Brace yourself........

Once the markets pick up on water commodities we can brace ourselves, the minute we turn on the water tap we will be billed as if filling our car at the filling-station .................. 

Investing in Water: The Most Profitable Investment of the 21st Century
by Louis Basenese, Advisory Panelist, The Oxford Club 
 

Editors Note: Oxford Club Advisory Panelist and IPO expert Louis Basenese constantly monitors the world's fastest-growing industries. Below, Louis details the fundamental forces at work driving one of today's hottest growth opportunities…

Right now, there's one commodity that sells at gas stations for almost twice the price of gasoline - and U.S. consumers never complain about it.

In fact, this precious resource we often take for granted is in critical shortage in more than 80 countries worldwide. And it will forever be in high demand, as every living being's survival depends on it.

Of course, the commodity I'm talking about is water. And the effects of its shortage are of major concern…

Nearly 40% of the world's population does not have access to clean water. And this problem is not going away anytime soon.  It's actually getting worse…

Less than 2% of the world's water store is fresh water - to quench the thirst of 6 billion people. And according to the International Food Policy Research Institute, by 2020, an additional 2 billion people will be competing for this shrinking resource.

But the problem isn't 14 years from now; the problem is now. Below, we'll review why investing in water is turning out to be the most profitable investment of the 21st century. But first, let's look at the problem…

At this moment, clean, safe water is scarce across the globe. Fortunately, several players in the private sector are working hard to solve this problem. And for investors, this industry provides perhaps the most profitable opportunities of the 21st century.

Two Catalysts: Global Warming And Population Growth

Water is the single-largest health problem in the entire world.  According to SIWI.org, 90% of the 5,000 daily child deaths are related to some sort of diarrhea-related disease.

And torrid population growth is not only stressing water use, it's causing massive pollution and depleting the largest aquifers on the planet. Unstable politics of water-poor communities, states and countries is triggering heated tensions - and in some cases, all-out wars.  And global warming is drying up lakes, eroding shorelines and depleting rivers.

Consider the following:

• Within 50 years, more than half of the global population will be living with water shortages.  They will affect 4 billion people by 2050.
• The Dead Sea has dropped more than 66 feet in the past 100 years and is now losing about 3 feet each year.
• Lake Chad in Africa is now 1/20 the size it was 35 years ago.
• Water-borne diseases kill one child every 8 seconds.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, Mother Earth is now the hottest it's been for at least 400 years. 

More specifically, over the last 100 years the surface temperature of the Earth has risen 1 degree Fahrenheit.  And while that doesn't sound like too much, it's enough to wreak havoc on eco-systems, erode shorelines, dry aquifers and cause massive water shortages all over the world. 

According to the IPCC, if global warming is not stopped, the earth could heat up another 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.  Time magazine points out that, "Mount Kilimanjaro has lost 75% of its ice cap…" Moreover, it could completely lose ALL of its ice by 2020. 

The result is less inland snow, a reduced amount of fresh river water, drying aquifers, and intense strain on any ecosystem relying on irrigation. With entire regions becoming unsuitable for crop production, both food and water will need to be transported into the water-deprived nations, dramatically hindering their ability to contribute to world GDP.

And the world's fast-growing population isn't helping the situation…

From the beginning of time through the middle of the 1900s, the global population grew at a steady - but not alarming - rate.  Now, it's multiplying exponentially.

There are just over 6.1 billion people on the planet right now, but by 2050, census officials predict there could be as many as 9 billion people on Earth.  And more demand for water simply means that the already under-supplied resource will become scarcer in the years to come.

The World Bank points out that global demand for water is doubling every 21 years.  And, at present, 1 billion people on the planet don't have access to safe water.  "In Latin America alone, about 15% of the population - roughly 76 million people - lack safe water, and 116 million don't have access to sanitation services."

So how do we solve this water crisis?

Opportunity in Water Investing Is "Dripping" From This Shortage

The answer lies in the private sector - companies working night and day to solve the world's water woes.  The global water industry has been heating up for several decades, and the story's certainly not new.

Many savvy investors have already recognized that investing in water stocks is simply the investment of a lifetime.  Some have already locked in huge profits over the past few years.  Here are just a few examples of water investment successes:

• Investors who put $10,000 dollars in Consolidated Water (Nasdaq: CWCO) in 2000 banked a cool $71,061.43 by February of 2006.
• Water has to be moved, as well… and the lucky few who invested $10,000 in the IPO of American Commercial Lines (Nasdaq: ACLI) in the early part of 2005 would have made more than 310% by May of 2006.

