A dam failure in Brazil caused widepsread blackouts, in Brazil as well as Paraguay and Urugauy.  The dam, Itaipu, is rated at 18 GW, and supplies roughly 20% of Brazil’s energy. Story here.  Luckily sounds like a minor problem caused the dam to go offline, rather than something catastrophic like in Russia recently.

While open and transparent decision making at Copenhagen will be crucial to lay the foundations for a binding international agreement, breakthroughs in the negotiations will depend on the wrangling that occurs away from the public gaze.

Before we look at the main wheelers and dealers, it’s worth examining why it is so important that a deal is struck in Copenhagen. With many countries taking strong action at home via domestic emissions policies, does it really matter if no binding international obligations emerge from this round of negotiations?

The answer is yes — for two reasons.

Firstly, most countries inevitably look for safety in numbers when crafting climate change policies. While a few may be prepared to go it alone, most will only be prepared to take strong action if they see comparable efforts being made in other countries; particularly major trading partners.

It is true that over the last few years both the US and China — along with a large number of other developed and developing countries — have announced domestic plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions. However, these announcements have been made on the assumption that a stronger global agreement will be in place for the post-2012 period. If no such agreement is forthcoming, the level of domestic ambition will be substantially less.

Australia is a case in point, with the Rudd Government pledging to cut emissions by only 5 per cent in the absence of a strong global deal — but up to 25 per cent if such a deal is reached.

The second reason why a binding international agreement is important is that it provides countries with some assurance that other countries will actually make good on their promises. Commitments made at the domestic level can be relatively easily revoked with changes of government. On the other hand, international obligations are fixed and can only be amended with the consent of all other parties to the agreement.

Obviously, countries can choose to ignore their international obligations. This is where strong verification and compliance provisions are important. But, even without such measures in place, international obligations still exert a powerful influence on state behaviour. If they didn’t, why would countries routinely fight tooth and nail to ensure their national interests are protected when negotiating new international laws?

Despite some high profile and persistent breaches, the classic adage of international law remains true: “Most countries abide by most international laws most of the time.”

So, who are likely to be the deal makers and breakers in Copenhagen? And what role might Australia play behind the scenes?

Obviously the US-China dynamic will be critical. Together, these two countries account for around 40 per cent of global emissions and will be at the forefront of future efforts to avoid dangerous climate change. An international agreement that does not include strong commitments from both of these countries will be doomed to failure.

The US has made it clear that it will not sign on to an international agreement unless it also includes binding commitments for China and other rapidly industrialising nations. The reality of domestic US politics is that ratification of any agreement will be at the mercy of a hostile Congress easily spooked by perceptions — well founded or not — that China is not doing its bit to cut global emissions. The Obama Administration is keenly aware of this and is not prepared to return to Washington from Copenhagen with an agreement that will suffer the same fate at the Kyoto Protocol, which was signed by the Clinton administration, but effectively vetoed by Congress.

Demands for stronger commitments from China also reflect the practical reality that we cannot solve the climate crisis unless major developing countries curb their rapidly growing emissions. Industrialised countries have got us into this mess and must take the lead to reduce emissions — but this alone will not be enough to avoid dangerous climate change.

For its part, China is opposed to binding international obligations. Instead it has outlined a raft of domestic abatement initiatives and has promised to unveil a domestic emissions intensity target at or before Copenhagen.

What can be done to secure a deal between these two superpowers in Copenhagen? Any US-China negotiations will be highly complex and involve strategic interests unrelated to climate change like trade and geopolitical interests.

However, three key elements will be at the heart of any successful deal.

First, both countries need to put their mitigation commitments on the table. It would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall when this first exchange takes place. You can be sure that when the talks open, both the US and China will have done their numbers and know precisely what they want from each other — and what they are prepared to pay in return. The US will need to take on a binding economy-wide target to reduce emissions, while for China it could be something less stringent, but of comparable effort, like renewable energy and energy efficiency targets.

The second element of a successful deal will be for the US to demonstrate how it will provide the technical and financial support to help China meet its commitments. China, along with all developing countries, has made it clear that financing and technology constraints must be addressed before they will enter into a new agreement. For China, with its massive sovereign wealth funds, providing access to the latest low-emissions technology — including renewable energy and energy efficiency technology — is likely to be particularly important as this is where it continues to lag behind the US.

