Sunday, May 8, 2011

GLOBAL TRADE-How it affects You

     WHEN Peter lost his job with the multinational corporation where he had worked for 20 years, the dismissal notice put the blame squarely on "the globalization of the economy." When Thailand's currency, the baht, lost more than half its value, the finance minister of that country went on TV castigating "globalization." When the price of rice increased by 60 percent in a country in Southeast Asia, headlines at the news kiosk announced: "It's the Globalization!"

     What exactly is the globalization of the economy? How and why does it affect your country as well as the money in your pocket? What is behind this trend?

What Is Globalization?

     As an economic phenomenon, globalization is a shift from distinct national economies to a global economy. In today's "global village," the production of goods has been internationalized, and money flows freely and instantly across borders. It is virtually trade without borders. In this system multinational corporations wield vast power, while anonymous investors can foster material prosperity or cause devastating depression in any part of the world.

     Globalization is both a cause and a result of the modern information revolution. It is driven by dramatic improvements in telecommunications, incredible increases in computing power, and the development of information networks, such as the Internet. These technologies are helping to overcome the barriers of physical distance. With what results?

Mixed Blessing?

     According to its proponents, globalization can be a whirlwind of trade and investment that builds economies and spurs development in even the world's poorest countries. For example, during the 1990's alone, foreign investors have poured one trillion dollars into developing economies. This phenomenal increase in international investment has made the building of roads, airports, and factories possible in poorer nations. Globalization has indeed been a force that has raised living standards for some across the world. Peter Sutherland, chairman of the Overseas Development Council, says that "until recently, it took at least two generations for living standards to double, but in China, living standards now double every 10 years." Globalization is perceived as bringing unprecedented opportunities to billions of people. The staggering expansion of world trade has induced a wave of productivity and efficiency and has created new jobs.

I     ts critics, however, counter that globalization can also bring down economies overnight. A few clicks of a computer mouse can devalue a national currency very quickly, washing away the life savings of millions of breadwinners. Ominous words from the mouth of an influential Wall Street analyst can instantly cause a herd of panicked investors to sell their stocks in Asia, creating a huge capital vacuum that could eventually drive millions into poverty. A board of directors can decide to close a plant in Mexico and open up one in Thailand instead—creating jobs in Asia while condemning hundreds of families in Latin America to destitution.

     Many point out that globalization has made life more difficult for large segments of human society and that it threatens to leave part of the world behind. "It is no coincidence that the disappointing economic performance in much of Sub-Saharan Africa reflects a failure to integrate into the world economy and, thus, to trade successfully and attract investment," said Sutherland.

     How does this concern you? Local, national, and regional economies have become interlocked and interdependent. Thus, disease symptoms in one economy may quickly spread to infect others—including your country's. For instance, the global financial storm that devastated Asia in 1997 and Russia and Latin America in 1998 and 1999 now threatens to inflict significant damage on the prosperity of the United States, countries in Europe, and many other financially stable nations. Economies that looked healthy one moment have become seriously ill the next—apparently not because of any new development within their own borders but because of a shock from abroad. Economists call this phenomenon "financial contagion." Says Lionel Barber of the Financial Times: "The financial shocks are occurring simultaneously and in many instances are mutually reinforcing. Contagion is no longer a risk; it is a fact of life."

     All over the world, therefore, globalization has increasingly stitched lives into a single economic quilt. Regardless of where you live, such contagion affects you in more ways than one. Consider the following examples. When Brazil floated its currency in January 1999, Argentine poultry farmers were shocked to realize that Brazilians were selling chickens cheaper than theirs to supermarkets in Buenos Aires. Moreover, the international economic slump had already slashed the price of Argentine wood, soy, fruit juice, beef, and cheese. Low prices and reduced demand led to the closing of dairies there, leaving hundreds unemployed.