And these profits are just the beginning of what could be the greatest investment of the 21st century. 
Think of it this way: Bottled water sells for roughly $1.50 a liter at the gas station right now, while gasoline sells for around $3 a gallon.  With 3.78 liters in a gallon, bottled water would be selling for $5.67 a gallon - almost twice the price of gasoline. And water companies don't have to build expensive oil wells and refining plants that are toxic and environmentally unfriendly. The overall cost to bring water to market is, in many cases, lower.
In the end, investing in water stocks is a smart play all around for those seeking constant, stable returns.  Global Summit Management (SGM) reports that from 2000 to 2005, water utility stocks returned 134.57%, while the S&P 500 clocked in at a mere 2.74%.
And those who invested in water stocks for a 10-year period were even happier.  The stocks banked 446.01% from 1995 to 2005, versus 9.06% in the S&P.
Conclusion on Water
The world needs safe, clean drinking water and acceptable sanitation levels. Demand is outstripping supply. And several smart companies are solving the problem, which bodes well for investing in water for long-term gains.
Good investing,

FOOD FOR THOUGHT:Water

The article below reiterates what I have claimed numerous times on this blog.

In the Rush for Land, Is it All about the WATER?

Article by Christina Daggett

Wealthy countries with shrinking stores of natural resources have quietly purchased huge parcels of fertile farmland in Africa, South America, and South Asia to grow food for export to the parent country

Over the past few years, wealthy countries with shrinking stores of natural resources and relatively large populations (such as China, India, South Korea, and the Gulf states) have quietly purchased huge parcels of fertile farmland in Africa, South America, and South Asia to grow food for export to the parent country.

Are growing “land grabs” really about food or more accurately “water grabs”

With staple food prices shooting up and food security projected to worsen in the decades ahead, it is little wonder that countries are looking abroad to secure future resources. But the question arises: Are these “land grabs” really about the food — or, more accurately, are they “water grabs”?

The Great Water Grab

With growing urban populations, an expanding middle class, and increasingly scarce arable land resources, some governments and investors are snapping up the world’s farmland. Some observers, however, have pointed out that these dealmakers might be more interested in the water than the land.

In an article from The Economist in 2009, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the chairman of Nestlé, claimed that “the purchases weren’t about land, but water. For with the land comes the right to withdraw the water linked to it, in most countries essentially a freebie that increasingly could be the most valuable part of the deal.”

Consider some of the largest investors in foreign land: China has a history of severe droughts (and recently, increasingly poor water quality); the Gulf nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain are among the world’s most water stressed countries; and India’s groundwater stocks are rapidly depleting.

A recent report from the World Bank on global land deals highlighted the effect water scarcity is having on food production in China, South Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa, stating that “in contrast, Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America have large untapped water resources for agriculture.”

Keeping Engaged and Informed

“The water impacts of any investment in any land deal should be made explicit,” said Phil Woodhouse of the University of Manchester during the recent International Conference on Global Land Grabbing, as reported by the New Agriculturist. “Some kind of mechanism is needed to bring existing water users into an engagement on any deals done on water use.”

At the same conference, Shalmali Guttal of Focus on the Global South cautioned, “Those who are taking the land will also take the water resources, the forests, wetlands, all the wild indigenous plants and biodiversity. Many communities want investments but none of them sign up for losing their ecosystems.”

With demand for water expected to outstrip supply by 40 percent within the next 20 years, water as the primary motivation behind the rush for foreign farmland is a factor worth further exploration.

Global Farming

According to a report from the Oakland Institute, nearly 60 million hectares (ha) of African farmland – roughly the size of France – were purchased or leased in 2009. With these massive land deals come promises of jobs, technology, infrastructure, and increased tax revenue.

In 2008 South Korean industrial giant Daewoo Logistics negotiated one of the biggest African farmland deals with a 99-year lease on 1.3 million ha farmland in Madagascar for palm oil and corn production. The deal amounted to nearly half of Madagascar’s arable land – an especially staggering figure given that nearly a third of Madagascar’s GDP comes from agriculture and more than 70 percent of its population lives below the poverty line. When details of the deal came to light, massive protests ensued and it was eventually scrapped after president Marc Ravalomanana was ousted from power in a 2009 coup.

While perhaps an extreme example, the Daewoo/Madagascar deal nonetheless demonstrates the conflict potential of these massive land deals, which are taking place in some of the poorest and hungriest countries in the world. In 2009, while Saudi Arabia was receiving its first shipment of rice grown on farmland it owned in Ethiopia, the World Food Program provided food aid to five million Ethiopians.

Other notable deals include China’s recent acquisition of 320,000 ha in Argentina for soybean and corn cultivation – a project which is expected to bring in $20 million in irrigation infrastructure, the Guardian reports – and a Saudi Arabian company which has plans to invest $2.5 billion and employ 10,000 people in Ethiopia by 2020, according to Gambella Star News.

