Deutsche Bank Vegas Exposure Equals Eurozone

No comment!!!!

There after ……….. Elections 2011, Argentina

Feeling the pulse of the people

As predicted, CFK won last Sunday’s election by a landslide victory. The fact that 54% of the population voted for her, indicates that not only the “lower social class” favored her, as is widely assumed by those who oppose her, but a vast range of people from different social backgrounds. 

Here are some opinions regarding the outcome of the elections: 

(These opinions have been collected from internet forums and are displayed in their original version without editing or corrections) 

Well, we Argentine s eight years ago we heard about the impending disaster and the dark clouds that lie ahead if we do not follow the advice of 'the markets'.

The truth is that all disasters that told us we were going to happen did not happen in Argentina, but that are happening in USA and Europe. And the election results show just that: Governments who follow the advice of 'the markets' are repudiated by their own people, and those who do not, sweep with wins of 54%.

I think it's good that Fernandez is attempting to give her country what they want. It is very important that she does show personality because the people need to feel a connection between themselves and their President. Bringing her family on stage was a perfect way to do that. Argentina has been doing pretty well economically so as long as everything stays the same I don't see why the people wouldn't be happy with Fernandez.

Argentina is doing pretty well in the current economic standing and I think that it is a good thing for Fernandez to become president. She will give the people what they want in order to make her country better and more prosperous even with the already high prices of soybeans and rapid growth of Brazil. The country obviously wants her as president and I believe that she will make a good change to the country.

Argentina is currently in a period of economic stability, which is why it is not surprising Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner was reelected. It is important to remember that this stability is not promised to the people of Argentina, and therefore she can celebrate her victory but must continue policies. Improvements must be made and the economy must continue to be monitored in Argentina and Fernandez cannot get too comfortable.

Fernandez is doing all she can to please her people. I applauded her for trying to get up and closer and personal with her people. I feel like world leaders have forgotten about this important aspect and are too preoccupied with economics and war. I believe her people grew closer when she brought her kids on stage because it showed she was a loving mother and that she is going to care for her country like she cares for her children. Also Argentina is doing well economically under Fernandez and if she doesn't change anything, her people will continue to love and praise her.

If a 25% annual rate of inflation amounts to economic stability then all is well with Argentina's world.
If the same 25% means that it is time to print more money, then it's time for the kissing to stop and austerity to kick in - otherwise how can the IMF agree to give more of the world's money to prop up this tottering state? Providers of financial support need some sort of confidence that they will get their money back; defaults do nobody any good.

It is great thing for Argentina that Ms Fernández is President. When more than half the country elects and wants the nominee to win Presidency it is a great thing. That means she has really appealed to the people and thats what the people want they want someone who is going to listen to them and do what they want. Even though at some point she lost some of her popularity and support she really showed the people that she was there for them by listening to them and making some changing that would benefit the citizens, the people she is representing.

I would do just as well as Argentina economically, if I don't pay what I should and if I abuse of Other People's Money like her government has been doing for the past 8 years. Well, must I add that I'm not happy at all with Fernandez?

Truth is Argentina did well in spite of this government, but certainly not thanks to her. Sooner than later, everything like eg soybean prices, and Brazilian's monetary policies, won't stay the same and then, I would like to know how much will the voters they elected her yesterday, still like her. 

Almost or more than half of the people live thanks to the work of the other half, because of an overwhelming tax structure. The corruption has never been worse. The education and well mannered people had vanished. The crime rate is outrageous. Not even the Argentine people invest, but keep taking their money out of the country. The public administration words and deeds have been embarrassing for too long. Let alone the farm sector. 

It seems unaccountable to me.

Argentina's Iron Lady wins big again. It should be interesting to see how Cristina Fernandez and her political party act now that they have won power of every branch of government. There seems to be unofficial indication that Argentina's economy is reaching a plateau. It can only run on high priced exports and a bloated Brazilian trade for so long, so it will be interesting to see whether their trend of growth will continue under Fernandez. If it doesn't then they will have to seriously consider tackling their debt issue and closing the hatches on their government spending. Hopefully they open up opportunities for Argentina to diversify its economy to better handle a global economy. 

On another note, I hope that Argentina does not switch from a presidential to a parliamentary system just to keep Fernandez in power. That change would have monumental impacts on their government and how their democracy functions. It would also give one body complete power over government and do away with healthy checks and balances in a presidential system. Finally I believe it would be a great loss to do away with the executive branch, which acts as a unified front to other countries diplomatically and militarily. Let them do as they wish though, as long as it is democratic it should prevent an abuse of power.

It is amazing that so many comments favour Cristina. 46% of the votes reject her. This 46% is composed of what class of people? Those who cannot accept her attacks on the free press using trade union thugs and on farmers. Or her absurd anti-Americanism. Or her failure to pay the country's debts, even though the economy and balance of payments provides the means. Or the lies told that there are no obstacles to import freely (ask Brazil and Uruguay)! Or the lies told about inflation. Or the vast subsidies paid to keep utility prices down and Aerolineas going. Or her admiration of the absurd Chavez ( which the Argentine foreign service has to deny). Who are the 54%? The "pueblo" who benefits from the above. Populism. The success of the soya farmers. Carlos Lacroze is dead right.