     Meanwhile, hog farmers in Illinois, U.S.A., found that while they had enjoyed good pork exports to booming Asian countries in the past, now they had to lower their prices, since demand was low and competition was fierce. "We've never seen this heavy a loss in the pork industry, not even in the Depression," lamented one farmer. In the same country, steel workers were laid off, as their companies were facing a deluge of steel imports from China, Japan, Russia, Indonesia, and other countries—all of them with weak currencies that made their exported goods very cheap. Because of a lack of Asian buyers, unsold grain piled up in the United States, to the dismay of farmers in that country.

     The implications of globalization are further compounded by the fact that banks and pension funds in wealthy countries have lent to or invested heavily in "emerging markets"—a euphemism for some economies in the developing world. Thus, when such economies collapsed during the 1997-99 financial crisis, this had a direct bearing on ordinary citizens who either were pensioners or had savings in banks that had suffered losses. Almost everyone has felt the cold shiver of loss, directly or indirectly.



Globalization has been blamed for widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

For Richer, for Poorer

     A closer examination of the globalization process reveals that it has created expanding islands of wealth in poor countries and swelling seas of poverty in wealthy countries. How so? David Korten partly answers this question in his book When Corporations Rule the World: "Rapid economic growth in low-income countries brings modern airports, television, express highways, and air-conditioned shopping malls with sophisticated consumer electronics and fashion labels for the fortunate few. It rarely improves living conditions for the many. This kind of growth requires gearing the economy toward exports to earn the foreign exchange to buy the things that wealthy people desire. Thus, the lands of the poor are appropriated for export crops. The former tillers of these lands then find themselves subsisting in urban slums on starvation wages paid by sweatshops producing for export. Families are broken up, the social fabric is strained to the breaking point, and violence becomes endemic. Those whom growth has favored then need still more foreign exchange to import arms to protect themselves from the rage of the excluded."

     Universally, globalization has placed great pressure on working people as governments force down wages and labor standards in an attempt to attract foreign investment with the promise of low costs. While some newly industrialized countries have profited from increased exports as a result of freer global trade, poorer nations have been largely excluded from the feast.

     How grave has global inequality become? Just consider a single statistic quoted by Korten: "There are now [in 1998] 477 billionaires in the world, up from only 274 in 1991. Their combined assets are roughly equal to the combined annual incomes of the poorest half of humanity—2.8 billion people." The culprit? "This is a direct consequence of an unregulated global economy."

Driven by Greed—A Healthy Trend?

     What is globalization's basic flaw? Commenting on the financial crisis of 1997-98, editor Jim Hoagland said that future historians "will find a trail of missed opportunities, flawed international cooperation and human greed." Some people ask: 'Can there be global peace and prosperity with an economic system that pits a wealthy minority against a poverty-stricken majority in a life-and-death struggle? Is it ethical for a small number of winners to enjoy extravagant wealth while a much larger number of losers are forced into humiliating deprivation?'

     Truly, insatiable greed and moral deficiency have created a world of tremendous financial inequality. What a lawyer said 2,000 years ago is still true: "The love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things." (1 Timothy 6:10) Are human governments prepared to deal successfully with such inherent flaws in man's imperfect character? Fernando Cardoso, president of Brazil, voiced his concerns: "The task of providing a human dimension to development in the era of Globalization has become a major challenge, since all of us have to deal . . . with the ethical vacuum which the idolatry of the marketplace has caused."

"Epic Struggle of Power and Values"

     In a lecture to the 22nd World Conference of the Society for International Development, Korten expressed his doubts about some of the beneficial effects of the global economy. He stated that there is "an epic struggle of power and values between people most everywhere and the institutions of the global economy. The outcome of this struggle will likely determine whether the 21st century marks the descent of our species into an anarchy of greed, violence, deprivation, and environmental destruction that could well lead to our own extinction. Or the emergence of prosperous life-centered civil societies in which all people are able to live without want in peace with one another and in balance with the planet."

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Two Thoughts!!!!!!!!!!!

1)   How about Sarah Palin and Donald Thrump running for President and Vice-President?

