Het Neoliberale Geloof 324

Friday, February 13, 2009 by YES! Magazine Don't Fix Wall Street, Replace It Why not an economy of real wealth?
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=3236
by David Korten

The current economic debate centers on how best to revive our existing economic system through some combination of a Wall Street bailout and a job-creating economic stimulus package. That amounts to trying to revive an economic system that has failed in every dimension: financial, social, and environmental. Rather than prop up a failed system, we should use the current financial crisis as the opportunity to create a system that works.
Trying to solve the crisis with the same tools that caused it is the definition of insanity.
As individuals, we humans appear to be an intelligent species.
Collectively, however, our behavior ranges from supremely wise to suicidal.
Our current collective economic insanity is the product of an illusion-a belief, cultivated by the prevailing economic orthodoxy, that money is wealth and that making money is the equivalent of creating wealth.
Money is merely an accounting chit with no intrinsic value-it is useless until we exchange it for something of real value. Wall Street's specialty is creating money for rich people without the exertion of producing anything of corresponding real value. They increase their claims against real wealth without increasing the supply of goods, making it harder for the rest of us to meet our needs.
Real wealth is, first of all, the tangible things that support life-food, shelter, clothing. Of course, the most valuable forms of real wealth are those that are beyond price: love; a healthy, happy child; a job that provides a sense of self-worth and contribution; membership in a strong, caring community; a healthy vibrant natural environment; peace. Our Wall-Street-driven economic system makes fantastic amounts of money and actively destroys all these many forms of real wealth.
We have been in thrall to a pervasive cultural story, continuously reinforced by academics, government officials, and corporate media, which led us to believe our economy was functioning splendidly even when it was quite literally killing us. You have heard this story many times:
"Economic growth, as measured by Gross Domestic Product, creates the wealth needed to provide material abundance for all, increase human happiness, end poverty, and heal the environment. The faster we consume, the faster the economy grows and the wealthier we become as the rising tide lifts all boats."
The logical conclusion from this story is that the faster we convert useful resources to toxic garbage, the richer we are. The only true beneficiaries of this obviously stupid idea are a few very rich people who reap financial gains from every economic transaction-whether the transaction cures a disease or clearcuts a rainforest. It is a system that deifies money and dilutes wealth.
In contrast, the Main Street economy is comprised of local businesses and working people who produce real goods and services to meet the real wealth needs of their communities. It has been battered and tattered by the predatory intrusions of Wall Street corporations, but it is the logical foundation on which to build a new, real wealth economy of green jobs and green manufacturing, responsible community-oriented businesses, and sound environmental practices.
Let Wall Street corporations and their phantom wealth machine slip into the abyss of their own making. Devote our public resources to building and strengthening Main Street businesses and financial institutions devoted to creating real wealth in service to their local communities.
David Korten's new book, An Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth, to be published by Berrett-Koehler, Feb 2009. This extract forms part of the YES! series, Path to a New Economy. An earlier version of this chapter first appeared as part of David's article in Tikkun, Nov/Dec 2008. David Korten is the author of the international bestseller When Corporations Rule the World and The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community. He is co-founder and board chair of YES! Magazine, and a board member of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies.'

Het Neoliberale Geloof 323

'The audacity of hopelessness
Investors have little faith in Washington right now. And even though stimulus and the new bank bailout may eventually work, the lack of trust seems warranted.
By Paul R. La Monica, CNNMoney.com editor at large Last Updated: February 13, 2009: 1:00 PM ET http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/markets/thebuzz/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- So much for change you can believe in.
Last year, the market had no confidence that President Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and a more evenly split Congress had the answers for the credit crunch and recession.
And so far in 2009, investors seem to feel the same way about President Obama, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and a Congress with a bigger Democratic majority.
I think noted market sage Jon Bon Jovi put it best: "It's all the same...only the names have changed."