It's been said that Argentina has been lucky and that, without high commodity prices, their situation would be different. This is - up to a point - true but the great virtue of the Kirchners has been to tackle head on the farming establishment's traditional tax avoidance status. The Kirchner's much maligned export tax has allowed the Argentine state to collect income at source and redistribute within the nation, increasing internal demand which itself stimulates local industry.

As things stand, about 10 billion surplus agricultural dollars are leaving the country every year. That amount would be considerably higher had her government not introduced the controversial export tax. Wealth would have remained in the hands of a tiny minority who would have - as they have done for decades - salted the money abroad. So - had the Kirchners not been in power - the "China bonanza" would have benefited only the few.

It should be pointed out that while Mrs. Kirchner obtained 54% of the votes, Mr. Lambias (one of the leaders of the "farming revolt" which opposed the tax) came last in the rural, traditional farming district where he stood for a Congressional seat. He obtained a miserly 2.5% of the votes . Mrs Kirchner not only won the election, she has also won - at least amongst the Argentine people - the intellectual argument as to the rights and wrongs of taxing those with excessive wealth concentration.

And I'll add some figures for those who insist on the idea that Argentina's growth depends on fortunate events ('tail wind') that are not under our control:

1. The export / GDP ratio in Argentina is barely 22%, so much of our exports are easily sold on the domestic market if things go bad abroad.

2. Soybean is hardly 5.38% of our GDP, so its influence on the total economy is barely noticeable. Those who speak of the 'tail wind' should explain then how grew the remaining 95% of the economy.

The bottom line is: Argentina isn't so naked and exposed to external influences as other countries. Be it financial or commercial. It has a relatively large domestic market to soften the spikes it is exposed to.

And most important: People are excited (as the last poll shows) and wants to keep growing as usual. Optimism. An invaluable asset, hard to get abroad.

I did not vote for Mrs Fernandez on Sunday. Although it is true that economic growth and spillover effect on income has happened over the last 8 years, not all of it is a merit of the Kirchner couple. The high inflation level , the corruption , the blind-eye to extortion and bullying tactics by friendly union leaders and erratic foreign policy , siding with unsavory latinamerican leaders are some of the reasons for me choosing to be on the losing side of last Sunday's election. Time will tell if I was wrong from joining- in in the consumption frenzy as if there was no tomorrow , in a world climate that is getting darker

ANGLO SAXON QUEST

ANGLO SAXON MONETARY QUEST

Monitoring current developments regarding the financial crisis in Europe and how the US is influencing European decision making one cannot blend out the notion some conspiracy theorists have regarding the “New World Order” whose main aim seems to reestablish the old Anglo-Saxon global financial powerhouse. Obviously they can’t call it by name for then the Europeans would not jump onto the bandwagon to apply austerity for the cause of the Anglo Saxon eco – financial empire. 

'EU's actions could lead to revolutions in Greece and Portugal'

US PROXY PROVOKING CIVIL UNREST ON CONTINENTAL EUROPE? 

With rigorous austerity measures applied in Europe the threat of civil unrest or even revolution would bring the US – UK closer to their objectives. It seems however that France is starting to realize the true intentions of the USA and its proxy, the UK, for Sarkozy and Cameron clashed over the strategy on how to rescue the Euro zone. “You have missed your chance to shut up”, Sarkozy told the British Prime minister at the EU summit. France rejected British interference.” We are fed up of your criticism and telling us what to do. You said that you hate the EURO, thus you did not join the Euro Zone but now you want to interfere in our summit” Sarkozy allegedly told Cameron. Cameron reiterated US criticism on lack of initiative by the EU in order to solve the Euro crisis. “You have to apply a bazooka”, Cameron said. In other words apply decisive austerity, as envisioned by US “CORPORATOCRACY” to save the banks. 

RATING AGENCIES, MERCENARIES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT? 

Moody’s move of downgrading two of Frances biggest banks increased pressure on governments across Europe to impose austerity on the working class. This is precisely what the US and UK  set as their objective, for French and German banks, have large holdings in Greek bonds and thus the fear of dept default and subsequent collapse in confidence in the two countries would be imminent.

Germany, France and the USA demonstratively reassured financial markets that Greece was not on the verge of bankruptcy but blamed the social democratic PASOK government of escalating its assault on jobs and living standards of Greeks working class. 

QUEST OF WAR 

The fact that Geithner made it clear however that the US considers the steps taken by Europe thus far to be inadequate and calling upon European governments to use “overwhelming force” to deal with the continents financial crisis showcases the true intentions behind the current financial crises triggered most likely deliberately by US entities. The fact that Geithner took the unprecedented step of attending a meeting of the European Union’s Economic and Financial Affairs Council ECOFIN, (one has to seriously question as to why the Europeans accepted US interference) in which he pressed to lay down the law to Greece and extract a pledge of further layoffs and budget cuts, only reiterates the true objective of the US - UK agenda.

In order to obtain IMF funds, Greece will have to apply even more drastic measures and reduce its public sector workers by more than 40,000. This is the usual IMF strategy which has brought many countries to the ruins. New cuts will only deepen the crisis, but the international bourgeoisie is determined to exploit the financial crisis to dismantle all of social gains of the past century and reduce the middle and working class to poverty.