What can they do for our country to help it get out of debt?

What can they do to help turn around 'solving the worlds problems' air that is all around us?

How about showing unity, can they do that?

Just how do they plan on showing us tax-payers how to have a real-life?



2)   Why are we paying all these different counties large sums of money and yet we can not help our own country?

Is it that hard to take care of our our own place first?

It would seem that over the period of time that man has had to govern, he would learn how to make things better for us tax-payers who by the way help pay for the government so that it can run, but No it appears that they all want the headline but not the work to keep it.

For some reason I thought that we were suppose to take care of ourselves first.

So why are we so far off track?

Two thoughts from of old:

 It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.

and

the making of many books there is no end.

And now the lastest:: "Osama Bin Laden is Dead" by news reports Sunday evening 5/1/2011

 

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Will Green Chemistry help?

How about this : GREEN CHEMISTRY

     What is Green Chemistry?      Simply put, it seeks to design and invent the next generation of everyday materials and products by reducing or eliminating the use or generation of hazardous substances. Green chemistry means less waste, better energy efficiency and reduced risks for us and our environment. It’s an ongoing process of applying innovation, creativity and intelligence.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

     This article is about the concept of the environmentally friendly design of chemical products and processes. For the journal, see Green Chemistry (journal).

     Green chemistry, also called sustainable chemistry, is a philosophy of chemical research and engineering that encourages the design of products and processes that minimize the use and generation of hazardous substances.Whereas environmental chemistry is the chemistry of the natural environment, and of pollutant chemicals in nature, green chemistry seeks to reduce and prevent pollution at its source. In 1990 the Pollution Prevention Act was passed in the United States. This act helped create a modus operandi for dealing with pollution in an original and innovative way. It aims to avoid problems before they happen.

     As a chemical philosophy, green chemistry applies to organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, biochemistry, analytical chemistry, and even physical chemistry. While green chemistry seems to focus on industrial applications, it does apply to any chemistry choice. Click chemistry is often cited as a style of chemical synthesis that is consistent with the goals of green chemistry. The focus is on minimizing the hazard and maximizing the efficiency of any chemical choice. It is distinct from environmental chemistry which focuses on chemical phenomena in the environment.

     In 2005 Ryōji Noyori identified three key developments in green chemistry: use of supercritical carbon dioxide as green solvent, aqueous hydrogen peroxide for clean oxidations and the use of hydrogen in asymmetric synthesis. Examples of applied green chemistry are supercritical water oxidation, on water reactions, and dry media reactions.

     Bioengineering is also seen as a promising technique for achieving green chemistry goals. A number of important process chemicals can be synthesized in engineered organisms, such as shikimate, a Tamiflu precursor which is fermented by Roche in bacteria.

     There is some debate as to whether green chemistry includes a consideration of economics, but by definition, if green chemistry is not applied, it cannot accomplish the reduction in the "use or generation of hazardous substances."

     I believe green chemistry will be a powerful economic engine for the U.S. and for New England.

     Last summer, along with my colleague Paul Anastas, we began brainstorming how to bring together green chemistry leaders from the Northeast. We sought out John Warner of Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry , Amy Cannon of Beyond Benign , and New England leaders in government, academia and business to strategize what a sustainable green chemistry future might look like – and how we could make it happen in New England.

     The first step for making green chemistry an economic driver in New England was providing an opportunity for a variety of people involved in the subject to gather. With this goal first goal set, EPA hosted a Green Chemistry Networking Forum on Dec. 16, 2010.

     For green chemistry to really take off, we need a lot of well-coordinated aspects of society to engage. Education is essential, not only in universities, but also in early science education. At the Forum, we had both college students presenting their green chemistry work, and high school students participating. We were gratified to have all the New England state departments of environmental protection attend.

      Business and industry leaders who are adopting the 12 principles of green chemistry were there. Venture capitalists, who understand that innovative businesses that are guided by the green chemistry principles are a sound investment, were there. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) seeking safer, less-toxic chemicals to advance sustainability in our society were also there.