But governments in search of cheap food aren’t the only ones interested in obtaining a piece of the world’s breadbasket: Individual investors are also heavily involved, and the Guardian reports that US universities and European pension funds are buying and leasing land in Africa as well.

The Future of Land and Water

Whatever the benefits or pitfalls, large-scale land deals around the world look set to continue. The world is projected to have 7 billion mouths to feed by the end of this year and possibly 10 billion plus by the end of the century.

Currently, agriculture uses 11 percent of the world’s land surface and 70 percent of the world’s freshwater resources, according to UNESCO. If and when the going gets tough, how will the global agricultural system respond? Whose needs come first – the host countries’ or the investing nations’?

Photo Credit: Number of signed or implemented overseas land investment deals for agricultural production 2006-May 2009, courtesy of GRAIN and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

Sources: BBC News, Canadian Water Network, Christian Science Monitor, Circle of Blue, The Economist, Gambella Star News, Guardian, Maplecroft, New Agriculturalist, Oakland Institute, State Department, Time, UNFPA, UNESCO, World Bank, World Food Program.

LATAM ECONOMIC DOWNGRADING TACTICS BY CORPORATE MEDIA

Defying sheep syndrome seems to work. Brazil has overtaken the UK and thus has become the world’s sixth largest economy!

Reading the Economist and other western corporate media outlets one is made to believe that Argentine and Brazilian economies will stagnate this year and that economic growth will drop significantly due to declining demand on agriculture commodities etc. What you won’t read in mainstream corporate media is that due to economic shifts from west to east and north to south, and a subsequent declining European economy, Brazil has overtaken the UK and thus has become the world’s sixth largest economy.

LATAM not adhering to vulture finance system dictated by IMF, World Bank and Corporations

As for Argentina things look promising as well, despite the deliberate negative economic outlook prognosis published by corporate media who simply can’t accept that by defying the IMF, World Bank, Wall Street indoctrinated Global Eco – vulture finance system, still succeeded in achieving economic growth.

As mentioned numerous times on this blog, even if there is a decline in demand for agricultural commodities, Argentina will still continue exporting agriculture commodities and thus keep on stimulating its economy. Argentina has one advantage over most of other agriculture economies around the world, it still has vast amount of fertile land available, something which other agriculture commodity producing countries don’t have.

FAO: INCREASED FARM LAND PURCHASE BY FOREIGN INVESTORS IN LATAM

A prove as to what global impact Argentina’s agronomics have is the high number of foreign agriculture land ownership, the significance of which the current Argentine Government realized and subsequently passed a bill, restricting foreign land ownership. Interest in Argentine fertile farm land also has stirred the attention of the UN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION, FAO, who recently warned of intense land purchase in Argentina and Brazil for the production of food. The FAO warns that the region’s governments must find ways of ensuring that the process of land concentration, and land in foreign hands do not have negative effects for the food security and local economy. 

According to the FAO there is a massive resurgence in the interest to invest in land in the region. It is much stronger than presumed be in terms of investment in land or the concentration phenomenon.

In ten years the value of land in Uruguay and Argentina increased seven-fold and a tremendous concentration process of land in Latin America. By giving away massive land to foreign entities Argentina is giving away the gold of the future: “WATER”. According to a study conducted by the UNEP - United Nations Environment Program, certain countries, including Argentina, bordering the Andes Mountains will be essential for world food export in the not too distant future, because of the combination of fresh water supply and fertile land in order to produce animal feed as well as crops. 

Further prove is Saudi Arabia's largest dairy company announcing it was buying Argentine farm operator Fondomonte for 83 million dollars to secure access to a supply of animal feed. Fondomonte operates three farms in Argentina. The acquisition will give Riyadh-based Almarai Co. control of roughly 30,000 acres of farmland just ahead of the implementation of the foreign ownership of productive land bill, instigated by the Argentine Government to curb in foreign land ownership in Argentina.

Almarai said the deal is in line with Saudi’s policy of “securing supplies and conserving local resources”.In spite of its desert climate, Saudi Arabia for decades produced millions of tons of home grown wheat with the help of generous farm subsidies. It is now trying to wind down domestic production because of concern over dwindling water supplies. 

WATER: THE COMMODITY OF THE FUTURE, even George BUSH junior realized the significance and bought land in ARGENTINA containing various fresh water wells!!!

In view of increasing water shortage, Argentina has the advantage to develop water export industry and ship water to Middle Eastern countries which suffer notorious water shortages. Oil-rich Gulf Arab nations have shown increased interest in buying farmland and other agricultural assets particularly in Argentina to ensure reliable food supplies. Even George Bush junior realized the significance of water and bought land in Argentina containing various freshwater wells!