BANK RESCUES AT ALL COST 

Privatization is the key tool used by “CORPORATOCRACY” to take control and gain power, thus it comes as no surprise that Italia’s parliament approved a 54 billion Euro austerity budget that aims to eliminate the nation’s deficit by 2013. This however is only the first step. There is talk of large scale sale of state assets to raise as much as 400 billion Euros. Among the targets for privatization are government holdings in the power utility ENEL and the oil and gas group ENI.

BANK RESCUES AS AN EXCUSE TO APPLY FURTHER AUSTERITY 

France, on the other hand is moving for a massive bailout of its banking system, which will inevitably imply severe austerity measures against the French working class. This is being pushed particularly by the US and the IMF, which fear the international consequences of a collapse of one or more big French banks.

The USA and the IMF once again are waging a hidden war against Europe which unfortunately the Europeans don’t realize, for their economy and industries are too entangled with US corporations.

The IMF warned of a financial meltdown if European banks are not quickly recapitalized, i.e., bailed out with public funds. US Treasury Secretary Geithner pressured European finance ministers to expand the 440 billion Euro “European Financial Stability Facility” in order to bail out failing banks!!!!!!

Where are we heading with all this, back to the middle ages, where none what so ever democratic values existed? It all seems to head towards that direction.

Notwithstanding the differences that exist within the international bourgeoisie over how to deal with the debt and banking crisis, there is a universal consensus that the cost of the breakdown of the capitalist system must be borne by the working class.

The question is if the 1% ruling class have made the mistake of underestimating 99% of the population and tightened the thumb screw an inch too much? For now it seems that the 99% had enough and thus are waging their own resistance against austerity and diminishing democratic values.

Parts of above article have been adapted from Barry Grays’ article in Global Research

BRICS to save EUROPE?

Any chance that the BRICS will save Europe is receding

 Article by Sreeram Chaulia, republished with the permission of the author

 

Brazil’s ambitious attempt to forge an internal consensus within the so-called ‘BRICS’ grouping for a timely financial intervention to save Europe’s diseased southern economies has gone nowhere.

The finance ministers of the BRICS nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -- just met in Washington D.C. to discuss this idea, but Beijing, New Delhi, Moscow and Pretoria have poured cold water on Brasilia’s proposal for coordinated bond-buying from the Eurozone’s fiscally weakest governments, Greece, Spain and Italy.

That outcome reflects the varied economic structures, conditions and models that prevail in individual BRICS nations. Brazil holds nearly 80 percent of its US$352 billion foreign exchange reserves in US dollars and is nervous about the growing levels of public debt in the American economy. It seeks diversification of its reserves away from the dollar and is hence calling for the BRICS to pool their capital and announce a big bond-buying spree for the Eurozone’s weak links.

Brazil’s calculus dovetails with that of China, which has been making similar noises about the unreliability of the US dollar. With US$3.2 trillion in reserves, only 25 percent of which are held in euro-denominated assets, China has room aplenty to acquire bonds of European countries like Italy.

When Chinese premier Wen Jiabao expressed willingness to lend “a helping hand and increase our investment in the European economy" at the recent World Economic Forum annual meeting in Dalian, he clearly had diversification of reserves in mind along with concerns about falling European consumption of Chinese exports.

Yet, one sees a rare divergence of views within the Chinese establishment on the wisdom of buying bonds from European economies that resemble sinking ships. The lack of foreseeable growth prospects in the Eurozone’s southern economies make them risky bets. Chinese citizen bloggers have been posting angry messages on management of foreign reserves, railing against investing in the Eurozone that is “influenced by political factors, and not on market fundamentals.

Serious weighing of pros and cons of buying Italian Euro bonds is underway in China, attesting to the genuine fear that there is, as yet, no well-developed alternative to the US dollar for safekeeping of one’s reserves.

India falls in this same band of uncertainty. Its official comments on Brazil’s Euro bond-buying idea have been lukewarm. With only 20 percent of its US$320 billion foreign reserves in Euro-denominated assets, India has room to buy bonds of cash-strapped European countries. However, The Economic Times quoted an Indian finance ministry official as saying that “we will maintain the 20 percent ratio.”

India’s economic growth forecast has been marked down in the last few months to less than 8 percent by many analysts, showing that the renewed global downturn has not left it untouched. Yet, as is the reflex reaction in a period of anxiety, Indian authorities are sticking to the safety of the dollar. In any case, like South Africa, which has only US$50 billion in foreign reserves, India is a relatively small player to execute systemically sizeable bond purchasing of Eurozone countries’ debts.

Russia too has rebuffed the Brazilian proposal for concerted BRICS action to buy Euro-denominated debt. Some 45 percent of Russia’s foreign reserves of US$543 billion are already held in euros and its European strategy is less centered on the continent’s southern economies and more on Germany, which is the nodal recipient of Russian gas through the newly launched Nord Stream pipeline. If at all Russia were to buy more bonds from a European country, it would be German euros, not those of Italy, Spain or Greece.

Should the 17 member states of the Eurozone overcome objections within their domestic political arenas and issue ‘Eurobonds’ guaranteed by the whole group, BRICS countries would find them more attractive vehicles to invest their reserves.

Ironically, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has been alert to dangers of “excess liquidity” and inflow of hot money from rich nations. Private wealth, including that from the Euro zone, is flowing in the reverse direction, i.e. away from the OECD centres and towards BRICS. To wish for public wealth to go in the opposite way (towards Europe) is to vainly hope that governments are less savvy than private investors when it comes to return-on-investment calculations.

