syria. VP Pence to go to Turkey to discuss with Erdogan.
5/26/18
Britain Brexit: EU's Barnier tells Britain to get real
For the complete report read:
http://www.euronews.com/2018/05/26/eu-s-barnier-tells-britain-to-stop-playing-brexit-hide-and-seek-
11/23/17
UN - The US inability to admit reality - by Thierry Meyssan
Decidedly, very little has changed since 11 September
2001. The United States continue to manipulate international public
opinion and the tools of the United Nations, no doubt for different
reasons, but still with the same contempt for the truth.
In 2001, the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom, John Negroponte and Stewart Eldon, assured that their two countries had just attacked Afghanistan in legitimate defence after the attacks committed in New York and Washington.
The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, promised to hand the Security Council a complete dossier presenting proof of Afghan responsibility. 16 years later, this document has still not been seen.
n 2003, the same Colin Powell came to explain to the Security Council, during a speech which was relayed by the televisions of the whole world, that Iraq was also implicated in the attacks of 11 September, and that it was preparing new acts of aggression against the United States by means of weapons of mass destruction.
However, once he had retired from his functions in the US government, General Powell admitted on a TV channel in his own country that the many accusations in his speech were all false [3]. 14 years after this speech, we are still waiting for the United States to apologise to the Security Council.
US methods after 2001 were totally different from any that had preceded them. In 1991, President Bush the Father had made certain that he had international law on his side before he attacked Iraq, having pushed President Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait and to dig in. He had thus obtained the support of almost all the nations in the world. On the contrary, in 2003, Bush the Son settled for lying and then lying some more. Many States distanced themselves from Washington, and we saw the greatest pacifist demonstrations in History, from Paris to Sydney, from Beijing to Mexico.
In 2012, the UN Department of Political Affairs drew up a project for the total and unconditional surrender of Syria [4]. Its director, US citizen Jeffrey Feltman, ex-Under-Secretary of State for Hillary Clinton, used all the means at his disposal to create the greatest coalition in History and accuse Syria of all manner of crimes, none of which were ever proven.
If the States which possess the Feltman document have decided not to publish it, their intention is simply to preserve the United Nations. It is indeed inacceptable that the might and means of the UNO were used to promote war, when the institution was created in order to preserve peace. Since I am not held to the same obligations as a State, I have published a detailed study of this ignoble document in “Right Before Our Eyes”
.
In 2017, the UNO-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism, created at the request of Syria in order to investigate the use of chemical weapons on its territory, became the object of the same struggle which had earlier opposed Hans Blix to Washington. Except that this time, the fronts were reversed. In 2003, the UNO was defending peace. This is no longer the case, since Jeffrey Feltman was reappointed and is still the number 2 of the UNO. This time it’s Russia which is opposing the pro-US international civil servants in the name of the Charter.
For the complete report click here At the UN - US inability to admit reality, by Thierry Meyssan
In 2001, the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom, John Negroponte and Stewart Eldon, assured that their two countries had just attacked Afghanistan in legitimate defence after the attacks committed in New York and Washington.
The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, promised to hand the Security Council a complete dossier presenting proof of Afghan responsibility. 16 years later, this document has still not been seen.
n 2003, the same Colin Powell came to explain to the Security Council, during a speech which was relayed by the televisions of the whole world, that Iraq was also implicated in the attacks of 11 September, and that it was preparing new acts of aggression against the United States by means of weapons of mass destruction.
However, once he had retired from his functions in the US government, General Powell admitted on a TV channel in his own country that the many accusations in his speech were all false [3]. 14 years after this speech, we are still waiting for the United States to apologise to the Security Council.
US methods after 2001 were totally different from any that had preceded them. In 1991, President Bush the Father had made certain that he had international law on his side before he attacked Iraq, having pushed President Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait and to dig in. He had thus obtained the support of almost all the nations in the world. On the contrary, in 2003, Bush the Son settled for lying and then lying some more. Many States distanced themselves from Washington, and we saw the greatest pacifist demonstrations in History, from Paris to Sydney, from Beijing to Mexico.
In 2012, the UN Department of Political Affairs drew up a project for the total and unconditional surrender of Syria [4]. Its director, US citizen Jeffrey Feltman, ex-Under-Secretary of State for Hillary Clinton, used all the means at his disposal to create the greatest coalition in History and accuse Syria of all manner of crimes, none of which were ever proven.
If the States which possess the Feltman document have decided not to publish it, their intention is simply to preserve the United Nations. It is indeed inacceptable that the might and means of the UNO were used to promote war, when the institution was created in order to preserve peace. Since I am not held to the same obligations as a State, I have published a detailed study of this ignoble document in “Right Before Our Eyes”
.
In 2017, the UNO-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism, created at the request of Syria in order to investigate the use of chemical weapons on its territory, became the object of the same struggle which had earlier opposed Hans Blix to Washington. Except that this time, the fronts were reversed. In 2003, the UNO was defending peace. This is no longer the case, since Jeffrey Feltman was reappointed and is still the number 2 of the UNO. This time it’s Russia which is opposing the pro-US international civil servants in the name of the Charter.