 NATURAL RESOURCES BALANCING ACT  

Nevertheless it will need a fine balancing act by the current and future governments of Argentina when it comes to water related issues. On the one hand oil and gas extraction as well as mining are lucrative industries in Argentina, promising large revenues but require enormous amount of water and have devastating environmental impact on the country. On the other side, agronomics are also lucrative and also require water. To make the right choice will be difficult. 

FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN FERTILE FARM LAND AND MINING INDUSTRY PROVES THAT INVESTORS ARE CONFIDENT WITH ARGENTINA’S ECONOMIC STRATEGIES

If the economic outlook was really as bleak as projected by Corporate Mainstream Media, and entities such as the IMF, World Bank etc. no country or corporation would invest strongly in farm land acquisition or natural resource extractions in Argentina and the rest of LATAM.

THE FEAR OF THE 1^ST WORLDS RULING ELITE TO LOSE POWER AND INFLUENCE TO 3^RD WORLD EMERGING ECONOMIES 

In view of these facts it becomes evident as to why Corporate mainstream media such as the Economist, Wall Street Journal, to name but a few, try to portray a economic doomsday scenario for Argentina and other LATAM countries, because key players of 1^st world nations fear to lose eco political influence to emerging 3^rd world emerging economies.

Los economistas lamentan el Periodismo

Spanish Version of original article posted on 28 Dec 2011

EL CASTIGO A ARGENTINA 

Leyendo  "The Economist"  se debe creer que sus artículos son de alta calidad y objetividad. Desafortunadamente este no es el caso cuando se trata de temas relacionados con la Argentina. Durante años, "The Economist" ha hecho un hábito de llevar a cabo "ataques a la Argentina". Cada artículo sobre la Argentina es negativo, carece de objetividad y distorsiona los hechos.

Mirando más de cerca a la verdadera agenda  de "The Economist", se hace evidente que sigue una causa política, influenciado y dirigido por poderosas entidades políticas que están descontentos con la política argentina y el éxito económico posterior desafiando las doctrinas económicas internacionales. Esto claramente molesta a las cupulas poderosas, ya que pone en peligro sus agendas geopolíticas y económicas de la región.

Debido a su estancamiento de la economía del Reino Unido está desesperado por aventurarse en "nuevos territorios", por lo que la disputa en  curso con Argentina, tema : Malvinas (Falkland) y las posibilidades de las grandes petroleras y los hallazgos de gas alrededor de las islas en disputa, así como tener un pie en la puerta a la Antártida, una vez que las exploraciones de los recursos naturales está a punto de comenzar. Así, la causa se hace evidente por qué los medios de comunicación corporativos, como la cobertura de "The Economist" manipulan opiniones y rechazan noticias imparciales.

"The Economist" es la voz de influyentes entidades Anglo American, por lo que sus artículos se centran en temas de libre mercado y el único negocio en el contexto más amplio de las potencias occidentales militar y económica. La necesidad de control del Estado en todos los asuntos, y la regulación especial, es un fundamento de cualquier comentario Economist. Esto se debe a ciertos poderosos eco - entidades políticas desean el crecimiento de los Estados-nación y la democracia reglamentarias a fin de sentar las bases para alcanzar hasta una solución eco-política de control.

El artículo más reciente de “The Economist” referido a la Argentina es un ejemplo perfecto de la predisposición de la revista   cuando se trata de temas relacionados con Argentina. (Observaciones sobre el artículo se han escrito en azul debajo de cada párrafo.)

El 17 de diciembre de 2011 la revista The Economist escribió:
 

El presidente de Argentina
Cristina se prepara para desafiar la gravedad

El presidente comienza su segundo mandato frente a una desaceleración de la economía. Ella va a cumplir con una mezcla de retórica, control y austeridad

El título en sí mismo es la hipocresía en su mejor momento. ¿Cómo puede el economista saber cómo  el Gobierno argentino actuará frente a la desaceleración económica alegada?

Debe su aplastante victoria en las elecciones presidenciales en octubre a un crecimiento vigoroso de la economía y la simpatía del público por la muerte repentina el año pasado de su esposo y antecesor, Néstor Kirchner.

Alegando que el presidente debe su victoria a la simpatía del público por la muerte de su marido muestra cómo el artículo carece de objetividad y deliberadamente intenta manipular opiniones. ¿Podría ser que la abrumadora victoria fue porque el gobierno inició un programa de asistencia social que beneficiaron a la clase de trabajadores pobres en todo el país? Naturalmente, tales hechos no son dignos de mención para el economista, porque altera su eco - doctrina geopolítica!