Despite all the hype about the stimulus bill and Geithner's new Financial Stability Plan (or FSP -- pronounced foospah to rhyme with chutzpah, perhaps?), investors are worried that this recession is going to last a lot longer and get even worse.
Talkback: Do you have any faith that the government can fix the economy?
In particular, there are concerns that the Obama administration is unable to piece together a cohesive plan to fix the economy -- a criticism that dogged Bush and Paulson as well.
"This still has the semblance of an ad hoc architecture. It feels like more of the same," said Quincy Krosby, chief investment strategist with The Hartford.
For example, the biggest problem that investors seem to have with Geithner's proposal is that it still doesn't address the key issue plaguing
banks: how much the spoiled assets on their books are really worth.
Paulson failed to do this -- even though the original intent of the Troubled Asset Relief Program was to buy up toxic assets tied to mortgages.
And all Geithner has really done is create a template that allows private investors to take part in the process of ridding banks of their junk.
But now, nearly five months after Lehman Brothers imploded, investors want specifics.
"We need greater direction out of the Treasury," said Matt O'Reilly, chief investment strategist with People's United Wealth Management, in Bridgeport, Ct. "I don't think anybody truly has a handle of how wide the extent of this financial crisis was around the world. The issue continues to be how do you price these assets and what will the cost be to remove them."
Jeffrey Saut, chief investment strategist for Raymond James, added that investors are tired of not knowing for certain what Treasury plans to do to get credit flowing again.
He argues that the lack of clarity and consistency is causing investors to simply buy and sell based on whatever the latest rumor is about possible new plans.
"Investors don't know what the rules are because they keep changing like dirt under your feet in an earthquake. It's very tough to have a high degree of conviction so people have become traders," he said.
As for stimulus, investors seem to be disappointed with how watered down it has become.
"The stimulus package didn't grab investors' imagination. Investors wanted to see something in the bill that would convince them people would want to go out and spend as soon as possible," Krosby said, adding that she did not think the temporary tax credits for homebuyers and car buyers are big enough to have the desired effect.
Of course, this is not to say that stimulus and the new bank bailout, as well as all the actions taken by the Treasury and Federal Reserve in the past year, won't eventually help the economy.
But any programs of this magnitude will take time to work. And time is the enemy in an economy and market where people want improvement now.
"We need to see the employment numbers stabilize and corporate earnings improve," said O'Reilly. "Until then, the markets are going to continue to watch the news from Washington and be cautious and conservative."
Krosby agreed. Even though experts often say that the market anticipates a recovery and starts to rally ahead of it, this may not be the case this time around given all the uncertainty.
"People are looking for signs that the economy will pick up. At some point, investors will see those signs. But we're not there yet," she said.'

Obama 85

Why is Obama Reluctant to Kill the Zombie Banks Threatening Our Economy?

The battle lines over how to deal with the banking crisis have been drawn. On the one side are those who know what needs to be done. On the other are those who know what needs to be done -- but won't admit it. Because it is against their self-interest.
Unlike the conflict over the stimulus package, this is not an ideological fight. This is a battle between the status quo and the future, between the interests of the financial/lobbying establishment and the public interest.
What needs to be done is hard but straightforward. As Martin Wolf of the Financial Times sums it up: "Admit reality, restructure banks and, above all, slay zombie institutions at once."
This tough love for bankers is being promoted by everyone from Nouriel Roubini, Paul Krugman, and Ann Pettifor to Niall Ferguson, the Wall Street Journal, and Milton Friedman's old partner, Anna Schwartz, the co-author of his seminal work, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. "They should not be recapitalizing firms that should be shut down," says Schwartz. "Firms that made wrong decisions should fail."
The plan laid out -- or, more accurately, sketched out -- this week by Tim Geithner makes it very clear that he is on the wrong side of the issue, more worried about the banking industry than the American people. Like Hank Paulson before him, Geithner appears more concerned about saving particular banks than saving the banking system. No real shocker there. As Henry Blodget points out on HuffPost, it's hard to be surprised that Geithner is sticking with the Paulson plan "inasmuch as he was likely the one who created it."
The big problem is Geithner is acting as if the crisis we are facing is a crisis of liquidity when, in fact, it's a crisis of insolvency. As Ann Pettifor puts it on HuffPost: "Much of Wall Street is effectively insolvent. It's not that these banks lack cash or capital -- it's just that they're never going to meet all their financial liabilities -- i.e. repay their debts. Ever."'