Unlike private investors, governments do have one additional variable to consider when deciding where to place their reserves— political influence and image as ‘responsible’ actors who come to the aid of the ailing. A private pension fund’s moral compass is distinct from that of a sovereign wealth fund. The latter is motivated by competition for security and prestige with other states, geopolitical spaces that need to be filled, leverage and quid pro quos that can be extracted in other spheres for investing one’s reserves. It is because of these factors that we hear China and Brazil talking up the possibilities of buying more European bonds.

Misalignment between private capital and public capital is a structural problem that is skewing the global economy. Can advanced economies restrict the outflow of private capital seeking higher interest rates in emerging economies? If money can stay at home and be channeled into buying public debt, it would be beneficial for calming choppy macroeconomic seas in the EU and the US.

Western corporations sitting on trillions of dollars of cash are not doing their bit at all in boosting employment or bailing out governments of advanced economies that are in hock. If giant Western companies share the burden of debt restructurings in the countries where they are headquartered, money from BRICS sovereign funds would not even be needed.

Restrictions on capital movements saved Malaysia in the late 1990s and could do the same in the US and the Eurozone. But it takes political will to force big businesses to buy local public debt in the interests of overall macroeconomic stability of the OECD countries. Private capital does not have nationalism, but it must be controlled to prevent disasters in the making such as a possible collapse of the euro. Capital which is several times the combined weight of the BRICS’ foreign exchange reserves can be brought to revive the Eurozone if only highly profitable transatlantic corporations can be induced to buy European bonds.

In November 2010, the billionaire private investor Warren Buffett authored an article to profusely thank ‘Uncle Sam’ for the expensive bailouts which prevented corporate America from caving in during the financial meltdown. It is now apt for the US and European governments to demand a payback in the form of their corporations buying local public debt.

The Japanese model of locally headquartered companies buying their own government’s bonds is more viable for the Eurozone than to expect the parachute to materialize from the BRICS. Unless risks and losses are privatized, the “lesser depression” (as the current global slump has been described by economist Bradford DeLong) will keep extending the pain.

(Sreeram Chaulia is Vice Dean of the Jindal School of International Affairs in Sonipat, India, and the first ever B. Raman Fellow for Geopolitical Analysis at the Takshashila Institution. His new book, ‘International Organizations and Civilian Protection: Power, Ideas and Humanitarian Aid in Conflict Zones’, was published recently by I.B. Tauris, London.)

BANKING INSTITUTIONS ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN STANDING ARMIES

IRATE GOD, THE MARKET

In the old times the economy and markets managed to function without stock exchanges, daily ratings and real time minute by minute updates. With the coming of the “Information Highway” all this changed. Suddenly an entire eco political system panics when stock markets numbers plunge and cheer soaring stock figures. It seems the entire world has been drawn into this matrix which revolves around one thing, numbers which provide the illusion of money, ratings based on assumptions and economic power based on speculation. 

THE POWER OF NUMBERS

The majority of us does not even understanding the complex and obscured arithmetic’s of the “holy grail”, The Stock Market, but nevertheless we seems to be drawn into the believe that such fluctuations will affect our live. Considering that physical money accounts only for 10% in today’s markets and that 90% of “money transactions” are simple numeral data transfer within “cyberspace”, it becomes clear that physical money is only a tool to control people but not a necessity. Money gives the illusion of freedom and independence to the common man, yet we see how that very tool is used to implement austerity over the working class. US President Thomas Jefferson back in 1826 said:

“I BELIEVE THAT BANKING INSTITUTIONS ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN STANDING ARMIES…

IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EVER ALLOW PRIVATE BANKS TO CONTROL THE ISSUE OF CURRENCY …… THE BANKS AND CORPORATIONS THAT WILL GROW UP AROUND THEM WILL DEPRIVE THE PEOPLE OF THEIR PROPERTY UNTIL THEIR CHILDREN WAKE UP HOMELESS ON THE CONTINENT THEIR FATHERS CONQUERED”


THOMAS JEFFERSON 1743 -1826

Wise words, unfortunately no one seemed to take the advice, not in the 19^th century, nor in the 20^th century and certainly not in the 21^st century.

To a large extend Financial institutions have caused the havoc we are currently experiencing, especially in Europe. Nevertheless governments are using taxpayer’s money to rescue those very institutions that caused the chaos in the first place.

GREECE’S LOOMING DEFAULT,......... A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM

To solve the current financial crisis in Europe and especially Greece one should consider asking exactly those institutions that caused to a large extent the crisis in Greece to bail out Greece, namely GOLDMAN SACHS.

 FOOD FOR THOUGHT 

Sreeram Chaulia, Geopolitical analyst kindly permitted me to republish an article he wrote for THE GLOBALIST, which highlights the Goldman Sachs involvement in Greece’s dept dilemma.

Dateline Greece: Goldman, Just Pay Up By SREERAM CHAULIA  As Greece teeters on the edge of sovereign default of around $300 billion and sends shudders of premonition throughout the global economy, the fingerprints of Goldman Sachs are once again to be found, as in so many crises beforehand. Sreeram Chaulia argues that Goldman should accept moral responsibility and contribute funds to bailing out Greece.