For the complete report click here At the UN - US inability to admit reality, by Thierry Meyssan
11/25/16
The Atlantic Alliance: EU, when will we wake up and smell the roses when it comes to dealing with our US partner?
 |
| No Es Mi Culpa- it is not my fault |
Perhaps, but two professors who have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion explain it this way:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."
On the other hand:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
They concluded:
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn't surprised by the survey's results.
"American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now."
This is the "Duh Report", says Death and Taxes magazine's Robyn Pennacchia. Maybe, she writes, Americans should just accept their fate.
"Perhaps we ought to suck it up, admit we have a "classist society" and do like England where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commoners," she writes, "instead of pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity here."
All the recent wars, where we Europeans so faithfully followed the US in, either independently, or through the NATO which has outlived its time and purpose; Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria. They have a;; been a complete failure.
And now: The election of Donald Trump raises squarely the question of values, soft power, what do we in Europe stand for and how will we behave - moral and ethics? So far Europe and the U.S. have seen eye to eye, but will that continue to be the case? What kind of America will we see? Will Europe have to bend its values to maintain the U.S military umbrella, and if it does what kind of Europe will emerge?
How can the U.S. and Europe do things together if they differ fundamentally on what they stand for?
And why should we?
Yes indeed, Europe needs to smell the roses and act far more independently when it comes to dealing with it's US partner.
EU-Digest
US Economy: Wall Street Is Suddenly in Love with Trump, now they think he is one of them - but will it last?
 |
| What is next? |
There was also the matter of Trump saying things on the trail like: ”hedge-fund guys are getting away with murder” and ”Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us” and ”I’m not going to let Wall Street get away with murder”.
But after a brief moment of panic, wherein it became clear Donald J. Trump, he of ”grab them by the p---y” and “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” fame, would be the next president of the United States of America,
Wall Street quickly adjusted to the new reality. In fact, a lot of people are downright giddy about Trump living in the White House (during the week, anyway).
All the usual Wall Street cronies were happy: “Regulatory overreach probably peaked,” said Robert McTamaney, a former Goldman Sachs partner who helped run the firm’s equities-trading business in Asia until 2011 and now manages his own money. “It’s going to come off the boil, and you can probably cut back on the legal team and compliance.”
The impact of the rapidly changing tide in consumer confidence, though, won't be limited to just Trump and Republicans. Already, we have seen the consequence of falling Democratic voter confidence foster spontaneous, peaceful protests. Should Democrats' moods fall further, those protests will become angrier; and we will see the same divisiveness and and extremism seen recently within the Republican Party.
As mood falls, rising self-interest challenges the cohesiveness of even the strongest organizations.
Throughout the 2016 campaign, one could watch as falling confidence split support between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. If Democrats' confidence remains low, it would not be at all surprising to see even greater divisions form. Based on what I see, a young, leftward leaning, heretofore unknown leader could easily emerge as the new hope of the party — an anti-Hillary Clinton Democrat, as it were.
While Elizabeth Warren is receiving all the media attention now, if mood stays low, the spotlight will almost certainly move on to a true outsider. For the Democratic Party, the outcome of the 2020 election will rest squarely on the party’s ability to pull together young voters in opposition to the Trump presidency.
While admittedly very early, one can expect anti-Wall Street/anti-capitalism sentiment to play a major part, particularly given Trump’s business pedigree. While economists will likely look at the post-election surge in confidence as a reason to expect strong holiday sales, don’t count on that.
Rather than reflecting the improving financial condition of American consumer, the latest Gallup figures are expressing a return of hopefulness to Republican voters, offset by a mild decline in optimism among Democrats — a change in the political tide. Nothing, however, has changed in the wallets and pocketbooks of voters.
For Trump, he must now translate the "Evengelical tent revival" resurgence in confidence among Republicans into higher confidence for all Americans.
As rising confidence is the critical input to economic growth, financial prosperity and social cohesion, what happens to Americans’ mood over the next several months will drive the trajectory of the next four years. While many Americans feel better today than they did last week, many, many more need to feel good.
Right now, looking closely at the Presidential election results one can only ask: "has the Trump election win been a silent coup of Corporate America and the Republican party, or have they been just as surprised as the rest of us"
It seems more likely Wall Street could be in for a big surprise and possibly a total meltdown of the US economy. Only time will tell.
EU-Digest
11/16/16
USA: President Trump's Fourteen Points - Will he keep them ?
Exit polls indicate that only 37 percent of voters thought
President-elect Donald Trump “qualified to be president.”
Only 34 percent, said he had “the right personality and temperament for the office.”
In many states, voters simply refused to choose between Hillary Clinton and Trump. In Michigan, for example, some 90,000 voted but refused to make any choice at all for President
As was the case for Al Gore in the 2000 election against George W. Bush, Clinton had the support of more voters than her opponent.
Nevertheless, under our constitution, Trump will soon take the oath of office as President of the United States of America.