Cristina Fernández inauguró su segundo mandato como presidente el 10 de diciembre aún vestido de negro y glorificando el nombre de su marido casi como una deidad.

Para una revista de noticias de renombre, como The Economist dice ser, centrarse en qué y por qué el presidente está usando luto parece patético y muestra sólo la forma en que la revista es prejuiciosa. El periodismo profesional y objetivo no tiene que centrarse en banalidades, aunque la revista no sea partidaria del gobierno o del país.

Su mensaje fue triunfalista. Contrastando Argentina con Europa y los Estados Unidos, ella cacareó: "Ellos gobiernan con los objetivos de crecimiento para el sector financiero... y nosotros gobernamos con los objetivos de crecimiento para el trabajo y el empleo".

Tiene que ser un trago amargo para la élite poderosa finaciera Anglo Americana, de lo contrario el economista faltaría el respeto con una terminología como "cacareó". Esto demuestra que el periodismo objetivo no es un bastión de la revista! Es evidente que los objetivos de crecimiento para el trabajo y el empleo no están en el interés de los medios de comunicación social de la que el economista, obviamente, es parte!

Esas palabras pueden volver a perseguirla.La Sra. Fernández está comenzando su segundo mandato en circunstancias muy diferentes de la parte primera, allá en 2007. El crecimiento frenético de la Argentina se construyó sobre una moneda débil (un legado del default y la devaluación en 2002), la demanda mundial en auge por sus productos agrícolas, el fuerte crecimiento en el vecino Brasil, y un enorme aumento del gasto público. Los vientos de cola han desaparecido, o corren el riesgo de hacerlo. Los precios mundiales de los productos ya no están en aumento. La economía de Brasil se ha estancado. Después de años de alta inflación en el país el peso ya no es débil, y los subsidios extravagantes significa que hay pocas posibilidades o ninguna de estímulo fiscal.

Hace unos 4 años el economista también predijo que el gobierno se enfrentaba a dificultades debido a la disminución de la demanda de productos agrícolas. El documento también critica al gobierno por no reducir los subsidios, ahora que el gobierno implementó recortes de subsidios, el economista ha iniciado una encuesta en línea, el cuestionamiento del gobierno argentino, y la aplicación de los recortes de subsidios, por considerar que no se apliquen adecuadamente !!!!! No hace falta decir que The Economist publicó un artículo sobre la causa de los sujetos, antes de la encuesta! Periodismo manipulador diría!

El gobierno sigue negando que la inflación sea un problema. Durante años jugueteó los números: oficialmente, la inflación está por debajo del 10%, pero economistas independientes lo puso más cerca de un 25%, a pesar de que muchos de las tarifas de energía y de transporte público han sido congeladas. Sra. Fernández admitió que Argentina tiene un "problema de competitividad". Pero la solución del gobierno parece ser una retirada hacia el mercantilismo, sobrio con toques de realismo.

El tema de la inflación de Argentina es sin duda un tema que debe abordarse, pero “The Economist”  se olvida de mirar en su propia puertas, donde la inflación se cita como  en el 5,4%, según la Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas !!!!, por lo probablemente hay que añadir un  pequeño % a la cifra así. actual de la deuda pública actual de Argentina como porcentaje del PIB es igual a 41,53% en comparación con la del Reino Unido de 83,70%. La deuda externa como porcentaje del PIB: ARG 36.75% frente a la del Reino Unido de 472,92%. Fuente: (http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html #)
Este año, la carga de la deuda UKs crecerá por £ 167 900 000 000.

En noviembre, funcionarios anunciaron tímidos pasos para reducir los subsidios que ascienden al 4,2% del PIB. Algunas grandes empresas, junto con los hogares más ricos, tienen que pagar ahora más cerca del verdadero costo de la energía.

Suposición anterior no refleja con claridad toda la verdad. Bajo y Medio hogares de clase no se ven afectados por los recortes de subsidios. Las pequeñas empresas vieron un aumento mínimo en sus cuentas de electricidad, no afecta su presupuesto.

Aún así, para equilibrar sus cuentas, el gobierno tendrá que recurrir a los mercados de dinero durante el año 2012, cree que Miguel Kiguel de Econviews, una empresa de consultoría. Una señal de que está preparando el camino es el nombramiento de Fernández de Hernán Lorenzino, que es respetado en los mercados financieros, como el Ministro de economía, estos pasos se han visto ensombrecidos por un endurecimiento de los controles para frenar la fuga de capitales. En octubre, el gobierno ordenó a las empresas mineras y de energía repatriar todos sus dólares de exportación y a los ciudadanos justificar la compra de cada moneda extranjera. Los inspectores fiscales fueron puestos en las oficinas de cambio de divisas.
Guillermo Moreno, el secretario de matones para el comercio interno, que ha perseguido a los economistas independientes de sus estimaciones de inflación, se ha puesto en carga total del comercio exterior también. Algunos importadores ya han sido obligados a convertirse en exportadores y si quieren hacerse con dólares.