As more skeletons fall out of the closet, it is coming to light that Greece's profligacy was abetted and managed for several years by the top Wall Street financial firms via complex instruments. Economies of developing countries have endured decades of bitter experiences of falling into debt traps that sap productive resources. In 2001, before spendthrift Greece could enter the eurozone by satisfying the deficit limit rules of the currency union, Goldman Sachs entered the picture with a tricky currency trade deal that would hide billions of dollars of additional public borrowing and not make it look like debt. For this piece of consultancy, which helped Greece join the euro by hook or by crook, Goldman received fees of $300 million. In 2005, Goldman sold to the National Bank of Greece an “interest rate swap,” one of the notorious derivatives that have come under scrutiny since the Wall Street implosion of 2008. Greek critics of such dubious debt-hiding transactions had warned their government of the mounting long-term liabilities to the likes of Goldman, but to no avail. According to news reports, Greece mortgaged revenue-generating assets like the national lottery, airports and highways as part of the agreements with Goldman in what amounted to "a garage sale on a national scale." Goldman Sachs is reported to have attempted a redux of 2001 when its president, Gary Cohn, landed in Athens in November 2009 with a similar debt deferral proposal that would continue to fool investors and the EU. This time around, Greece did not oblige. But the damage had already been done over a decade of spiraling foreign debt that was repackaged and postponed with Wall Street's wizardry. We now know that similar borrowing binges were occurring in the rest of the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) economies courtesy of the financial dodging expertise of Goldman, JPMorgan and the entire cadre of hedge funds. It may not be unfair if the EU demands that Goldman accept moral responsibility and contribute to bailing out Greece. Economies of developing countries, especially in Africa and Latin America, have endured decades of bitter experiences of falling into debt traps that sap productive resources, benefit speculative financiers and weaken state capacities to govern. In their cases, the Bretton Woods institutions acted as economic restructuring consultants and funding taps that only opened if the recipients met crushing conditionalities. John Perkins's book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," reveals how highly paid professionals with knowledge of macroeconomics and world affairs were deployed to convince political and financial leaders of poor countries to accept massive "development loans" from the World Bank and USAID. Once ensnared, the supplicants would be subjected to pressure on different issues from Washington. In the PIGS economies, it was not so much strategically motivated hit men working for the U.S. government but rather some freewheeling U.S. financial corporations that could make a killing out of clients who were addicted to reckless state spending. In late February 2010, as the EU began investigating the Wall Street shenanigans in Athens, Goldman defended its Greek misadventures by arguing, predictably enough, that they were legal actions consistent with the regulations of their time. Of course, much of the fault lay with the Greek politicians who were seduced by the Wall Street financial advisers who, for their part, were simply pursuing the bread-and-butter business of circulating wealth for profit. Of course, much of the fault lay with the Greek politicians who were seduced by Wall Street financial advisers. Had Athens been more disciplined in organizing its finances, there would not have been a window of opportunity for Goldman and company to exploit its vulnerability. But southern Europe's debt-proneness has systemic consequences from which Wall Street cannot easily extricate itself. While there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. investment banks deliberately dug the graves of PIGS to weaken the euro, the disastrous social costs of their financial chicanery call for reparations. It may not be unfair if the EU demands that Goldman, which now leads the earnings chart on Wall Street, accept moral responsibility and contribute to bailing out Greece. Who knows — now that even the U.S. Federal Reserve is making noises about investigating Goldman’s practices, the firm may be in a hurry to pay up.  Editor's Note: This feature is adapted from a longer version published in The Financial Express on February 25, 2010 Interesting reading:  Occupy World Street By Pepe Escobar     http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MJ19Dj02.html

Inside Job Rating Agencies

ONE HAND FEEDS THE OTHER

It is interesting to see how apparently only European countries and corporations are downgraded by US rating agencies. How come so? Is it because these agencies are supposed to be impartial and independent? Is it not the USA which has the highest state dept? If the rating agencies are so independent and impartial as they claim to be, should they not downgrade the USA?

The more laws and restrictions there are,
the poorer the people become.
The sharper men’s weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen. The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers. 

Lao Tsu. “The Tao Te Ching” (# 57) 6th century BCE 

After several weeks of peaceful assembly of countless people gathered near Wall Street, mainstream media has been forced to report that this is no small event. Finally! See (http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2011_09_01_archive.html) People are waking from their long geo-engineered, drug-induced apathy. If little of substance was reported by managed-and-controlled news (85 percent of which is now in the hands of five corporations), the alternative press and Internet have spread the word.

Ilya Sandra Perlingieri

Bias Argentine Media

MAIN STREAM MEDIA INFLUENCE IN ARGENTINA

It is interesting to see how mainstream print media is used to convey political massages in a subtle way, the common reader is most likely unable to detect.  

Take for example MercoPress and the Buenos Aires Herald, allegedly two, totally unconnected and independent media outlets, one being based in Buenos Aires and the other in Uruguay. Nevertheless both use the same topic and methodology to convey their political stance.

In the Buenos Aires Herald editorial dated the 12 October 2011, the editor in chief Carolina Barros and her team voice no doubt regarding the re – election of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and thus encourages the opposition to stop wasting energy on gaining opposition votes, but instead challenge her to name the cabinet in order to supply important clues as to the policies the government intends to apply in the wake of the looming global eco – financial storm. Something the voters should have a right to know.    