The citizens of the US will be honor bound to salute the new president’s rank, despite all his failings as a man. Both President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have already done so, with grace and style, as was their duty.
That said, saluting Trump’s new rank does not mean one must ignore the man or condone his behavior, either as president or as a private citizen.
What policies or actions promoted by President-elect Trump can we all agree on and support for the greater good of our country?
The following 14 points, all given voice and supported by Trump at some point during his mean-spirited campaign, would seem to form a basis for moving the US forward in a positive and bipartisan spirit.
1. A massive initiative to rebuild/improve/repair our infrastructure. (October 2016)
2. Improve the military but reduce the defense budget. (October 2015)
3. Accept gay marriage. (August 2015)
4. Agree that Stop-&-frisk is unconstitutional. (September 2016)
5. Support paid family leave. (September 2016)
6. Serve as an honest broker and negotiate a lasting treaty of peace between Israel and her enemies. (February 2016)
7. Condemn Russian & any other country’s involvement in our elections. (October 2016)
8. Promote maximum representation and maximum voter participation. (Apr 2016)
9. Educate the public on value of comprehensive vaccinations. (October 2016)
10. Institute some form of universal health care. (July 2000)
11. Fix veteran’s hospitals, and pay private doctors to treat vets in the meantime. (September 2015)
12. Raise minimum wages, nationally and in the states. (May 2016)
13. Get rid of carried interest deduction for brokers (October 2016)
14. Support the exploration of space (October 2016)
Let’s hope, and work hard to make sure, that President Trump’s first 100 days are both productive and bipartisan – on the points that lift us all up. There is at least some ground for agreement.
Read more: President Trump's Fourteen Points - The Globalist
Only 34 percent, said he had “the right personality and temperament for the office.”
In many states, voters simply refused to choose between Hillary Clinton and Trump. In Michigan, for example, some 90,000 voted but refused to make any choice at all for President
As was the case for Al Gore in the 2000 election against George W. Bush, Clinton had the support of more voters than her opponent.
Nevertheless, under our constitution, Trump will soon take the oath of office as President of the United States of America.
The citizens of the US will be honor bound to salute the new president’s rank, despite all his failings as a man. Both President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have already done so, with grace and style, as was their duty.
That said, saluting Trump’s new rank does not mean one must ignore the man or condone his behavior, either as president or as a private citizen.
What policies or actions promoted by President-elect Trump can we all agree on and support for the greater good of our country?
The following 14 points, all given voice and supported by Trump at some point during his mean-spirited campaign, would seem to form a basis for moving the US forward in a positive and bipartisan spirit.
1. A massive initiative to rebuild/improve/repair our infrastructure. (October 2016)
2. Improve the military but reduce the defense budget. (October 2015)
3. Accept gay marriage. (August 2015)
4. Agree that Stop-&-frisk is unconstitutional. (September 2016)
5. Support paid family leave. (September 2016)
6. Serve as an honest broker and negotiate a lasting treaty of peace between Israel and her enemies. (February 2016)
7. Condemn Russian & any other country’s involvement in our elections. (October 2016)
8. Promote maximum representation and maximum voter participation. (Apr 2016)
9. Educate the public on value of comprehensive vaccinations. (October 2016)
10. Institute some form of universal health care. (July 2000)
11. Fix veteran’s hospitals, and pay private doctors to treat vets in the meantime. (September 2015)
12. Raise minimum wages, nationally and in the states. (May 2016)
13. Get rid of carried interest deduction for brokers (October 2016)
14. Support the exploration of space (October 2016)
Let’s hope, and work hard to make sure, that President Trump’s first 100 days are both productive and bipartisan – on the points that lift us all up. There is at least some ground for agreement.
Read more: President Trump's Fourteen Points - The Globalist
9/14/16
Corporate Power: Corporations Running the World Used To Be Science Fiction - Now It's a Reality. - by Aisha Dodwell
Imagine a world in which all of the main functions of society are run for-profit by private companies. Schools are run by multinationals. Private security firms have replaced police forces. And most big infrastructure lies in the hands of a tiny plutocratic elite. Justice, such as it is, is meted out by shady corporate tribunals only accessible to the rich, who can easily escape the reach of limited national judicial systems. The poor, on the other hand, have almost no recourse against the mighty will of the remote corporate elite as they are chased off their land and forced into further penury.
This sounds like a piece of dystopian science fiction. But it’s not. It’s very close to the reality in which we live. The power of corporations has reached a level never before seen in human history, often dwarfing the power of states.
"The problem of unrestrained corporate power is massive, and it requires a massive solution."
Today, of the 100 wealthiest economic entities in the world, 69 are now corporations and only 31 countries*. This is up from 63 to 37 a year ago. At this rate, within a generation we will be living in a world entirely dominated by giant corporations.As multinationals increasingly dominate areas traditionally considered the primary domain of the state, we should be afraid. While they privatise everything from education and health to border controls and prisons, they stash their profits away in secret offshore accounts. And while they have unrivalled access to decision makers they avoid democratic processes by setting up secret courts enabling them to bypass all judicial systems applicable to people. Meanwhile their raison d’etre of perpetual growth in a finite world is causing environmental destruction and driving climate change. From Sports Direct’s slave-like working conditions to BP’s oil spill devastating people’s homes, stories of corporations violating rights are all too often seen in our daily papers.