El tema de la fuga de capitales no es un fenómeno argentino entero, y ocurre en muchas partes del mundo, como es el proteccionismo. Periodismo objetivo sería tratar de utilizar expresiones neutrales y no de "matones", al comentar en una figura pública, no importa cuánto uno está en desacuerdo con las obras de la persona.

El menor crecimiento probablemente se puede vender a los argentinos, siempre que otros países están haciendo peor. La oposición es débil, dividido o cooptados. Sin embargo, la austeridad, si llega, será necesario que la Sra. Fernández  ajuste sus alianzas políticas. Los sindicatos han advertido que las demandas de aumentos salariales grandes serán recibidos por los bordillos en el derecho de huelga. Sra. Fernández recordó a las empresas privadas que han hecho muy bien en los últimos años, y les advirtió de no "escupir al cielo". Habiendo recuperado la mayoría parlamentaria en las elecciones, el gobierno está empujando a través de una medida para regular el papel de periódico, que despierta temores en los periódicos que han sido críticos de los Kirchner.

The Economist, al parecer, es también el portavoz de la oposición política argentina, así como algunos medios de comunicación, ya que arremete en todas las direcciones posibles. Si el artículo se hubiera escrito de una manera imparcial y objetiva, el periodista tendría el informe de la verdadera razón detrás de las medidas reglamentarias relativas a proyecto de ley de medios. Se deja de mencionar que el Grupo Clarín, junto con La Nación, celebran una gran mayoría sobre "Papel Prensa". Además, el "Grupo Clarín" es dueño de una TV de gran alcance y el imperio de Internet, que da al grupo un cuasi monopolio de los medios en el país.

En 2008, cuando la producción de Argentina se redujo brevemente, el gobierno equilibro sus libros por la nacionalización de las pensiones privadas. ¿Qué podría tomar? Los objetivos potenciales son ni tan fácil ni tan rico. El riesgo ahora es que la inflación y un aumento de déficit en cuenta corriente disparará una carrera para comprar dólares y una espiral de devaluación y que los precios suban como en la década de 1970 y 80. El gobierno de Fernández  tendrá la esperanza de que sus controles puede evitar que fuera, al menos hasta que nuevos descubrimientos de petróleo de esquisto y de gas pueden ser desarrollados. Pero de una manera u otra, las cosas probablemente se pondrán más ásperos en la Argentina.

Conclusión:

En pocas palabras se podría llamar la visión de “The Economist”  desesperada "proyeccionismo" e ilusiones (malo). Demanda de materias primas agrícolas, muy probablemente será algo menor que en el pasado reciente, pero de nuevo hay que tener en cuenta que el mundo necesita ser alimentado, por lo tanto la necesidad de los productos agrícolas no cesará, con lo que Argentina, cuenta con un activo valioso para el suministro mundial de alimentos y esto es exactamente por qué el economista y político mundial eco-entidades de poder están dispuestos a representar a la Argentina como una muestra de malas medidas económicas, en la Argentina ha desafiado el sistema monetario internacional y aún así le sucedió en "eco-económico" prevalecer en medio de la actual eco - turbulencias financieras, por lo tanto los medios corporativos como The Economist no perderá la oportunidad de retratar a la Argentina en forma negativa. En su último párrafo, el economista reveló su verdadera causa, es decir, lo que he afirmado muchas veces, los intereses del Reino Unido en los recursos naturales Conos Sur!
Argentina, la tierra de los productos básicos agrícolas, grandes extensiones de tierras fértiles, recursos de agua dulce (el producto del futuro) y el aceite y los resultados posibles de gas en el sur son el motivo por el Reino Unido y otras entidades (FMI, Banco Mundial, etc ) están desesperados por ganar influencia política ecológica en la región con el fin de imponer a Argentina sus doctrinas políticas ecológicas y, posteriormente, obtener de los países los recursos naturales.

Aquí hay algunos comentarios de lectores sobre el artículo anterior:

Si es que hay elementos de este artículo que apuntan a legitimar macroeconómica Argentina se refiere a las caras, vale la pena mirar hacia atrás en la cobertura de la revista The Economist en los últimos 8 años. Esta publicación ha preanunciado el fin del mundo en el país más o menos desde 2004. ¿Por qué? El país no sigue las recetas de austeridad y la financiarización de que The Economist ha estado recomendando desde hace años, cuyos resultados están a la vista en Europa y los EE.UU. de hoy. Francamente, toda la visión del mundo de esta revista ha sido tan profundamente desacreditado que me sorprende que nadie se lo toma en serio, particularmente aquellos con inversiones globales.
De acuerdo, las personas que pagan por esta revista no parecen ser demasiado inteligentes. La base de clientes objetivo de los economistas son aspirantes IQ100 +.
Si equiparamos el crecimiento total de la Argentina en los últimos 8 años frente al crecimiento esperado economista, entonces esta revista debe responder por una diferencia de 70%.

