The political dilemma of public outrage: Guns vs. Band-aids

Health care on first blush may not seem like a topic natural to a Global Markets and Foreign Policy blog.  But to the extent that it is an issue of comparative political economy; and to the extent that it is an issue that accounts for approximately 17% of the U.S. GDP and growing rapidly, well, then it seems quite natural, actually. My first admission, however, is this: I am perplexed. No, not on the topic of healthcare reform, in and of itself.  On the one hand, Americans resist government efforts to repair a Healthcare system that everyone acknowledges is broken; but on the other hand willingly tolerate the “Free-market” pilferage of consumers by the private sector Health Insurance industry in a system that severely hinders the global competitiveness of our nation. President Obama said as much in a recent radio interview, noting:

‘Passing a big bill like this is always messy. FDR was called a socialist when he passed Social Security. JFK and Lyndon Johnson, they were both accused of a government takeover of health care, when they passed Medicare. This is the process we go through because the American people have a long tradition of being suspicious of government, until the government actually does something that helps them, and then they don’t want anybody messing with [it] afterwards.’   – Pres. Obama

Even more, I’m also perplexed, as Rachel Maddow pointed out recently,  that the people most likely to benefit from healthcare reforms have been ginned up into populist rage to oppose it by fear-mongers using vile partisan antics. It’s ironic isn’t it, that the states, largely in the South and the West, that have been most skeptical of President Obama’s agenda for health care reform also have the highest levels of uninsured people in the nation..??  Precisely the population that’s most causing the rest of the nation’s healthcare system to buckle under its cost. Take this one fringe Conservative extremist, Kenneth Gladney for example, who allegedly got himself beat-up trying to hi-jack a Town Hall meeting in St. Louis, MO. It turns out Gladney had just gotten laid-off from his job, and had to end up begging for donations to pay his medical bill from the melee. President Obama’s health reform proposal would protect people in precisely such a situation. When in doubt, lie and obfuscate the issue, then resort to a falsetto’s brand of “patriotism.”  Standard GOP play book.  Where is the compassion among the “compassionate conservatives”..??

After all, the cost of providing health care to 48 million uninsured Americans is economically and practically, unsustainable. Medical costs are soaring at twice the rate of inflation. Even if you don’t pay the bills directly, you see the medical inflation rate in higher insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays. And just what are we getting for the money..??  A system that already limits our choice of doctors & hospitals; often doesn’t cover necessary services; forces patients to satisfy a complex labryinth of procedures and paperwork just to get reimbursed; keeps us tethered to a job we might not enjoy for fear of losing health benefits, and strands us without affordable protection if you lose coverage after experiencing health problems – sometimes even minor ones.

Even Fidel Castro raised an interesting point on the Healthcare debate. It is admittedly difficult to take seriously much of anything Castro has to say.  But on this one point, it seems he has a prescient point.  Castro criticized the U.S. recently for being willing to spend billions on our high-tech military – sometimes even for toys we don’t need – but finding it difficult to approve healthcare reform that would protect the poorest among us. He wrote in a commentary published on a state-run Internet site that huge military budgets are approved easily by the U.S. Congress, but noted that President Obama is struggling to convince federal lawmakers to pass a bill that would “deliver health services to 50 million Americans that don’t have [healthcare protection].”

He is right. We spend over $1 Trillion per year on our military-industrial infrastructure – about one half of the annual Federal budget, excluding debt service on military spending – but only about $200 Bn on government-sponsored healthcare to our populations most in need of it – the poor, working-class and middle-class Americans.  Yet many Americans, as recent Town Hall meetings indicate, seem grudging, parochial and petty in their consideration of this most pressing of social issues – especially considering that the majority of uninsured are the nation’s most vulnerable women and children. 