Yet the power of corporations is so great within our society that they have undermined the idea that there is any other way to run society. We are all too familiar with hearing about the threat of ‘losing corporate investment’ or companies ‘taking their business somewhere else’ as if the government’s number one task is to attract corporate investment.
It is this corporate agenda that permeates the governing institutions of the global economy, like the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund, whose policies and operations have given more importance to the ‘rights’ of big business than the rights and needs of people and the environment.
The problem of unrestrained corporate power is massive, and it requires a massive solution. That is why today Global Justice Now is launching a petition to the UK government demanding that it backs the new UN initiative for a legally binding global treaty on transnational corporations and human rights.
This UN treaty is the result of campaigning by countries from across the global south for international laws to regulate the activities of TNCs. In June 2014 they successfully got a resolution passed in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) establishing the need for such a treaty.
A working group of member states has been set up to take the treaty forward, chaired by Ecuador, they have met once already in 2015, and have the next meeting scheduled for October 2016 to discuss the scope and content of the treaty. Meanwhile, civil society groups from across the world have come together and formed the Treaty Alliance movement which aims to make sure the treaty comes in to being with truly meaningful content.
Although it may sound like a boring technical process, this treaty is something we should be excited about because it provides a huge opportunity in the fight to restrain corporate power. It has massive potential to withdraw the privileges that corporations have gained over recent decades and force them to comply with international human rights law, international labour law and international environmental standards. It would oblige governments to take the power of corporations seriously, and hold them to account for the power they wield. This would standardise how different governments relate to multinationals which means that rather than allowing them to play countries off against one another in a race to the bottom, it would force minimum standards.
But the UK government, well known for its cosy relationship with corporations, has so far refused to take part in this UN treaty. And the UK are not alone, most other EU countries are also opposed to the treaty.
We need to make sure our government doesn’t pass up on this rare opportunity to provide genuine protection for the victims of human rights abuses committed by multinational corporations and place binding obligations on all governments to hold their corporations to account for their impacts on people and the planet.
That’s why groups across the continent are joining forces to make sure their leaders participate in the Geneva talks this October. The petition launched today, urging governments across Europe to participate in the Geneva talks will be delivered to national and EU leaders on October 12th.
Of course, the battle against corporate power has many fronts and the UN treaty is only one part of it. At the same time, we need to continue to develop alternative ways to produce and distribute the goods and services we need. We need to undermine the notion that only massive corporations can make the economy and society ‘work’. Food sovereignty and energy democracy are just two examples of how it is possible to build an economy without corporations. But as long as corporations do play a role in our economy, we need to find ways to control their activity and prevent abuses. This is why we need to fight for this UN treaty.
The alternative is that we continue to rush towards the dystopian vision of unchallenged corporate power. We cannot allow this to happen. We must fight back.
Read more: Corporations Running the World Used To Be Science Fiction - Now It's a Reality. | Common Dreams | Breaking News
This sounds like a piece of dystopian science fiction. But it’s not. It’s very close to the reality in which we live. The power of corporations has reached a level never before seen in human history, often dwarfing the power of states.
"The problem of unrestrained corporate power is massive, and it requires a massive solution."
Today, of the 100 wealthiest economic entities in the world, 69 are now corporations and only 31 countries*. This is up from 63 to 37 a year ago. At this rate, within a generation we will be living in a world entirely dominated by giant corporations.As multinationals increasingly dominate areas traditionally considered the primary domain of the state, we should be afraid. While they privatise everything from education and health to border controls and prisons, they stash their profits away in secret offshore accounts. And while they have unrivalled access to decision makers they avoid democratic processes by setting up secret courts enabling them to bypass all judicial systems applicable to people. Meanwhile their raison d’etre of perpetual growth in a finite world is causing environmental destruction and driving climate change. From Sports Direct’s slave-like working conditions to BP’s oil spill devastating people’s homes, stories of corporations violating rights are all too often seen in our daily papers.
Yet the power of corporations is so great within our society that they have undermined the idea that there is any other way to run society. We are all too familiar with hearing about the threat of ‘losing corporate investment’ or companies ‘taking their business somewhere else’ as if the government’s number one task is to attract corporate investment.
It is this corporate agenda that permeates the governing institutions of the global economy, like the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund, whose policies and operations have given more importance to the ‘rights’ of big business than the rights and needs of people and the environment.
The problem of unrestrained corporate power is massive, and it requires a massive solution. That is why today Global Justice Now is launching a petition to the UK government demanding that it backs the new UN initiative for a legally binding global treaty on transnational corporations and human rights.
This UN treaty is the result of campaigning by countries from across the global south for international laws to regulate the activities of TNCs. In June 2014 they successfully got a resolution passed in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) establishing the need for such a treaty.