Lees verder: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-is-obama-reluctant-to_b_166572.html

Boycot Israel 30

'Join the Global BDS Action Day, March 30th launched at the WSF 2009 in Belém In December 2008, Israel decided to mark the 60thanniversary of its existence the same way it had established itself ? perpetrating massacres against the Palestinian people. In 23 days, Israel killed more than 1,300 and injured over 5,000 Palestinians in Gaza. The irony of history is that Israel targeted those Palestinians ? and their descendants - whom it had expelled from their homes and pushed into refugee-hood in Gaza in 1948, whose land it has stolen, whom it has oppressed since 1967 by means of a brutal military occupation, and whom it had tried to starve into submission by means of a criminal blockade of food, fuel and electricity in the 18 months preceding the military assault. We cannot wait for Israel to zero in on its next objective. Palestine has today become the test of our indispensable morality and our common humanity.We therefore call on all to unite our different capacities and struggles in a Global Day of Action in Solidarity with the Palestinian people and for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel on March 30th.The mobilization coincides with the Palestinian Land Day, the annual commemoration of the 1976 Israeli massacre of Palestinians in the Galilee in struggle against massive land expropriation, and forms part of the Global Week of Action against the Crises and War from March 28 to April 4.We urge the people and their organizations around the globe to mobilize in concrete and visible BDS actions to make this day a historic step in this new anti-apartheid movementand for the fulfilment of the rights and dignity of the people and the accountability of the powerful. In our March 30thBDS actions, we will particularly focus on:
Boycotts and divestment from Israeli corporations and international corporations that sustain Israeli apartheid and occupation.
Legal action to end Israel?s impunity and prosecute its war criminals through national court cases and international tribunals.
Cancelling and blocking free trade and other preferential agreements with Israel and imposing an arms embargo as the first steps towards fully fledged sanctions against Israel. The time for the world to fully adopt and implement the Palestinian call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions is NOW. This campaign has to become an urgent part of every struggle for justice and humanity, by adopting widespread action against Israeli products, companies, academic and cultural institutions, sports groups, international corporations supporting Israeli policies of racism, ethnic cleansing and military occupation and pressuring governments for sanctions. It must be sustained until Israel provides free access to Gaza, dismantles the Apartheid Wall and ends its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands; recognizes the right of the Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and respects, protects and promotes the rights of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.For more information see: http://www.bdsmovement.net/For information on how to join the action day and how to develop BDS action in your country, organization and network, please contact the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC) at: mailto:info@bdsmovement.net.