Federal Spending: Guns vs. Band-aids

‘Huge military budgets are approved easily by the U.S. Congress, but  President Obama is struggling to convince federal lawmakers to pass a bill that would “deliver health services to 50 million Americans that don’t have healthcare protection.”‘ — Fidel Castro

The main stumbling block against providing health insurance for all Americans is the question of how to pay for it. Of the President’s $1 Trillion proposed plan, $800 Bn is already accounted for through the existing group of federal health plans – Medicare, Medicaid, Children and Veterans Healthcare, and the Prescription drug plan – passed by the previous Bush administration, but never funded. To fund the prescription plan, the White House negotiated $80 Bn concession from the Private health insurance industry and approximately $20 Bn concession from the Pharmaceutical industry. The government will need to find a way to plug the remaining $100 Bn revenue hole to subsidize those not getting it through workplace or unable to pay otherwise — about $100 billion. That’s what all the wrangling going on in Congress is about.

World military spending:

World military spending 2007

 Marginal tax rates can and should be raised on high-earners as one source – for example, income earners making over $500,000 a year. But another very viable funding source, albeit never mentioned, can come from a 10% reallocation in military spending, which now is running amok at over $600 billion annually – that figure does not include (1) veterans benefits, (2) the 80% of interest costs on the national debt which comes from bonds issued for military operating and capital expenditures, and (3) the secret budget of our nation’s intelligence agencies. Most knowledgeable intelligence analyst  estimate the total U.S. military budget at approximately $1.2 Tn of the federal governments $2.5 Tn annual budget. The Pentagon’s spending rate is now higher than it was at the height of the Cold War, and is about one-half of the entire world’s military spending, and we spend six times more than the next largest military spending nation, China, although they have 20% of the world’s population, while we have only about five percent of the world’s population.

It seems clear the military budget in the U.S. is a sacred cow and, according to Republicans, a matter of “patriotism” while attending to the health and wellness of our citizens is not. We are Sparta, it appears, rather than enlighten Athens.

It has been reasonably well known for some time that the U.S. spend more per capita on health care than any other country – developed, or not. What may be less well known is that the U.S. has the highest medical inflation rate in the world.  That is, it has the highest growth rates in per capita health care spending since 1980 among high income countries. In fact, the medical inflation rate in the U.S. is rising faster than the nation’s economic growth, and three times faster than real wages – which in recent years is actually declining.  In simplest terms, that means if we do nothing the problem only gets bigger, faster.

President Obama addressing Wall St. executives at Federal Hall

“It is neither right nor responsible after you’ve recovered with the help of your government to shirk your obligation to the goal of wider recovery, a more stable system and a more broadly shared prosperity.”

Mon, 14 Sept - President Obama reinvigorated his administration’s effort to reform the financial regulatory system by taking his bare knuckled message directly to Wall Street.  Speaking at Federal Hall directly across the New York Stock Exchange and using the one year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers the president reminded prominent financial industry executives of their role and risk-taking behavior that led to a global economic melt-down.  And flexing some muscle in the face of recent positive economic trends and a robust +48% rebound in Market performance from the March lows, the president also reminded the audience of measures his administration took to pull the Markets and the economy from the brink of collapse.

 Interactive Media: How the Lords of Finance Shrank, then Recovered

Pulling no punches the president offered a sharp admonition that “there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment.” “Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering,” he noted, “they are choosing to ignore them,” Mr. Obama said in a speech at Federal Hall in Lower Manhattan. They do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation’s.”

Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they [on Wall Street] are choosing to ignore them…They do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation’s.”

Turning screws a little tighter, the president added “I want everybody here to hear my words,” Mr. Obama said. “We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.”

The president shed no new light, nor offered any new proposals to his administration’s financial industry regulatory overhaul plan called the New Financial Foundations. But he did outline how his vision and his plan could prevent future systemic risk and financial system meltdowns.  The president also specifically touted the administration’s plans to increase capital adequacy requirements at big banks, plans to give the Federal Reserve new oversight powers to regulate systemic risks to the financial system, and plans to establish a new consumer-protection agency, which would have broad powers over retail finance products such as credit cards, home mortgages and other consumer loans.  Mr. Obama also urged banks to adopt changes before Congress acts by simplifying the language they use with consumers, overhauling their executive pay structures or allowing shareholders vote on bonuses. He vowed to press the G-20 for action on regulatory reform, and cautioned top executives not to squander public trust with huge year-end bonuses.

We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.