Shortly after the Buenos Aires Herald editorial was published, MercoPress poster an article on its web portal which cited that according to an opinion poll taken by Poliarquia Consultancy, one of whose customers is La Nacion newspaper (know to lean towards the opposition), the majority of voters allegedly demand changes in the cabinet, (what a coincident, just as requested in the Buenos Aires Herald editorial!!) and the always media effective fight crime and insecurity issue. (see http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2011/07/election-time-equals-crime-time-on.html ).  An always welcome topic, the opposition tends to jump onto, in order to promise changes.

Since every one is certain that the current government of Argentina will win the upcoming elections the opposition has nothing to focus on, other than try and point voters towards public security issues and how the voters should question the future cabinet composition. 

The Buenos Aires Herald editorial then goes on with the usual mainstream media views on Eco – financial aspects which have been indoctrinated upon mainstream media by their corporate financiers who, needless to say, follow their own agenda in order to achieve certain objectives, one of them being to force Argentina to improve its relations with the USA in order to obtain international credits and rejoin the international financial markets. If Argentina would comply with such request it once again would step into the dept trap it has in recent past, when complying with the World and Inter American Development Banks and the IMF. Economies of developing countries, especially in Africa and Latin America, have endured decades of bitter experiences of falling into debt traps that sap productive resources, benefit speculative financiers and weaken state capacities to govern.

Despite Argentina’s ban from the international financial markets it sustained its economic growth for was and is not subject to international market fluctuations and professionals with  knowledge of macroeconomics and world affairs who intend to convince political and financial leaders of Latin American countries to accept massive "development loans" from the World Bank and USAID 

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development#Controversies_and_criticism) Once ensnared, the supplicants thus are subjected to pressure on different issues from Washington. Needless to say the fact that Argentina is doing rather well economically speaking, despite being not part of the international financial system does not suit the USA and its corporate entities in and outside the US as well as the European policy makers. Thus these entities use mainstream media to portray a bleak economic forecast for LATAM and Argentina in order to create uncertainty among common people as well as financial markets. 

See

http://en.mercopress.com/2011/10/14/fighting-crime-and-changes-in-the-cabinet-demand-argentine-voters-says-poll?utm_source=feed&utm_medium=rss&utm_content=argentina&utm_campaign=rss

http://www.poliarquia.com/

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/

EU Austerity

PERMANENT AUSTERITY - DEMOCRACY AT STAKE?

On the one hand EU governments implement austerity measures on society to tackle the finance crisis and on the other hand they have no scruple whatsoever to give 700 billion Euro of tax money to the banks without asking taxpayers, thus one has to assume that the entire system has a serious fault. 

Are conspiracy theorist right when they claim that the “New World Order” is imminent and that the EU dept crisis is a long-term strategic plan of the Paris Club, the IMF and the World Bank to justify austerity measures which in reality are an excuse to undermine democratic values and set the stage for the New World Order?    Maybe such theory is somewhat farfetched but if one looks closer at the recent developments surrounding the financial crisis and the response of governments and financial institutions of the “free world” one cannot avoid seriously questioning certain moves initiated by these governments and financial entities in order to undermine democratic values.      

The EU’s response to the economic crisis is setting member states on course towards a model of permanent austerity, including widespread attacks on social rights. To prevent any resistance, the model being put forward by the EU aims at minimizing or even totally getting rid of democratic interference.

(The European) 

see also: http://www.alternet.org/vision/152606/the_real_reason_why_police_cage_peaceful_protestors/

GEOPOLITICS Argentina

Argentina

NOT EVERYTHING IS SOY

The minute Soy prices fall, “economic experts” warn of a looming crisis in Argentina. Even if Soy prices fall, Soy may be the most prominent commodity but clearly not the sole one Argentina exports. (See http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2011/07/share-of-cake.html ). It seems that these so called experts humbly reiterate what they are told to say by commodity lobbyists.

Speculators and the stock exchange may alter commodity prices but this does not change the fact that CHINA and as well as the rest of the World still needs to be fed, thus export of food commodity will continue.   

LATAM CHINA AND EUROPE

When reading “corporate” US and EUROPEAN media one cannot avoid detecting a certain jealousy regarding LATAM (LATIN AMERICAS_ economic growth and increased economic ties between LATAM and ASIA, especially CHINA. Could it be that the EUROPEANS lacked foresight regarding CHINA and ASIA and now try to recover lost terrain? EUROPEAN – US entities such as the Paris Club, IMF and the World Bank don’t miss a chance to paint a bleak picture on LATAM and its economy in order to shake the fragile markets, where in reality the economic outlook is everything but bleak in these parts of the world.

TURKEY EYES AT LATAM 

  

In recent past TURKEY has become a major player on the world stage, both geopolitical as well as Geo- strategically and to some extent economically. TURKEYS far sight on current geopolitical developments are showcased once more as it wittily focuses on advantages it could gain from developing economic ties and defense agreements with BRAZIL. Both countries pledged to increase cooperation’s in the construction industry as well as natural resource extraction and last but not least the defense industry.  