A working group of member states has been set up to take the treaty forward, chaired by Ecuador, they have met once already in 2015, and have the next meeting scheduled for October 2016 to discuss the scope and content of the treaty. Meanwhile, civil society groups from across the world have come together and formed the Treaty Alliance movement which aims to make sure the treaty comes in to being with truly meaningful content.
Although it may sound like a boring technical process, this treaty is something we should be excited about because it provides a huge opportunity in the fight to restrain corporate power. It has massive potential to withdraw the privileges that corporations have gained over recent decades and force them to comply with international human rights law, international labour law and international environmental standards. It would oblige governments to take the power of corporations seriously, and hold them to account for the power they wield. This would standardise how different governments relate to multinationals which means that rather than allowing them to play countries off against one another in a race to the bottom, it would force minimum standards.
But the UK government, well known for its cosy relationship with corporations, has so far refused to take part in this UN treaty. And the UK are not alone, most other EU countries are also opposed to the treaty.
We need to make sure our government doesn’t pass up on this rare opportunity to provide genuine protection for the victims of human rights abuses committed by multinational corporations and place binding obligations on all governments to hold their corporations to account for their impacts on people and the planet.
That’s why groups across the continent are joining forces to make sure their leaders participate in the Geneva talks this October. The petition launched today, urging governments across Europe to participate in the Geneva talks will be delivered to national and EU leaders on October 12th.
Of course, the battle against corporate power has many fronts and the UN treaty is only one part of it. At the same time, we need to continue to develop alternative ways to produce and distribute the goods and services we need. We need to undermine the notion that only massive corporations can make the economy and society ‘work’. Food sovereignty and energy democracy are just two examples of how it is possible to build an economy without corporations. But as long as corporations do play a role in our economy, we need to find ways to control their activity and prevent abuses. This is why we need to fight for this UN treaty.
The alternative is that we continue to rush towards the dystopian vision of unchallenged corporate power. We cannot allow this to happen. We must fight back.
Read more: Corporations Running the World Used To Be Science Fiction - Now It's a Reality. | Common Dreams | Breaking News
8/7/16
USA: Obama’s Warren Buffett foreign policy - by Derel Chollet
In his August 1 column, “A US retreat that feeds on itself,” Fred Hiatt rehearsed many of the familiar critiques of US President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, suggesting that if only the United States had kept substantial troops in Iraq, put forces into post-Gaddafi Libya, bombed Syria after it used chemical weapons and focused a little less on “nation-building at home,” the US — and the world — would be better off.
The idea that the US has retreated defies reality. Today the US is more engaged, in more places and in more ways, than it was eight years ago. In fact, on the issues that matter most — how and where the country uses military force, how it approaches its enemies and works with its partners, and how it should conceive of its power and exert its leadership — Obama’s mark will be enduring and largely positive. Instead of allowing the consensus for the America’s global leadership to fray, the president has worked to strengthen and sustain it.
That’s because Obama plays a “long game.” The defining element of his global strategy is that it reflects the totality of US interests — foreign and domestic — to project leadership in an era of finite resources and seemingly infinite demands.
Obama’s fundamental challenge has been to implement such a strategy within a debate that has become overwhelmed by manufactured drama and the illusion of silver bullet, black-and-white solutions. For too many critics, the answer is almost always for the US to do more of something and show “strength” by acting “tough,” though usually what that something is remains very vague. And doing more of everything is not a strategy.
Think of it this way: Obama has been like a foreign policy version of Warren Buffett, a proudly pragmatic value investor less concerned with appearances and the whims of the moment, focused instead on making solid investments with an eye to long-term success. The foreign policy debate, on the other hand, tends to be dominated by policy day traders — or flashy real estate developers — whose incentives are the opposite: achieving quick results by making a big splash, getting rewarded with instant judgments and reacting to every blip in the market.
Of course, today’s geopolitical turbulence feels like more than the usual market ups and downs. It is understandable that when looking out at the world, Americans are frustrated, pessimistic and scared. But think back to 2008, with the US economy shedding as many as 500,000 jobs a month and on the cusp of a second Great Depression, the US military was stretched to the breaking point through fighting two wars, and many parts of the world associated the US with militarism, Guantanamo Bay and torture. The picture looks very different today.
History reminds us that the question is not whether the world presents challenges but rather how the US is positioned to deal with them. Considering the extent of today’s global disorder, it is tempting to succumb to a narrative of grievance and fear — sharpening the divisions between “us” and “them,” building walls longer and higher, and lashing out at enemies with force. Or to think it better that, to reduce exposure to such geopolitical risk, the US should divest from its alliances. Despite all the talk of “strength,” what these impulses reflect is a core lack of confidence.
We cannot submit to such pessimism. As Obama’s presidency nears its end, the state of the world is indeed tumultuous and ever changing, but we have good reason to be confident. The United States’ global position is sound.
The US has restored a sense of strategic solvency. Countries look to it for guidance, ideas, support and protection.