Of particular note on the one-year anniversary of Lehman’s collapse, a Federal judge citing basic fairness principles rejected a proposed legal settlement between the SEC and Bank of America over $3.6Bn in executive bonuses. Judge Jed Rakoff wrote the settlement “does not comport with the most elementary notions of justice and morality.”

‘This settlement does not comport with the most elementary notions of justice and morality. “It is quite something else for the very management that is accused of having lied to its shareholders to determine how much of those victims’ money should be used to make the case against the management go away”’

The ruling directed both the agency and the bank to prepare for a possible trial that would begin no later than Feb. 1. The case involved $3.6 billion in bonuses that were paid by Merrill Lynch late last year, just as that firm was about to be merged with Bank of America. Neither company provided details of the bonuses to their shareholders, who voted on Dec. 5 to approve the merger. The judge focused much of his criticism on the fact that the fine in the case would be paid by the bank’s shareholders, who were the ones that were injured by the lack of disclosure. “It is quite something else for the very management that is accused of having lied to its shareholders to determine how much of those victims’ money should be used to make the case against the management go away,” the judge wrote.

Several MSM sources provided excellent coverage of the speech which are outlined below.  In addition, you can find the full text of the speech here.

Web Resources:

Year later, economy poised for long recovery

The Obama Recovery Continues     

Obama Pushes Stricter Rules for Wall Street

Court Rejects Wall Street Bonus Settlement 

Powerful Wall Street Lobby Stalls Reforms 

Obama Stimulus Package Boosting Economy

 And not skipping a beat on the good news, the White House issued statements reinforcing its view when the program went into effect last Spring that it would take several months for the stimulus effects on the economy to kick-in. Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden also went on the offensive, saying the administration’s sweeping stimulus effort “is in fact working” despite public skepticism driven largely by steady Republican criticism. The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act was passed in January without a single Republican vote, despite President Obama’s bipartisan efforts. Biden noted, “The recovery act has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy, and changing the conversation in this country.  Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we are talking about the end of a recession.”

 ‘The recovery act isin fact working and has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy, and changing the conversation in this country.  Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we are talking about the end of a recession.’

Nearly 200 days into the effort, Biden delivered an upbeat report card about the $787 billion rescue effort that President Barack Obama pushed through Congress. He quoted estimates by private sector economists and independent analysts that the plan has created or saved 500,000 to 750,000 jobs so far. The White House is eager to promote signs of progress as the economy lumbers out of recession. Many economists warn that the unemployment rate will keep rising until at least 2Q 2010.  Unemployent tends to be a lagging economic indicator, yet, it is by that measure — the loss or creation of jobs — by which many Americans decide whether economic life is getting better or not. 

Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers on Sept. 10 will report an updated projection of the number of jobs created or saved because of the stimulus plan. Biden said he expected it will back up his predictions of 150,000 jobs in the first 100 days and another 600,000 formed or saved over the second 100 days of the act

Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus. “For the third quarter, economists at Goldman Sachs predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%. ‘Without that extra stimulus, we would be somewhere around zero,’ said Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist for Goldman.”

One Stop Regulatory Shop..??

I have written before that Sheila Bair, Elizabeth Warren and Eliot Spitzer are among the smartest and most out-spoken policymakers on how we need to restructure the regulatory frame work of the nation’s financial system and banking industry.  In fact I think either one would be a tremendous improvement as Secretary of the Treasury as a replacement for Tim Geithner, who, in my humble opinion, is an industry tool.   

FDIC Chair Bair

In a terrific New York Times Op-Ed piece, Sheila Bair, the Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) outlines a compelling litany of reasons why the Obama administration’s proposed changes, while good in many respects, does not sufficiently address the issues that caused the current – or will prevent future – financial sector crises.  In her editorial, Bair said she supports “key pillars” of the plan, like the national bank regulator and consumer agency, but thinks lawmakers who advocate just one, central regulator are taking it too far, and too cozy with the Wall Street and Bank industry lobby. She blamed the financial crisis on banks taking advantage of regulatory loopholes and using exotic financial products that also fell between the regulatory cracks. I think she has a strong points and legitimate concerns. 