     The conversations that began at the Networking Forum will continue. Six groups that began talking about how to bring green chemistry into the future will continue to meet and create plans that they can implement. It’s a collaboration between government, business, academia and the NGOs that’s going to make New England the Green Chemistry Corridor. This is what the buzz is all about. Green chemistry is a way towards a sustainable future.

     New England is abuzz with discussions and planning to position the Northeast as a green chemistry force for the country and the world.

Please feel free to share a comment.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Where oh where is the "America Dream"?

There is no Paradise here


American Dream!
What happened to it?

If things are so good here, then they must be really bad back in other countries.

We are suppose to be the riches,most healthy country on the planet.

But what happened?

Where are they?

If this is true than why is the government having to pay out so much for its citizens?

Why is the government having to take over on so many programs that effect our lives?

Why does all the big companies either private or government hate us citizans?

If they liked us then they wouldn't charge so much for their goods, like gas for our automobiles, oil for our homes, electricity for some much more?

And why can't the local counties take care of their own school system, some one in a neither city does not know about the local territory and the lives of that local county.

We are suppose to enjoy life not be stressed out.

Until something is done in a good way, clean way, that will benefit us all than what hope is there?

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

7 WAYS TO FIX AMERICA

     While we wade through the economic mud of a weak recovery, our leaders dither. These steps from a think tank may not hold all the answers, but they could be a start.

Step 1. Fix health care and education


     We need to boost productivity in public and regulated sectors, including health care and education, which have been "persistent productivity laggards" and have the potential for large gains. By just about every standard, U.S. health care patients are overpaying for middling quality of care. Deutsche Bank economists led by Peter Hooper note that the United States "already puts far more resources into health care than any other country, and gets less for it on a number of different standards."

     The same goes for education. Previous research by McKinsey found that a persistent gap in academic achievement between children in the United States and those in other countries cost the U.S. economy over the long term. McKinsey estimated the cost of this education gap at upward of $2.3 trillion in lost output in 2008.

     Overall, these sectors represent 20% of the economy. And if we could get them to halve their productivity gap with the private sector, we could collectively save up to $300 billion annually. We need increased competitiveness, better use of technology, better management and new ways to think about how we pay for health care services to better align incentives and control costs.

Step 2. Increase innovation


     This one is all about research-and-development prowess. Many such advances are birthed via government programs like the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). But with the budget being squeezed, there is a risk we won't make critical investments in the future.

     For example, countries like China and Germany are taking the lead in funding alternative energy projects. In 2009, China has surpassed the United States in this area, spending nearly $35 billion, compared with $19 billion here. Germany is using the nuclear meltdown at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant as a catalyst to increase funding for wind energy projects.

     Keeping our scientists hard at work is critical. In his proposal "A Strategy for American Innovation," Obama has embraced a number of ideas in this area, from streamlining the patent process to expanding clean energy tax credits.

Step 3. Close the talent gap

     With the broad measure of unemployment at nearly 17%, it may be hard to believe, but a U.S. labor shortage is developing. McKinsey estimates that the United States may face a shortfall of 2 million technical and analytical workers, as well as a shortage of several hundred thousand nurses and as many as 100,000 doctors over the next decade. For aerospace, one of the nation's flagship industries, 60% of the workers are over the age of 45, compared with 40% in that age group in the overall economy.

     Small changes could have a big impact. Previous McKinsey research has shown that increasing the median retirement age in the economy by about two years over the next 30 years could add more than $12 trillion in economic growth over that period.

Solutions here include:

•Removing barriers to older workers staying in the workforce (mainly by controlling health care costs).

•Easing restrictions on skilled worker immigration.

•Improving access to vocational and technical training.

•More closely linking higher education and jobs.