It is again admired and inspiring, not just for what it can do abroad but also for its economic vitality and strong society at home. Or as Buffett — who last Monday spoke at a rally in support of Hillary Clinton for president — recently declared in his more folksy way, “The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”
When it comes to being in a position to solve problems and give people an opportunity to improve their lives, the US is far better off than it was a decade ago. The question is whether it will continue to make the choices necessary to stay that way.
Read more: Obama’s Warren Buffett foreign policy | GulfNews.com
The idea that the US has retreated defies reality. Today the US is more engaged, in more places and in more ways, than it was eight years ago. In fact, on the issues that matter most — how and where the country uses military force, how it approaches its enemies and works with its partners, and how it should conceive of its power and exert its leadership — Obama’s mark will be enduring and largely positive. Instead of allowing the consensus for the America’s global leadership to fray, the president has worked to strengthen and sustain it.
That’s because Obama plays a “long game.” The defining element of his global strategy is that it reflects the totality of US interests — foreign and domestic — to project leadership in an era of finite resources and seemingly infinite demands.
Obama’s fundamental challenge has been to implement such a strategy within a debate that has become overwhelmed by manufactured drama and the illusion of silver bullet, black-and-white solutions. For too many critics, the answer is almost always for the US to do more of something and show “strength” by acting “tough,” though usually what that something is remains very vague. And doing more of everything is not a strategy.
Think of it this way: Obama has been like a foreign policy version of Warren Buffett, a proudly pragmatic value investor less concerned with appearances and the whims of the moment, focused instead on making solid investments with an eye to long-term success. The foreign policy debate, on the other hand, tends to be dominated by policy day traders — or flashy real estate developers — whose incentives are the opposite: achieving quick results by making a big splash, getting rewarded with instant judgments and reacting to every blip in the market.
Of course, today’s geopolitical turbulence feels like more than the usual market ups and downs. It is understandable that when looking out at the world, Americans are frustrated, pessimistic and scared. But think back to 2008, with the US economy shedding as many as 500,000 jobs a month and on the cusp of a second Great Depression, the US military was stretched to the breaking point through fighting two wars, and many parts of the world associated the US with militarism, Guantanamo Bay and torture. The picture looks very different today.
History reminds us that the question is not whether the world presents challenges but rather how the US is positioned to deal with them. Considering the extent of today’s global disorder, it is tempting to succumb to a narrative of grievance and fear — sharpening the divisions between “us” and “them,” building walls longer and higher, and lashing out at enemies with force. Or to think it better that, to reduce exposure to such geopolitical risk, the US should divest from its alliances. Despite all the talk of “strength,” what these impulses reflect is a core lack of confidence.
We cannot submit to such pessimism. As Obama’s presidency nears its end, the state of the world is indeed tumultuous and ever changing, but we have good reason to be confident. The United States’ global position is sound.
The US has restored a sense of strategic solvency. Countries look to it for guidance, ideas, support and protection.
It is again admired and inspiring, not just for what it can do abroad but also for its economic vitality and strong society at home. Or as Buffett — who last Monday spoke at a rally in support of Hillary Clinton for president — recently declared in his more folksy way, “The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”
When it comes to being in a position to solve problems and give people an opportunity to improve their lives, the US is far better off than it was a decade ago. The question is whether it will continue to make the choices necessary to stay that way.
Read more: Obama’s Warren Buffett foreign policy | GulfNews.com
8/17/15
The Eurozone After Greece: Spain Vs. France - by Holger Schmieding
While it is usually left unsaid, the great hope, under this approach to understanding the European economy, is that continued monetary action from the ECB will “bail out” Europe’s second-largest economy – and keep it from the need to undertake labor market reforms and other structural measures.
But what does the actual economic evidence show?
Bottom line: If Paris does not go beyond its recent mini reforms, it will soon fall behind Spain and most other euro members.
Read more: The Eurozone After Greece: Spain Vs. France - The Globalist
6/9/15
Sustainable Global Development: First draft of sustainable development goals exposes gaps, warn NGOs
The new set of development goals that will address global poverty,
inequality and climate change over the next 15 years are strong on
vision, but weak on the methods to make them a reality, NGOs warned this
week.
After months of negotiations among UN member states, the first official – “zero” – draft of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) was published on Tuesday June 9.
As widely expected, the number of goals (17) and number of targets (169) have not changed since they were first proposed by a UN open working group last year. Some of the targets have been recommended for revisions.
The SDGs will replace the current millennium development goals, which expire at the end of the year. However, concerns have been raised about how the new goals will be measured.
“WaterAid is concerned that while there is a target to reach everyone everywhere with sanitation and hygiene, there are presently no indicators to measure whether, for instance, homes or healthcare facilities have soap and water for handwashing,” said Margaret Batty, the NGO’s director of global policy and campaigns.
“Without these indicators, the sustainable development goals will not succeed in the goal of leaving no one behind.”