Amidst the current global shake up, TURKEY and BRAZIL are among countries that continue growing and thus could even push the G-20 group to revise its economic policies. TURKEY and BRAZIL’S economic capacities could be utilized to expand relations and find options to ease the effects of the current worldwide economic situation.  

That TURKEY is flexing its muscle in the MIDDLE EAST is a fact and thus it comes as no surprise that the rift with its neighbor Iran is growing. As mentioned previously in my blog (http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2011/08/saudia-arabia-usa-turkey-versus-iran.html ), the new alignments between TURKEY, SAUDI ARABIA and the USA versus IRAN, SYRIA, RUSSIA and CHINA will cause for tens times in the region.  

See also:

http://www.crethiplethi.com/a-different-path-assessing-turkeys-foreign-policy-in-latin-america/islamic-countries/turkey/2011/

Food for Thought on Argentina

China, Argentina Using Economic Strategies Obama/U.S. Politicians Ignoring

Article by

Marc Chamot

Article published with the permission of the author
The original article appeared on www.examiner.com 

China, Argentina Using Economic Trade Advantages & Strategies Obama/U.S. Politicians Ignoring in the Name of Free Trades, Pro-Globalization & Wall Street Profits:

Bureau of Labor Statistics says fewer Americans are now employed. According to stats, around January 2001, 123.5 million non-farm employees were working.  

In January 2008, employment rose to 138 million, and now it’s at lower levels than what it was in 2001. As of July 2011, it’s at current levels of only 131.2 million Americans employed.

Unemployment more than doubled than what it was ten years ago. In January 2001, unemployment was at 6%, then on October 2009 it was at its highest 15.6% and now it’s down to 13.9%. So basically growth has stagnated and USA Today had a team of economic experts to outline what could be done about JOBS.

Every advice involved in the U.S.A Today article, was spending more money to stimulate the economy.

Such as, providing states billions more, mainly to states that keep spending money like there was no tomorrow. California has just demonstrated what they can do with taxpayer’s money they don’t have, like granting millions of dollars for undocumented’s education. No, that won’t work.

Advertisement

Add workers at a discount or tax credit. Yes, that could work. But unfortunately, the nation is losing more tax money with this plan.

Share jobs to save jobs. No, I can’t see anybody taking 20% cut, if they didn’t have to.

Lower corporate taxes, most don’t pay taxes as it is, look at the General Electric tax scandal, they didn’t pay a dime after tax deductions through tax code loopholes. So what more do they want?

Train the Jobless. That would work, but that costs money.

Cutting the Red Tape, ease down on carbon regulations and restrictive FEES. Maybe, but it isn’t the whole solution.

Actually what is going to work? There’s a track record and this can be repeated here. It is what I have been writing about for the past four years.

I appreciate the New York Times coverage on things. It’s dubbed a left-wing liberal newspaper, but to me, it’s valuable source for information and another great source for my opinions and here’s the New York Time’s SOLUTION that pro-globalists and free traders don’t want to admit to; “The Argentine government intervened to keep the value of its currency low, which boosts local industry by making Argentina’s exports cheaper abroad while keeping foreign imports expensive.

It then taxed those imports and exports, using the money to pay for a New Deal-like public works binge, increasing government spending to 25 percent of G.D.P. today from 14 percent in 2003. As a result, the country has 400,000 new low-income housing units, as well as a long-delayed, 235-mile highway between the northern cities of Rosario and Córdoba.

In Argentina unemployment has been cut to fewer than 8 percent today from over 20 percent in 2002, and the poverty level has fallen by almost half over the last decade.”

El gobierno argentino intervino para mantener el valor de su moneda baja, lo que impulsa la industria local por lo que las exportaciones de Argentina son más barato en el extranjero, manteniendo las importaciones extranjeras caro.

Luego se ajustan los impuestos a las importaciones y exportaciones, utilizando el dinero para pagar por un nuevo acuerdo como exceso de obras públicas, el aumento del gasto público al 25 por ciento del PIB hoy del 14 por ciento en 2003. Como resultado, el país cuenta con 400.000 nuevas viviendas de bajos ingresos, así como una retrasada autopista de 235 millas entre las ciudades del norte de Rosario y Córdoba.

En Argentina el desempleo se ha reducido a menos del 8 por ciento actual comparado con más del 20 por ciento en el 2002, y el nivel de pobreza se ha reducido casi a la mitad durante la última década ".

And that’s WHAT China is doing too, and that's why they are growing and were NOT. While were heading the opposite way, unlike the United States, imports is far cheaper and domestic products higher, and that’s KILLING our economic prosperities, advantages and JOBS for Americans.

Here’s more on expertly researched and expertly written and here comes one from Ian Mount’s inArgentina Turnaround Tango.  

“ARGENTINA may seem like one of the last countries on earth to offer lessons for dealing with economic malaise. 

Once the eighth-largest economy in the world, it steadily slid through the 20th century, thanks to decades of repressive dictatorships and inconsistent market experiments. 

This ended ignominiously in 2001, when it defaulted on $100 billion in sovereign debt, plunging over half its 35 million people into poverty.

That, at least, is the Argentina people know. Since then, it has performed an economic U-turn — an achievement largely unnoticed outside Latin America, but one that President Obama and Congress should look to for inspiration.

Argentina is not without problems, but its recent economic record speaks for itself: the economy has grown by over 6 percent a year for seven of the last eight years,unemployment has been cut to under 8 percent today from over 20 percent in 2002, and the poverty level has fallen by almost half over the last decade.