Step 4. Fix the roads

     America's infrastructure has been in steady decline as our roads, rail lines and water systems fall into disrepair. We now rank 23rd in the world in this area, behind the likes of Oman, Singapore and Portugal. Our broadband Internet penetration lags South Korea and Hong Kong.

     Multinational corporations consistently say the quality of a country's infrastructure is among their top four considerations when deciding where to invest, and the United States is falling behind rapidly.

     It wasn't always this way. As recently as 2008, we were in the top 10, according to the World Economic Forum. Back in 2002, we were in the top five.

     It's not just a matter of throwing more money at the problem, though. Demand-management techniques such as congestion toll pricing and public-private financing partnerships should also be considered.

Step 5. Cut red tape

     At a time when businesses are easily able to relocate production and research centers -- picking and choosing between countries and localities -- the United States is slipping here, too. Businesses are facing a bureaucracy that's ever-harder to navigate, from more onerous oversight to lost tax credits and increased tax rates.

     A couple of examples: Big-box retailers can't sell pet medicines and automakers can't sell vehicles online. Restrictions like these reduce competition and increase costs.

 Step 6. Solve the energy challenge

     My last column illustrated just how tight the world's crude-oil supply situation is. With demand rising quickly at a time when new energy sources are constrained, fast-growing economies are focused on reducing the amount of coal, oil and gas they need to run. Among the developed countries, the United States has the most energy-intensive economy.    

     That can change. If, for instance, America adopts progressive increases in fuel economy standards like those in Europe and Japan, average gas use could increase by five miles a gallon by 2020. Such savings would be worth up to four million barrels of oil a day -- 20% of projected oil imports in 2020.

     Smart home energy meters and energy efficiency initiatives in both appliances and home heating and cooling are other action areas.

Step 7. Share ideas


     Although we're all Americans, the different regions and cities within the United States demonstrate remarkably different growth and productivity rates. McKinsey researcher believe there is "insufficient sharing" of the best ideas and practices across local and state levels.

     One solution would be for communities to form cross-region alliances to present business leaders with investment packages that harness the strengths of each region. One area would do the design work while another handled manufacturing, for example.

     I realize these steps may make the solutions to tough problems sound too easy. But they're also exactly what America needs to get back on track and create the jobs of the future, and they're more than Congress or the White House has put out lately.

     The simple fact is that until these structural issues are fixed and productivity bounces back, economic growth will disappoint. We'll find out just how disappointing on April 28, when first-quarter GDP figures are released.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

ENERGY-Why Essential for Life

BABY Micah was born in August 2003.

A gasoline-powered car rushed his mother to the maternity ward.

A coal-burning power station lit the hospital in which he entered the world.

A central heating system burning natural gas warmed the room in which he took his first breath.

If any one of these traditional power sources had failed, little Micah’s life could have been jeopardized.


The modern civilization into which Micah was born depends on a variety of energy sources for its very existence. Every day we rely on fossil fuels in some way—to transport us to work, to cook our food, or to light, heat, and cool our homes. The World Resources Institute says that fossil fuels are used to “meet about 90 percent of global commercial-energy demand.” A report published by the Institute in 2000 says: “In energy terms, oil makes the single largest contribution to world energy supply, at 40 percent, followed by coal at 26 percent and natural gas at about 24 percent.”

The journal Bioscience says: “On average, every year each American uses about 93,000 kilowatt-hours [of power], equivalent to 8000 liters of oil, for all purposes, including transportation, heating, and cooling.” In Australia, China, Poland, and South Africa, more than 75 percent of the electricity used comes from coal-fired generators. India relies on coal for 60 percent of its electric power, while the United States and Germany burn coal to supply more than half their electricity.

“It’s less well known that the world’s food is now nourished by oil,” states journalist Jeremiah Creedon in an article entitled “Life After Oil.” “Petroleum and natural gas are crucial at every step of modern agriculture, from making fertilizer to shipping crops.” (Utne Reader magazine) But how secure are these energy sources from which modern society draws its life and livelihood? Are there any cleaner alternatives available?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------