I also admire her, integrity, independence and willingness to stand her ground and to maintain the need to enforce market discipline on ‘too big to fail’ companies. See videoInterestingly Sheila Bair, a Republican originally appointed by Bush 43, but re-appointed by President Obama as FDIC Chair is from, of all places, Independence, KS and was also one of only few regulators who openly opposed the deregulation fervor of fellow Republicans such as former Texas Senator, Phil Gramm, during the 106^th Congress (2000-2001).

——–

By SHEILA C. BAIR

NYT, August 31, 2009 – The Obama administration has proposed sweeping changes to our financial regulatory system. I am an active supporter of the key pillars of reform, including the creation of a consumer financial protection agency and the administration’s plan to consolidate the supervision of federally chartered financial institutions in a new national bank supervisor. This consolidation would improve the efficiency of federally chartered institutions while not undercutting our dual system of state and federally chartered banks.

But some are advocating even more drastic changes, like the creation of a single regulator for all banks (and bank holding companies). We clearly need to streamline the system, but a single regulator is not the solution. Calls for consolidation beyond the administration’s plan fail to identify the real roots of last year’s financial meltdown. The truth is, no regulatory structure — be it a single regulator as in Britain or the multi-regulator system we have in the United States — performed well in the crisis.

The principal enablers of our current difficulties were institutions that took on enormous risk by exploiting regulatory gaps between banks and the non-bank shadow financial system, and by using unregulated over-the-counter derivative contracts to develop volatile and potentially dangerous products. Consumers continue to face huge gaps in personal financial protections. We also lack a credible method for closing large financial institutions without inflicting severe collateral damage on the economy.

The creation of a single regulator for all federal- and state-chartered banks would not address these problems. Rather, it would endanger a thriving, 150-year-old banking system that has separate charters for federal and state banks. Within this system, state-chartered institutions tend to be community-oriented and very close to the small businesses and consumers they serve. They provide loans that support economic growth and job creation, especially in rural areas. Main Street banks also are sensitive to market discipline because they know that they’re not too big to fail and that they’ll be closed if they become insolvent.

Concentrating power in a single regulator would inevitably benefit the largest banks and punish community ones. A single regulator’s resources and attention would be focused on the largest banks. This would generate more consolidation in the banking industry at a time when we need to reduce our reliance on large financial institutions and put an end to. . .

Read more here.

Web Resources:

Sheila Bair is on your side

Sheila Bair for Treasury Secretary

Sheila Bair & the CFTC

The Obama administration’s regulatory overhaul plan would incorporate the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision – both of whom have a reputation of regulatory incompetence after its handling of IndyMac — into one national bank supervisor. The FDIC would then handle state-chartered banks and the Federal Reserve would act as a broader referee of sorts, overseeing the largest institutions and monitoring systemic risk. This last point leaves wide open legitimate concerns that the Federal Reserve would remain victim to regulatory arbitrage and influence peddling by Wall Street and the Banking industry lobby. A separate consumer-protection agency would also be created under the President’s plan. Bair insists that Wall Street and big banks in the U.S. be held accountable in their role in causing the financial crisis; and, she argues, that market discipline should be enforced to prevent future reckless risk-taking, and that financial institutions that are too big to fail, are simply too big and pose an inherent risk to our financial system. I think she’s right.

U.S Taxpayers Earn $14 Billion Profit on Fed Bank Bail-out Loans

Ka-ching!!  According to reports in both the Financial Times of London, as well as the New York Times, the Federal Reserve has made a $14Bn profit on loan programs that have provided hundreds of billions of dollars in liquidity to the financial system since the start of the crisis two years ago, according to Fed officials. The internal estimate is based on the difference between the fees and interest on the lending facilities and the interest the Fed would have earned had it invested the funds in three-month Treasury bills. The central bank earned about $19bn in income from charging interest and fees to financial institutions and investors that tapped the new facilities to obtain much-needed funds during the turmoil. The interest the Fed would have earned by investing the same amount in T-bills was an estimated $5bn, leaving a $14bn gain since August 2007 for a handsome. The Fed assessment underlines the possibility that other central banks could make a profit on their crisis-fighting measures – at least before adjusting for the risk they assumed.