Third, provided the technology and finance package is sufficient, China has to agree to take on mitigation commitments that are binding under international law.

Bilateral meetings between the US and China have been underway since the early days of the Obama Administration but there have been few outwards signs of progress on any three of these key issues.

Cue Australia.

Both Prime Minister Rudd and the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong are acutely aware of the need to build a negotiating bridge between China and the US. And both are keen for Australia to facilitate that agreement.

As the developed country most exposed to climate change (particularly droughts, bushfires and other extreme weather events), Australia’s national interests clearly lie in a strong and urgent global effort to reduce emissions.

During a recent visit to the US, Wong unveiled a blueprint for a post-2012 agreement that she believes will satisfy the needs of all nations. In essence, Wong’s plan — which has actually been available publicly on her department’s website since March — would involve all countries adopting legally binding “national schedules”, outlining specific mitigation commitments that they will be obliged to implement.

Under Australia’s proposal, each country will have a schedule for mitigation commitments which, combined, will reflect a spectrum of global effort. As with the Kyoto Protocol, wealthier nations (including the US and Australia) will have binding economy-wide targets, while developing countries will commit to other nationally appropriate policy measures, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency targets.

While not officially framed as such, Australia’s proposal is clearly aimed at securing a deal between the US and China. It is also very much concerned with Australia’s national interests.

The status quo of international climate negotiations — where progress is slow and the level of ambition for carbon pollution reduction targets is low — is not going to result in a deal that is in Australia’s national interest. The Australian Government knows this and sees the schedules as a way forward. So far, however, Australia’s proposal is missing two critical features: finance and compliance.

It doesn’t matter how sensible Australia’s proposal may appear, it will only advance if it is linked to credible pollution reduction targets from developed countried and a viable proposal on how they will provide developing countries with the financial support they need to tackle climate change.

Developing countries, including major emitters like China, India, Brazil and South Africa, have consistently stated that they will only sign up to an international agreement if it includes significantly scaled-up financial support. To date Australia has remained largely silent on this matter, offering no explanation of where the money might come from or how much is needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

Compliance is also crucial. Australia’s schedule proposal will involve countries taking on commitments that will be binding under international law — but this will mean little in the absence of verification and compliance provisions. As a middle power, it is in Australia’s interests that the international agreement includes provisions to ensure countries live up to their promises.

The compliance provisions in the international agreement will, however, have to strike a balance between ensuring obligations are met and encouraging countries to come on board with ambitious commitments in the first place.

International rules and procedures to promote compliance should aim to facilitate action in countries, with punitive measures a last resort. This will include peer review, where countries must open their books to verification by other parties. Ultimately if a country fails to fully comply then it should face consequences, like having to take on stronger targets in subsequent years, or, in the case on developing countries, being excluded from accessing financial support or carbon markets.

Other developed countries will also play important roles behind the scenes, including Japan, Russia and the members of the European Union (EU). These states are all major sources of emissions and must play a central role in efforts to avoid dangerous climate change. After the US, they also control a large share of the world’s public and private wealth, which will need to be unlocked to support clean energy investments in developing countries. Both the US and China — as well as Australia — will want to see stronger commitments from these countries before a final global deal can be struck.

The EU has long been a leader on climate policy and is likely play a positive role in Copenhagen. Recent developments in Japan — including its target announcement — suggest that it too will not block progress.

Russia, as always, remains a wild card and could yet disrupt negotiations in December. Russia received a sweet deal under the Kyoto Protocol, because its target was easily met and exceeded through the closure of heavily polluting and uncompetitive Soviet era factories. These factories would have closed irrespective of the Kyoto Protocol, which meant the Russian Government had to do little to fulfil its international obligations. While other countries are unlikely to let Russia get away with this again, they will also be wary of upsetting a country that likes to throw its weight around on the international stage.

Just as interesting will be the role of the developing country groupings, including the Group of 77.

Established in 1964 during UN Trade and Development Conference, the Group of 77 has evolved into a formidable negotiating block; not only in the climate change field, but also in trade and other international negotiations. Its greatest challenge in Copenhagen, however, will be maintaining a united front on the key issues.