The streets of Buenos Aires are choked with cars as Argentines are on track to buy some 800,000 new vehicles this year; the wine mecca of Mendoza is full of high-end tasting rooms, hotels and restaurants offering regional haute cuisine; and plasma TVs and BlackBerrys have become household staples among the urban middle class.

Argentina has regained its prosperity partly out of dumb luck: a commodity price boom has vastly benefitted this soy, corn and wheat producer.

But it has also prospered thanks to smart economic measures. The government intervened to keep the value of its currency low, which boosts local industry by making Argentina’s exports cheaper abroad while keeping foreign imports expensive.

It then taxed those imports and exports, using the money to pay for a New Deal-like public works binge, increasing government spending to 25 percent of G.D.P. today from 14 percent in 2003. As a result, the country has 400,000 new low-income housing units, as well as a long-delayed, 235-mile highway between the northern cities of Rosario and Córdoba.

It has also strengthened its social safety net: the Universal Child Allowance, started in 2009 with support from both the ruling party and the opposition, gives 1.9 million low-income families a monthly stipend of about $42 per child, which helps increase consumption.

Because the amount depends in part on how often the child attends school, it is also likely to improve the country’s long-term educational performance. The results have also paid off politically: President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner recently won about 50 percent of the vote in an open primary against nine other presidential candidates.

Why have Argentines embraced bigger government? In part because the preceding era showed how poorly austerity measures — the sort now being pushed by conservatives in the United States — promote growth.

In the late 1990s, Argentina cut government spending drastically on the order of its lenders at the International Monetary Fund. Predictably, between 1998 and 2002, Argentina’s economy shrank by almost 20 percent. It was only after Argentina turned its back on these austerity demands, and defaulted on its debt, that it began to recover.”

Aquí hay más de experta investigación y escrito por expertos y aquí viene una de Ian Mount en  Tango Turnaround  en Argentina.

"ARGENTINA puede parecer uno de los últimos países en la tierra para ofrecer lecciones para tratar el malestar económico.

Una vez la octava economía más grande del mundo, que se deslizó a través del siglo 20, gracias a décadas de dictaduras represivas y experimentos inconsistentes mercado.

Esto terminó ignominiosamente en 2001, cuando dejo de pagar $ 100 billones en la deuda soberana, sumiendo a más de la mitad de sus 35 millones de personas en la pobreza.

Eso, al menos, es la Argentina que la gente conoce. Desde entonces, se ha realizado un cambio de sentido económico - un logro en gran medida inadvertido fuera de América Latina, pero que el presidente Obama y el Congreso deben mirar en busca de inspiración.

Argentina no está exenta de problemas, pero sus resultados económicos recientes hablan por sí mismos: la economía ha crecido en más del 6 por ciento al año durante siete de los últimos ocho años, el desempleo se ha reducido a menos del 8 por ciento actual de más de 20 por ciento en 2002, y el nivel de pobreza se ha reducido casi a la mitad durante la última década.

Las calles de Buenos Aires estan ahogadas por los coches, los argentinos están en vías de comprar unos 800.000 vehículos nuevos este año, la meca del vino de Mendoza está llena de locales de degustación de alta gama, hoteles y restaurantes de alta cocina regional, y televisores de plasma y los BlackBerry se han convertido en productos básicos del hogar, entre la clase media urbana.

Argentina ha recuperado su prosperidad en parte por cuestión de suerte: un auge de precios de las materias primas ha beneficiado enormemente a este productor de soja, maíz y trigo.

También ha reforzado su red de seguridad social: la asignación universal por hijo, que comenzó en 2009 con el apoyo tanto del partido gobernante y la oposición, da a 1.900.000 familias de bajos ingresos un estipendio mensual de alrededor de US $ 42 por niño, lo cual ayuda a incrementar el consumo.

Debido a que la cantidad depende en parte de la frecuencia con la que el niño asiste a la escuela, también es probable que mejore el país a largo plazo del rendimiento educativo. Los resultados también han dado sus frutos políticos: la presidenta Cristina Fernández de Kirchner ganó recientemente el 50 por ciento de los votos en una primaria abierta en contra de los nueve candidatos presidenciales.

¿Por qué tienen los argentinos abrazado un gobierno más grande? En parte debido a la época anterior demostró lo mal que las medidas de austeridad - del tipo que ahora son maniobradas por los conservadores en los Estados Unidos - promueven el crecimiento.

A finales de 1990, Argentina redujo drásticamente el gasto público en el orden de sus acreedores en el Fondo Monetario Internacional. Como era de esperar, entre 1998 y 2002, la economía de Argentina se redujo en casi un 20 por ciento. Fue sólo después que Argentina dio la espalda a estas demandas de austeridad, y de pagar su deuda, que comenzó a recuperarse ".

The bottom line folks, we have elected a whole bunch of politicians that have pro-global mindsets and they REFUSE to budge away from this type of thinking. They don’t care if it brings our nation to the brinks of ruin, and they will make sure foreign imports rule in U.S. markets.

That’s why in 2012, it is imperative we pursue more house cleaning in U.S. congress. Obama, Democrats, Republicans no matter who they are, they ALL NEED to go, they’ve done enough damage to our country.