“The taxpayers want their money back and they want the government out of our banking system,”

Who's paying back..??

The profits, collected from eight of the biggest banks that have fully repaid their obligations to the government, come to about $4 billion, or the equivalent of about 15 percent annually, according to calculations compiled for The New York Times. These early returns are by no means a full accounting of the huge financial rescue undertaken by the federal government last year to stabilize teetering banks and other companies. The government still faces potentially huge long-term losses from its bailouts of the insurance giant American International Group, the mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the automakers General Motors and Chrysler. The Treasury Department could also take a hit from its guarantees on billions of dollars of toxic mortgages. But the mere hint of bailout profits for the nearly year-old Troubled Asset Relief Program has been received as a welcome surprise. It has also spurred hopes that the government could soon get out of the banking business.

Credit Default Swap offering and structure

Profit of Doom

plan or your personal stock portfolio has tanked over the last two years or so, knows that it’s because of the global financial crisis. It was triggered by the collapse of the housing market in the United States and magnified worldwide by the sale of complicated investments – some, myself included, would say risky bets of the type found in casinos and betting parlors – that Warren Buffett warned about in March 2003, and once labeled these derivative products as ‘financial weapons of mass destruction.’

These instruments which used to be solely the province of “Bucket Shops” and for most of the 20^th century were illegal investment instruments are called credit derivatives or Credit Default Swaps (CDS). They were made legal in the 106^th Congress (2000-2001) by the financial industry lobby and complicit congressmen like former Texas Senator Phil Gramm and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (also from Texas) under their political party’s anti-government orthodoxy of “de-regulation.”  Today these instruments compose a $450 Trillion market – a veritable ticking financial WMD that can potentially wreck the entire global financial marketplace.

The reason I’m bringing all this up is because I saw an interesting segment this evening by 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft, in which he walks viewers through the fundamentals of these financial WMDs called Credit Default Swaps (CDS) which were the derivative products underlying the near collapse of the global financial markets.  Ironically, these instruments are once again being structured and sold to investors as if . . . oh, what’s the point..??  Just check out the video.

Web Resources:

How to Understand the Derivatives Market

Congress Aims to Reform Derivative Markets

ECB Calls for More Transparency in Derivatives Market  

Why Africa matters to American mational interests

Every so often the Rev. Jesse Jackson makes a few notable and insightful comments. His most recent HuffPo article about ‘Why Africa Matters’ is one of those moments. I have postulated in the past that as the demographics of the nation evolves, so too will our foreign policy and international relations voice, values, interests, priorities and objectives change. We’ve seen that most recently in how this president chooses to engage the world.  Some call it “smart power” or “public diplomacy” as a paradigm shift.  Other’s most recently have framed these changes in terms of ‘The End of Macho‘ or a decline in the underlying paradigms of the Anglo-American or Eurocentric male dominance ethos in framing foreign policy issues and international relations.  The sharp contrast, for instance, between George Bush – a semi-literate, go-it-alone, blue-blood, poker playing, red-meat eating, “macho” Texan; and Barack Obama – a bi-racial, up from the bottom, community organizing, consensus building, wine-sipping, intellectually nuanced, constitutional law teaching, internationalist from the South side of Chicago by way of Hawaii are excellent example of how demographic changes “shift” foreign policy values and priorities.

Further our U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice and State Department Secretary, Hillary Clinton’s recent roll-out of the Obama Administration’s view of U.S foreign policy called for a ‘New Era of Engagement‘ with the world based on common values, shared interests and mutual respect.  Similarly, the development of official government websites such as America.gov that conveys the America we aspire to as a nation.