Helen Dennis, Christian Aid’s senior adviser on poverty and inequality, added: “We have yet to see strong enough plans for how the ambitious vision will be achieved. It is clear that the sections of the document on financing and implementation, and on follow-up and review, need to be beefed up before September. Achieving the vision will also depend on an ambitious, legally binding climate deal later this year.”
Read more: First draft of sustainable development goals exposes gaps, warn NGOs | Global development | The Guardian
After months of negotiations among UN member states, the first official – “zero” – draft of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) was published on Tuesday June 9.
As widely expected, the number of goals (17) and number of targets (169) have not changed since they were first proposed by a UN open working group last year. Some of the targets have been recommended for revisions.
The SDGs will replace the current millennium development goals, which expire at the end of the year. However, concerns have been raised about how the new goals will be measured.
“WaterAid is concerned that while there is a target to reach everyone everywhere with sanitation and hygiene, there are presently no indicators to measure whether, for instance, homes or healthcare facilities have soap and water for handwashing,” said Margaret Batty, the NGO’s director of global policy and campaigns.
“Without these indicators, the sustainable development goals will not succeed in the goal of leaving no one behind.”
Helen Dennis, Christian Aid’s senior adviser on poverty and inequality, added: “We have yet to see strong enough plans for how the ambitious vision will be achieved. It is clear that the sections of the document on financing and implementation, and on follow-up and review, need to be beefed up before September. Achieving the vision will also depend on an ambitious, legally binding climate deal later this year.”
Read more: First draft of sustainable development goals exposes gaps, warn NGOs | Global development | The Guardian
1/30/14
Switzerland: "A reality Check" - Davos Disconnects - by Paul Stoller
Four thousand high-powered business executives, global leaders (presidents and ministers) not to forget celebrities like Matt Damon and Goldie Hawn converged on the exclusive Swiss resort to attend sessions, to wine, to dine, to schmooze, to make deals and to be entertained.
Amid the hoopla these "stakeholders" discussed the dangers of technologically induced employment reduction, the possibility of doing business with Iran and the increasing stability of the Eurozone.
This year Davos attendees also discussed the social responsibility of global elites to confront and remedy the persistent presence of income inequality.
Focusing on the Davos debate about the distribution of wealth, Katrin Bennhold of The New York Times quoted Pope Francis, who challenged the attendees to change the dynamic of income inequality.
The message of the Pope said: "The growth of inequality demands something more than economic growth, even though it presupposes it," Pope Francis said in a message read by one of his cardinals at the conference. "It also calls for decisions, mechanisms and processes directed to a better distribution of wealth, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality.
In addition the Pope added his plea to the conference attendees, "I ask you to ensure that humanity is served by wealth and not ruled by it."
Given the tone and texture of his papacy, it is clear that Pope Francis has direct experience of poverty. Can we say the same for the movers and shakers of the global elite who attended the WEF? How can these economic leaders, the vast majority of whom have little direct experience with economic hardship, have any idea what to do about it? A one-hour radically chic sensitivity session is not likely change a corporate ethos in which the world is ruled rather than served by wealth.
Which leads me to a Davos disconnect -- about assumptions. Global elites tend to look upon the world through economic lenses. This practice makes perfect economic sense, but fails to consider sufficiently, as does Pope Francis and most social scientists, the social dimensions of economic relations. From the beginnings of complex society thousands of years ago, economic and social inequality have been inextricably intertwined. Indeed most of our social systems have been constructed to reinforce social inequality rather than to bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots.
Might it not be better for Davos delegates to spend more time among those whose worlds are in desperate states? If that were the case the aforementioned Davos disconnects would be less glaring. If that were the case, WEF dialogues might compel a degree of real economic and social change.
Now that would be a breath of fresh mountain air.
Read the complete report: Davos Disconnects | Paul Stoller
9/16/12
European Economy Reality Check: Myths about the European Union crisis - by C Fred Bergsten
Here are five myths about the European Union:
1. The Europeans will never get their act together.
The eurozone will never be a United States of Europe, but its members have responded to the crisis with impressive speed. To defend against the financial collapse of the weaker members, they have created joint rescue funds approximating $1 trillion. The European Central Bank has lent trillions more, like the Federal Reserve, and has just reaffirmed that it will do as much as necessary to avoid catastrophe.
The eurozone countries have agreed on firm fiscal rules -- with stiff enforcement penalties -- to limit future budget deficits. They are moving toward a partial fiscal union, through which the strongest countries will help fund the weaker partners. They are working out a full banking union that will prevent bank runs by providing Europe-wide deposit insurance. The debtor countries are implementing politically difficult budget cutbacks and major structural reforms to promote growth, such as easing firing procedures and thus encouraging hiring as well as greater productivity.
2. Greece's departure from the eurozone would doom the single currency.
Actually, it would strengthen the currency. The result would be so chaotic for Greece that the other debtor countries, observing the wreckage, would do whatever it took to avoid the same fate.