The dynamics within the G77 will have important implications in the negotiation. If the group’s members cannot reach consensus behind closed doors then it will not be able to negotiate as a single force. This will significantly undermine its influence on the negotiations. This may make it easier for a deal to be made between the larger developing country emitters (such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa) and the developed world. However, it may also harden other developing countries’ resistance to such a deal — which could complicate the negotiations further.

China and India are key members of the G77. China’s position within the G77 is likely to be most influenced by its talks with the US. India too will be influenced by its bilateral negotiations with developed countries (including the US), but so far it is sending mixed signals on its preparedness to negotiate and compromise.

It’s unclear what alliances will emerge within the G77 in Copenhagen — but let’s hope the more progressive players like South Africa and the small island states from the Caribbean and Pacific are not held back by hardliners lead by Saudi Arabia (which appears more interested in protecting its income stream from oil sales).

What role can we expect to see Australia play in bringing the developing world to the table? Building from its efforts with the US and China, you can be sure that Australia’s climate diplomats will be pushing hard behind the scenes with other developing country players. Ultimately, however, these efforts will be hamstrung by the Australian Government’s continued silence on how they plan to generate and deliver the financial assistance required to enable developing countries to play their part in a new global agreement.

Source: http://thegovmonitor.com/world_news/britain/a-look-at-the-key-players-in-copenhagen-15028.html

Praca da Sé, Sao Paolo, Brazil, 2009

View Larger Map

Praca da Sé, Sao Paolo, Brazil, 2009

View Larger Map

In October of 2009 I was thinking about cities. What makes a city a city? Is it the density? The commerce? The cultural institutions? We all know a city when we come to one – what is that?

Perhaps it has something to do with desire. So one Sunday morning a few friends and I set out walking. We decided we would walk someplace new and take turns leading. The only guide was our desire. We ended up in private gardens and a flea market, a hippie commune, an antiques mall, a couple of art galleries, and a hilltop homeless enclave, among other places. Afterwards I wrote this essay – Cities of Desire (with apologies to Italo Calvino) – about what makes a city a city.

What you see here are the images from our walk along with field recordings of the sounds from the city. Overlaid on all this is the essay. The walkers were: Alejandra Orozco, Robert Hudon, Cynthia Rothschild, and me (Abraham Burickson). Enjoy.

The rate of twin births in Candido Godoi, Brazil is 1,000 percent above the global average.  It’s a really strange mystery; the work of aliens? the result of secret nuclear testing? — one man has a really strange explanation — the work of Nazi Dr. Mengele?

I can’t get the video to embed … from Comcast news.

http://www.comcast.net/video/a-town-full-of-twins/1328140700

I recently watched the movie Foreign Land, a.k.a. Terra Estrangeira, a Brazilian film from 1996, for a class. It was an interesting movie about a man whose mother dies and he travels as an immigrant to Spain to visit/learn about his mother’s roots.

The movie started out slow at first but put eventually picked up. It starts out in Sao Paulo, Brazil in 1990 with the president freezing all bank accounts. The main character Paco has to deal with finding his mother dead. He makes plans to take a trip to Spain but in order to pay for it he smuggles diamonds into Spain. When he goes to deliver the goods to a man named Miguel, Miguel is dead. Then some drama ensues and Paco hooks up with Miguel’s girlfriend Alex. The movies ends tragically, but I won’t reveal that to you dear reader.

The movie is black and white and has a 1940s film noir feeling. The imagery was really cool in the film, i.e. the photo above. A main critique of mine is since the movie is in black and white the subtitles were difficult to read because they were in white.

Last night, I was at a reggae concert featuring some local bands from Pará as well as Gregory Issacs from Jamaica and Soja from California. In the audience, near the stage were various couples watching and enjoying the live performances dancing forró super close to each other the whole time (5 hours plus) while bumping into everyone who actually came to *see* the bands play. All I have to say is, go dance elsewhere! Go to a bar, stay at your house, pay a lot less and go to a club for crying out loud but don’t go into the most dense part of the crowd, right near the stage and have your alone time with your partner. It’s extremely rude to say it politely. It may be a shock to you and your ’sweetie-pie’ but nobody likes being bumped into every five seconds. In times like these, the only defense is to cross your arms and therefore use your elbows to make a point, so to speak.

Oh and this goes for the same types of couples, if you are going to spend the other half of your time in such an event sucking face with your partner, get a room! Hug, kiss…I couldn’t care less, but if you’re acting like you’re in the privacy of your bedroom knocking-boots at 2AM then I hope those boots are also made for walking…cause you could go somewhere else and leave me and my friends to enjoy the event.