Despite the impact of the global economic crisis, GDP growth in Africa has declined from a robust 6.0% in 2007 to 5.1%  in 2008, and is expected to be 2.6%  in 2009 and then a rebound in 2010 based on World Bank estimates. And according to 2008 figures from the World Bank and the African Development Bank, global trade with Africa is approximately $500Bn, while the trade and economic potential of the continent is twice that amount at $1 Trillion.  The U.S. – largely driven by AGOA – accounts for only $66Bn of that amount, while Europe and increasingly China, South Asia and Brazil driving 80% of the remaining trade and commerce with the African continent. In addition, unbeknownst to most, Africa has joined the ‘space race’ led by the continent’s two economic powers; and several nations are developing close military ties with China and India which will help to fuel the emergence of future markets for military and technological commerce – directly competing with U.S. leadership in that market.

Further, non-traditional, but still every bit quintessentially American interests representing hundreds of billions in business, technology, entertainment, faith-based, professional sports, agricultural, food distribution and charitable interests increasingly owned or controlled by Native and African Americans, Latinos, East and South Asian Americans, and women need to have a voice in the development and execution of U.S. foreign policy as a bridge to expanding our national interest into new and interesting places that may pave the way for better relations with the rest of the world – not to mention increasing our global competitiveness and expanding national GDP.  Is anyone listening..??

—–

From HuffPo, Rev. Jesse L. Jackson –

We ignore Africa at our peril.

Africa Matters

In vital resources — oil, copper, diamonds, gold, timber and more — the continent is rich beyond imagination. Indeed, Africa is more breadbasket than basket case. The United States is projected to import some 25 percent of its oil from Western Africa in the coming years.  While the U.S. media pays Africa little attention, the Chinese leads by far in the mad dash for a share of the continent’s natural treasures. Using some of the money it makes in trade with the U.S., China is investing heavily across Africa, building highways, hotels, bridges and dams, seeking to lock up long term access to resources and the good will of African leaders. The United States is way behind.

The African continent will only become more important in the future. The whole world has a stake in what happens there. For decades, Africa was little more than a pawn in the Cold War, before that the playing field of competing imperialist nations. Now it is a key geographic territory in the fight against terror after al-Qaida blew up embassies in Somalia and Kenya. The continent’s mineral resources reinforce its strategic importance. 

 That is why I recently spent five days in Cote d’Ivoire, meeting with its current President and opposition leaders and addressing youth groups and religious figures, as the West African nation prepares for a crucial Presidential election on Nov. 29 — a day that will go a long way in determining the future of democracy in the region.  For most of its 49-year history as an independent nation, Cote d’Ivoire has been a shining light of a dimly viewed West Africa. Politically stable, culturally tolerant and economically vigorous, Cote d’Ivoire was and is a regional powerhouse. As one U.S. Embassy official described the nation of 18 million people to me, Cote d’Ivoire was to its neighbors what the United States is to Mexico and Central America. “This is where people went to find work,” the official said. “If this economy gets shut down you will see a dramatic impact on the entire region.”  Cote d’Ivoire produces 40 percent of the world’s coco and is a major exporter of bananas, coffee, cotton, palm oil, pineapples, rubber, timber and tuna. In recent years, according to U.S. Embassy figures, petroleum exports have risen significantly, and petroleum is now the country’s largest foreign exchange earner.  As I toured its sprawling port — the second largest in Africa — I saw five cargo ships loaded with fruit and vegetables headed to Europe. Abidjan, its biggest city once known as “Little Paris,” was a popular destination for tourists from the United States and Europe for years.

That was my message as I met separately with President Laurent Gbagbo and leaders of the two opposition parties who are vying for the Presidential Palace. I had a long and fruitful discussion by phone with Henri Konan Bedie, a former president running for his old job, and I sat down with representatives of Alassane Ouattara, who was out of the country, seeking medical treatment in Paris.

As I made clear whenever and to whomever I spoke, I was there not to support a candidate but to support the process of democracy. In addressing a pan-African youth conference and a meeting of Muslim and Christian religious leader I asked the people and the candidates to agree to three basic principles.

Number one: Campaign diligently and fairly.

Number two: Use the language of reconciliation and not destruction.

Number three: Publicly pledge to support the winner.

Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy (1932 - 2009)

‘For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.’