La gente de The Economist, si te equivocas una vez que está bien,
dos veces ... tal vez,
tres veces .. espera un minuto
4 veces .. tal vez debería revisar su metodología
5 veces ... que nos mienten y lo saben
6 veces ... usted sabe que está mintiendo y lo hace porque tiene una agenda
7 veces ... que tienen una agenda y que se les paga para hacer mentir a pesar de todo la vergüenza.
8 veces ... todo lo anterior además de que no tienen un gran respeto por sus lectores.

The Economist no tiene una explicación para el éxito de la Argentina, por lo que The Economist niega el éxito argentino.

Tal vez las personas que trabajan para esta revista deben ver cosas como esta
http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html #

O mejor aún, ver la siguiente: http://www.debtbombshell.com/

Lo que usted dice es absolutamente cierto. Sin embargo, las empresas, personas y países no dejan de pagar la deuda como un capricho. o como política. Es el resultado de intentar todo lo posible para evitarlo hasta que no haya otra salida. Otro método de control por omisión o por defecto es devaluar la moneda de su país en una escala masiva, como lo hizo el Reino Unido a finales de 1950 y principios de 1940 cuando Argentina debía por lo menos $ 2 mil millones de USD. Por supuesto que no lo hizo para ajustar un “tornillo de Argentina", pero el hecho es que debe haber intentado todo lo posible para evitar la quiebra, y por desgracia en el mundo de la economía, son pocos los países que han evitado la cesación de pagos o quiebra, pero en un costo tan grande que puede haber sido más barato que hacerlo - como American Airlines la semana pasada. La economía del Reino Unido está vivo sólo de nombre, debido a la industria bancaria que atrae a los depositantes de todo el mundo. Casi todos venden bien allí se hace en China, y su déficit por cuenta corriente está cubierto sólo por el endeudamiento masivo, que un día tienen que ser reembolsados. Es sólo cuestión de tiempo antes de que el Reino Unido y los EE.UU. tendrán que admitir que con el desempleo masivo, la industria disminuyó, y los beneficios de no productivos comercio especulativo no será suficiente para sostener sus economías en el largo plazo. Doy el Reino Unido 5 años como máximo antes de la próxima crisis los golpea como el actual en los EE.UU..

Strait of Hormuz and Syria

Geo – Strategic Puzzle - Black Gold 

THE SYRIAN, LEBANESE, IRAN - STRAIT OF HORMUZ  USA CONNECTION 

Recent war mongering between IRAN and the USA regarding the blockage of the STRAIT OF HORMUZ and the attempt by foreign entities to tumble the SYRIAN regime are most likely connected and part of broader geo strategic plan, orchestrated by SAUDI ARABIA, the USA and to some extend the UK.

NEW ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST REGIME IN SYRIA IN ORDER TO REACTIVATE SAUDI ARABIA’S AND USA ARAMCO  TRANS ARABIAN OIL PIPELINE? 

Many geo strategic analysts and political experts are at odds over the reason why even the UNITED STATES, a key ally of ISRAEL, is pushing for a regime change in SYRIA, even if such move will probably turn SYRIA into a fundamentalist Islamic State at the doorsteps of ISRAEL. It could be argued that the USA and SAUDI ARABIA prefer a SUNNI fundamentalist Islamic government in SYRIA in order to eliminate IRANIAN influence in SYRIA and at the same time reactivate, for geo – strategic reasons, SAUDI ARABIA’S  ARAMCO company constructed TRANS ARABIAN OIL PIPELINE “TAPLINE”

(See http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2011/12/syria-cause-and-effect.html ). 

Tapline route from Saudi Arabia to Lebanon, crossing Jordan,Syria and the Golan Heights

REACTIVATION OF PIPELINE WOULD ELIMINATE THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ

Reactivation of the pipeline would eliminate the geo strategic importance of the STRAIT OF HORMUZ and thus IRAN’S leverage over the passage, through which 35% of the world’s crude oil is shipped. Needless to say, a blockade would have enormous global consequences. Sunni SAUDI ARABIA and Shiite IRAN have been at odds with each other over theological as well as economic issues for centuries (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz)

Reactivating the Tapline in Dhaharan would reduce the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz. Looking at the map one also realizes why Saudi Arabia intervened in Bahrain for it could not afford to loose Geo strategic control over the  peninsula.  