Irak 267

'February 12, 2009
Tomgram: Dahr Jamail, Iraq from the Inside of an Armored BMW
[Note to TomDispatch Readers: For those of you who have, in recent months, clicked on the new "Resist Empire, Support TomDispatch" button to the right of this screen and sent money our way -- I only wish I could thank each of you individually -- think of this post as something your contributions have made possible. Dahr Jamail is now in Iraq reporting in ways you're just not going to see in the mainstream media and this site is able, for the first time, to offer him (and other young journalists) at least some support, however modest, when it comes to expenses. So here's a collective thank you for your help. Take my word for it, those contributions, no matter how small, matter. ] Already it's begun -- the endless non-departure from Iraq. The Obama plan, restated many times during the presidential campaign, involved a 16-month schedule for withdrawing not all U.S. forces, but only U.S. "combat troops." Now, his (and, of course, George W. Bush's) generals are showing visible evidence of dragging their combat boots in the sand on the subject. We were given fair warning. Over the last two years, numerous military figures have claimed that, as fast as they got into Iraq, it would be hell just getting all the U.S. stuff now embedded there out -- and that's without even taking into account the political situation in that country. Recently, according to military leaks to the media, "U.S. military planners" have come up with two alternate scenarios to Obama's 16-month plan. One is reportedly 19 months long, the other 23 months long, and -- here's a shock -- the two top generals in charge, Centcom commander David Petraeus and U.S. commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, favor the 23-month approach. "Odierno and Petraeus have said that we really need 23 months to do this without jeopardizing the security gains that we've secured," was the way one typical anonymous official put it. President Obama has yet to show any sign of agreeing to this, but the pressure is evidently only beginning. Gareth Porter of Inter Press Service indicates that a "network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public opinion against Obama's [16-month plan]... If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the collapse' they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops." Stab in the back, anyone? Oh, and in the bargain, the generals are evidently also planning to re-label some of those withdrawable combat forces among the still staggering 144,000 troops in Iraq -- the American invasion force of 2003 was only about 130,000 strong -- as non-combat "support troops" or advisors. They would, Robert Burns of the Associated Press writes, be "redesigned and reconfigured as multipurpose units to provide training and advising for Iraqi security force" and so would "be considered noncombat outfits." What's in a name, after all? In the end, according to the New York Times, the generals hope to leave one third of American troops, almost 50,000 of them, in Iraq for an undetermined period (and that number, of course, doesn't including private security contractors) after the combat troops are withdrawn. Dahr Jamail, author of Beyond the Green Zone and TomDispatch regular, is now back in Iraq and, in his typical, incisive way, he offers another view of just what "success" has meant for Americans, at least in Iraq's Sunni heartland. So slip into a well armored BMW with him and check out the scene for yourself. It's the only way a "tourist" is likely to be welcomed in this part of Iraq. Tom
Iraq's "Teflon Don"The New Fallujah Up Close and Still in RuinsBy Dahr Jamail
Click here to read more of this dispatch.'

Boycot Israel 29

University of Manchester Students Union Boycotts Israel!

On Wednesday 11th Feb the University of Manchester Students Union passed a motion in support of the people of Gaza, which includes a resolve to boycott Israel, in an emergency general meeting [1]. The meeting, which was attended by over 1000 students, was called in response to the crisis in Gaza. It follows a week long occupation of University of Manchester buildings by students [2]. The University of Manchester Students Union is the biggest in Western Europe, and is also the first western students union to pass a motion includes an out and out boycott of Israel.The policy that was passed compared Israel to apartheid South Africa and supported the global Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement. It called for the Union to divest from Israel, boycotting all companies which support or benefit from the Israeli occupation, and to lobby the University to adopt a similar boycott policy towards Israel. The motion also condemned the University for its lack of progress in divesting from arms companies. Following the meeting the union will send a letter to the BBC condemning their refusal to air the Disaster Emergency Committees (DEC) appeal for Gaza [3], as well as facilitating a day of fundraising with proceeds going to the DEC.That Students at Manchester have a long history of showing solidarity with Palestinians, most notably in their affirmation of the "Palestine: Right to an Education" motion passed in 2007. This motion twinned our Union with the An-Najah University in the occupied West Bank, and committed theUnion to campaign for the rights of Palestinian students. Similarly, the Students' Union played an important role in the international solidarity campaign against South African apartheid by divesting the university's funds from South Africa.Over the three weeks following December 27th the Israeli army and airforce killed over 1,300 Palestinians, including over 400 children, and injured more than 4,000 in a series of brutal attacks on the besieged population of Gaza. During the onslaught into Gaza, Israel used white phosphorus illegally [4].The events in Manchester are part of a wave of actions and occupations sweeping universities across the country [5].QuotesMatt Scholey, a first year Politics and Modern History student, said "This is going to set a precedent, more and more student unions will have the confidence to take similar step. Last year LSE SU called for divestment, now UMSU calls for a complete boycott, and tomorrow the rest of the student movement will follow suite."Notes for Editor
1. http://www.umsu.manchester.ac.uk/downloads/gm_motions/egm_motion11.2.09.pdf
2. For more information see: http://manunioccupation.wordpress.com/about/ For the list of demands: http://manunioccupation.wordpress.com/list-of-demands/
3. The DEC is an umbrella organisation for 13 British charities. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/22/gaza-charity-appeal
4. As reported by Amnesty International on the 19/01/2009, and The Times on the 24/01/2009
5. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/students-are-revolting-the-spirit-of-68-is-reawakening-1604043.html
6. For more pictures from the day in Manchester: https://download.yousendit.com/Y2orZEU5NEhEa1YzZUE9PQ <https://download.yousendit.com/Y2orZEU5NEhEa1YzZUE9PQ