Susa E. Rice, US Amb. to the United Nations

I took note with great interest an announcement by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice that appeared on the Obama Administration’s White House.gov blog (www.whitehouse.gov).  Ambassador Rice, outlined the administration’s purpose and goal in the speech that was delivered later in the day at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs, and has been termed by the Administration a ‘New Era of Engagement’ with the world. Finally, it seems we have a President whose first instinct, in the face of an international crisis, is to resist the impulsive urge to blow the shizzle out our enemies as the first solution.  In the letter Amb. Rice also noted:

Everyone notices when a superpower becomes an agent of change—in word and deed, in policy and tone. We are demonstrating that the United States is willing to listen, respect differences, and consider new ideas. Even more importantly, we are advancing our interests and making Americans safer.

Today, as we steer a new course at the United Nations, our guiding principles are clear: We value the UN as a vehicle for advancing U.S. policies and universal rights. We work for change from within rather than criticizing from the sidelines. We stand strong in defense of America’s interests and values, but we don’t dissent just to be contrary. We listen to states great and small. We build coalitions. We meet our responsibilities. We pay our bills. We push for real reform. And we remember that, in an interconnected world, what’s good for others is often good for America as well.

Specifically, this development carries with it numerous implications with regard to our nation’s economic foreign policies and the myriad international relations emanating from it.  Amb. Rice noted, for example, that “We cannot champion important U.N. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and then oppose the budgets to fund them.”  Further, she said the world body is “essential to our efforts to galvanize concerted actions that make Americans safer and more secure and as a vehicle for advancing US policies and universal rights.”

While US leadership is needed to tackle global challenges like nuclear proliferation, the financial crisis, mass atrocities, climate change and drug trafficking, “it is rarely sufficient,” said Rice, who has cabinet rank. She urged instead the effective cooperation of a broad range of friends and partners. Other countries, Rice added, “will likely shoulder a greater share of the global burden if the United States leads by example, acknowledges mistakes, corrects course when necessary, forge strategies in partnership and treats others with respect.”

Noting that in the age of globalization, troubles affecting fragile nations can menace strong ones, she made a call “to grow the ranks of capable, democratic states… that can deliver on both their international responsibilities and their domestic responsibilities to their own people.”

Adding that “We are demonstrating that the United States is willing to listen, respect differences and consider new ideas” with global partners.  “There is no substitute for the legitimacy the UN can impart or its potential to mobilize the widest possible coalitions,” Rice said in outlining President Barack Obama’s new diplomatic priorities, including a commitment to work constructively with nations large and small.

Read more here. . . 

Source: AFP newswire with reporting by Gerard Aziakou. 

Americans in China

The New York Times featured an interesting article in today’s paper spotting a trend that more college graduates and corporate professionals are flocking to China in search of greener pasteurs for their careers. It’s thought-provoking and something even I might consider. . .

BEIJING — Shanghai and Beijing are becoming new lands of opportunity for recent American college graduates who face unemployment nearing double digits at home.

Even those with limited or no knowledge of Chinese are heeding the call. They are lured by China’s surging economy, the lower cost of living and a chance to bypass some of the dues-paying that is common to first jobs in the United States.  “I’ve seen a surge of young people coming to work in China over the last few years,” said Jack Perkowski, founder of Asimco Technologies, one of the largest automotive parts companies in China.

“I didn’t know anything about China,” said Mr. Stephens, who worked on market research and program development. “People thought I was nuts to go not speaking the language, but I wanted to do something off the beaten track.”

Two years later, after stints in the nonprofit sector and at a large public relations firm in Beijing, he is highly proficient in Mandarin and works as a manager for XPD Media, a social media company based in Beijing that makes online games.

Jonathan Woetzel, a partner with McKinsey & Company in Shanghai who has lived in China since the mid-1980s, says that compared with just a few years ago, he was seeing more young Americans arriving in China to be part of an entrepreneurial boom. “There’s a lot of experimentation going on in China right now, particularly in the energy sphere, and when people are young they are willing to come and try something new,” he said

And the Chinese economy is more hospitable for both entrepreneurs and job seekers, with a gross domestic product that rose 7.9 percent in the most recent quarter compared with the period a year earlier. Unemployment in urban areas is 4.3 percent, according to government data. 

Read more here…