3. German taxpayers will never bail out Greek (or Spanish or Italian) pensioners.
Germany is and will remain the paymaster of Europe, complaining loudly and demanding austerity and reform, but coughing up however much is necessary to hold the eurozone together. There are many reasons. First, the entire European integration project of the past six decades, of which the euro is now the decisive symbol, arose from the devastation wreaked by Germany over the previous century. The Germans will not run the risk of destroying Europe again.
Moreover, Germany's export-based economic model rests squarely on the euro: The country runs the world's largest trade surplus, but it enjoys a highly competitive currency against the rest of the world because the exchange rate of the common currency reflects the economies of its weaker neighbors as well as the German powerhouse. And German banks are heavily exposed in the debtor countries, so German taxpayers would have to rescue them if Spain or Italy failed.
4. If austerity measures continue, voters will revolt and extremists will take over.
One of the most amazing aspects of the euro crisis so far is that the political center has held in every debtor country. Incumbent governments have been rejected in all of them, but radical alternatives from both the left and the right have been rejected even more soundly. Portugal and Ireland have stuck to the austerity commitments required as part of their bailouts, while Spain and Italy have gone beyond, with more spending cuts, higher taxes and major labor-market reforms. Only Greek voters flirted with a rejectionist party, but a bank run quickly forced them to reverse course.
5. The euro crisis will tank the U.S. economy and could even swing the presidential election.
No doubt, the downturn in Europe has dampened exports and corporate profits in the United States, weakened employment and investor confidence, and cut perhaps 1 percent off our gross domestic product. But the world's emerging economies, led by China and India, account for half of the global economy and will continue to expand at about 6 percent annually for the foreseeable future.
This is slower than before, but such growth will keep the global economy -- including the United States -- churning for some time. In addition, the United States derives important benefits from Europe's troubles because the crisis diverts global capital into the dollar, especially Treasury securities, keeping our interest rates low and thus fueling at least a gradual recovery of housing and consumer demand.
Dr. C. Fred Bergsten the director of the prestigious Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Read More: Myths about the European Union crisis | StarTribune.com
1. The Europeans will never get their act together.
The eurozone will never be a United States of Europe, but its members have responded to the crisis with impressive speed. To defend against the financial collapse of the weaker members, they have created joint rescue funds approximating $1 trillion. The European Central Bank has lent trillions more, like the Federal Reserve, and has just reaffirmed that it will do as much as necessary to avoid catastrophe.
The eurozone countries have agreed on firm fiscal rules -- with stiff enforcement penalties -- to limit future budget deficits. They are moving toward a partial fiscal union, through which the strongest countries will help fund the weaker partners. They are working out a full banking union that will prevent bank runs by providing Europe-wide deposit insurance. The debtor countries are implementing politically difficult budget cutbacks and major structural reforms to promote growth, such as easing firing procedures and thus encouraging hiring as well as greater productivity.
2. Greece's departure from the eurozone would doom the single currency.
Actually, it would strengthen the currency. The result would be so chaotic for Greece that the other debtor countries, observing the wreckage, would do whatever it took to avoid the same fate.
3. German taxpayers will never bail out Greek (or Spanish or Italian) pensioners.
Germany is and will remain the paymaster of Europe, complaining loudly and demanding austerity and reform, but coughing up however much is necessary to hold the eurozone together. There are many reasons. First, the entire European integration project of the past six decades, of which the euro is now the decisive symbol, arose from the devastation wreaked by Germany over the previous century. The Germans will not run the risk of destroying Europe again.
Moreover, Germany's export-based economic model rests squarely on the euro: The country runs the world's largest trade surplus, but it enjoys a highly competitive currency against the rest of the world because the exchange rate of the common currency reflects the economies of its weaker neighbors as well as the German powerhouse. And German banks are heavily exposed in the debtor countries, so German taxpayers would have to rescue them if Spain or Italy failed.
4. If austerity measures continue, voters will revolt and extremists will take over.
One of the most amazing aspects of the euro crisis so far is that the political center has held in every debtor country. Incumbent governments have been rejected in all of them, but radical alternatives from both the left and the right have been rejected even more soundly. Portugal and Ireland have stuck to the austerity commitments required as part of their bailouts, while Spain and Italy have gone beyond, with more spending cuts, higher taxes and major labor-market reforms. Only Greek voters flirted with a rejectionist party, but a bank run quickly forced them to reverse course.
5. The euro crisis will tank the U.S. economy and could even swing the presidential election.
No doubt, the downturn in Europe has dampened exports and corporate profits in the United States, weakened employment and investor confidence, and cut perhaps 1 percent off our gross domestic product. But the world's emerging economies, led by China and India, account for half of the global economy and will continue to expand at about 6 percent annually for the foreseeable future.
This is slower than before, but such growth will keep the global economy -- including the United States -- churning for some time. In addition, the United States derives important benefits from Europe's troubles because the crisis diverts global capital into the dollar, especially Treasury securities, keeping our interest rates low and thus fueling at least a gradual recovery of housing and consumer demand.
Dr. C. Fred Bergsten the director of the prestigious Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Read More: Myths about the European Union crisis | StarTribune.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)