Honger in de Wereld 6

Naar aanleiding van het Siegel artikel over Voedsel, http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2009/02/honger.html deze reacties:

'F.J.M. said...
En dit dan? http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12252'

En deze: 'This is a comment by Richard K. Moore in Ireland.
rkm@quaylargo.com
This article is good, in that it lays out the multi-dimensional problem of food scarcity. At the same time, the article is blatant elitist propaganda, offering misleading explanations and offering proposals that would only make things worse.
> Today we are witnessing the emergence of a dangerous politics of food
> scarcity, one in which individual countries act in their narrowly
> defined self-interest and subsequently accelerate the deterioration of
> global equilibrium.
In fact, it is the globalization of food markets which has caused the food crisis. A return to a more localized food economy is not 'narrow self-interest', but rather the path to a solution.
> The deteriorating world food situation is not occurring in a vacuum:
> it comes at a time when there is a growing backlog of unresolved
> problems, many of them associated with a failure by developing
> countries to slow population growth.
Here we see the Big Lie about population. The real population problem is in the developed countries, where the per-capita consumption of resources leaves the third world in poverty. Instead of blaming the cause, the Spiegel blames the victims.
> Of all the environmental trends that are shrinking the world's food
> supplies, the most immediate is water shortages. In a world where 70
> percent of all water use is for irrigation, this is no small matter.
Very true. And the reason so much water is used for agriculture is because modern agricultural methods are scandalously wasteful of water. Only by overusing water, pesticides, and fertilizers, are their much-touted high yields achieved. The only real solution is organic farming, as Cuba has proved in practice.
> In addition to losses from erosion, cropland is also being converted
> to non-farm uses....imagine if China were one day to achieve the
> Japanese automobile ownership rate of one car for every two people.
> The country would then have a fleet of 650 million motor vehicles,
> compared with only 35 million today. Since at least 0.4 hectares of
> land has to be paved for every 20 vehicles added to the fleet, this
> would require paving nearly 13.3 million hectares of land -- an area
> equal to half the riceland in China.
This shows the idiocy of pursuing energy-efficient cars as a solution to our problems.
> The bottom line is that new harvest-expanding technologies are ever
> more difficult to come by as crop yields move closer to the inherent
> limits of photosynthetic efficiency.
The problem with this 'bottom line' calculation, is that it doesn't reveal the line items that add up to that bottom line. The problem is not the total amount of production, but rather producing the wrong things. Instead of targeting agricultural production to the needs of people, it's targeted for maximum profits. People in the third world starve because their agricultural resources are preempted to grow export crops. Land is used to grow beef for McDonalds and biofuels for our SUVs instead of food for the people who live there.
> Business as usual is no longer a viable option. The current world food
> crisis can be alleviated only by altering the trends that are causing
> it. We need to go to Plan B. This involves extraordinary measures such
> as stabilizing climate, stabilizing population, eradicating poverty,
> and restoring agriculture's natural support systems, including soils
> and aquifers.
Restoring natural support systems is a great idea, and that's the one that is unlikely to be followed up on, as it reduces elite profits.
Instead we'll get phony schemes to stabilize climate (carbon trading), and further blaming of the victims in the third world. And when they talk about "eradicating poverty", what they really mean is continuing the neoliberal policies that have caused the problems.'