PIPELINE ROUTE LEADS THROUGH PRO IRANIAN SYRIA, THE GOLAN HEIGHTS AND LEBANON, THUS A SAUDI FRIENDLY REGIME IS REQUIRED IN SYRIA IN ORDER TO ACTIVATE THE PIPELINE 

In order to reactivate the TAPLINE however, SAUDIA ARABIA and its allies need to eliminate IRAN’S influence in SYRIA and stronghold in LEBANON, which is also home to pro IRANIAN HEZBOLLAH, because the route of the pipeline leads over SYRIAN terrain, ISRAL occupied GOLAN HIGHTS, ending in the Mediterranean oil terminal ZAHRANI, south of the city of SAIDA in LEBANON.

Since SYRIA fosters close eco – political ties with Shiite IRAN, SYRIA will hardly permit the reactivation of the “SAUDI” Tapline on its soil. Not to mention the GOLAN HEIGHTS, which had been seized by ISRAEL during the 6 day war and which are now monitored by United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF. Israel and Syria technically are still at war, thus permitting reactivation of the Tapline on the Syrian side of the seized Golan Heights is out of the question, for it would need the consent of both, ISRAEL and SYRIA. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War )

By tumbling the SYRIAN regime however, SAUDI ARABIA would be able to expand its influence in SYRIA and LEBANON, and thereby gain control over the pipeline and direct access to the MEDITERRANEAN SEA oil terminal south of SAIDA, from where crude oil could be shipped to EUROPE and the USA, at 40% less transport costs than by oil tankers passing through the SUEZ Canal in EGYPT. One could now keep on speculating why the “Arab Spring” in EGYPT did not turned out the way it was expected to be expected by the protesters!

GEO STRATEGIC SIGNIFICANCE OF IRAN’S NATURAL RESOURCES AND GAS PIPELINE DEAL BETWEEN IRAN SYRIA AND IRAQ

Some analysts argue that Iran is bluffing with its threat to block the strait, for it can’t afford not to export its own oil resources which also have to pass through the strait.

What many forget though is that IRAN is not solely relying on oil export but also proves to be a major gas exporter, thus in August 2011, IRAN, SYRIA and IRAQ signed a gas pipeline deal which will transport Iranian gas via the new pipeline trough SYRIA to EUROPE. The deal benefits EUROPE and would also give SYRIA more strategic importance. Negotiations on constructing an IRAN - CHINA oil pipeline, although shelved for now, could easily be reactivated in case CHINAS demand for crude is increasing. 

REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA WOULD DIMINISH RUSSIA’S IMPORTANCE AS GAS EXPORTER AS WELL AS NAVAL PRESENCE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA 

By tumbling the ASSAD Regime, SAUDI ARABIAN and USA would also cause a serious economic as well as strategic blow to RUSSIA who’s only naval base in the Mediterranean Sea is located in the SYRIAN port city of TARTUZ. But asides from the military strategic point of view it would also mean that RUSSIAS gas exportation to the EU and other parts of the world would suffer a blow, because dependence on RUSSIAS gas supplies to various regions would diminish.

Looking at the SYRIAN issue from the natural resources point of view it becomes evident as to why the sudden change in strategy by key world players.

REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA, FULL SCORE FOR ISRAEL? 

Freshwater Supply For Israel

As for ISRAEL a regime change in SYRIA in the end might not be such a bad deal after all. SAUDI ARABIA and ISRAEL have been fostering unofficially economic ties for quite some time because of both countries close ties to the USA and vice versa. ISRAEL would in most likelihood once and for all be able to keep the GOLAN HIGHTS, something the ASSAD regime would never have accept and always made it a precondition for peace talks with ISRAEL. For ISRAEL keeping the GOLAN HIGHTS on the other hand had been always a priority, not so much for strategic advantages or prestige, but for its freshwater supply, a key issue which is hardly addressed in mainstream media.

The minute SYRIA’S IRAN ties are cut; HEZBOLLAH would lose its influence in LEBANON and thus ease tensions on ISRAEL’S northern frontier. SAUDI ARABIA on the other hand would probably make sure that the SAUD ARABIAN friendly fundamentalist Islamic regime in SYRIA would keep its distance to ISRAEL in order to assure permanent oil flow from SAUDI ARABIA to the Mediterranean Sea, thus making SAUDIA ARABIA and its alley the USA an even bigger player in the oil market. 

Links to related topics: 

 

http://pipelinesinternational.com/news/iran_iraq_and_syria_sign_on_for_pipeline_to_europe/062853/#

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/12/the_pipeline_paradox?page=0,0

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=52026