By Jeremy D. Morley

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention) provides that a child who is habitually resident in one party country, and has been removed to or retained in another party country in violation of the left-behind parent’s custodial rights, should be promptly returned to the country of habitual residence. However, many countries are not parties to the Convention, and even some that are parties enforce the laws only sporadically or in accordance with their own societal customs. Thus, the attorney must take special care when faced with the possibility that his client’s foreign national spouse might take the children to such a country.

Preventing Abductions to Non-Hague Countries

The first 4 months are  the golden window, were you have the chance to get your children back due to the Hague convention.

The mother in Ahmad v Naviwala,  learned these lessons the hard way. The Family Court awarded her sole custody of the children but unfortunately (although represented by counsel!) she permitted the father to take them to Saudi Arabia for a 3-month visitation. Not surprisingly (to a jaundiced international family lawyer), the father refused to return the children from Saudi Arabia, refused to allow the mother to see the children and obtained an ex parte custody order in his favor from a Saudi court. Had he kept the children in Saudi Arabia, they would doubtless have never been reunited with their mother. Fortunately, he took the children on a trip to Texas, where they were seized pursuant to a Broome County Family Court order, and returned to New York.

The Family Court then granted custody to the father (!), with visitation rights to the mother. Recognizing that Saudi Arabia was not a party to the Hague Convention, and that the mother could not enforce her visitation rights there, the court imposed various conditions upon the father intended to ensure that he would allow the mother to visit the children in Saudi Arabia. For violating the prior custody order, the father was sentenced to a suspended term of incarceration conditioned upon his future compliance.

On appeal, the Third Department awarded custody to the mother, stressing the fact that the father had intended to permanently remove the mother from the children’s lives. The Appellate Division found that the Family Court’s efforts to ensure the mother’s access to the children in Saudi Arabia were entirely insufficient, and allowed visitation by the father only in the United States, with the mother having sole custody of the children’s passports. A successful outcome for the mother was obtained only because the father had brought the children to Texas. This case highlights the fact that, all too often, the courts are reluctant to impose strict conditions to prevent parental child abduction until after an abduction has actually taken place.

United States v. Amer

In United States v. Amer, Egyptian parents were living separately in New York without a custody order. The father abducted the children to Egypt. The mother’s efforts to secure their return failed and the father procured an order from an Egyptian court granting him sole custody. He returned to the United States without the children and was arrested for international parental kidnapping. He was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment and a 1-year term of supervised release, with the special condition that he return the children to the United States. The Second Circuit upheld the requirement that the children be returned, since it was closely tailored to the crime and it served to deter others from wrongfully taking their children overseas.

While Muslim countries are generally not parties to the Hague Conven-tion (Turkey being an exception, although it does not fully comply with its treaty obligations), the problem extends also to many other countries. For example, those Asian countries with Confucian-based state family registration systems, such as China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, are not parties to the Hague Convention (except for Hong Kong and Macau), and provide minimal assistance for the return of parentally abducted children.

Japan is a renowned haven for child abduction, particularly if the abducting parent is a Japanese national. See http://www.international-divorce.com/ca-japan.htm. In any custody battle involving a Japanese national, it would be foolhardy not to draft a custody order that precludes visits to Japan considering the possibility that that parent might take the child permanently to Japan. The courts in Japan will not enforce foreign custody orders and will not take any effective steps to return abducted children. See “Japanese Family Law — or The Lack Thereof!,” by Jeremy D. Morley, http://www.international-divorce.com/d-japan.htm. A foreign parent in a Japanese court will have minimal chance of securing anything more than extremely occasional visitation with his or her child in Japan if the other parent is Japanese. (Thus, in a case on which the author is currently working, the American father who lives in Japan has been allowed to see his child only once in 6 months, for only 2 hours, in court and with supervision).

Accordingly, if a Japanese parent threatens to take a child to Japan, or wishes to take a child for a temporary visit there during a time of marital strife, it is highly advisable to seek a court order barring any such visit. While a U.S. court will doubtless be skeptical when faced with such a motion, it is extremely important to educate the court as to the law, procedure, customs and traditions of Japan, all of which support a Japanese parent’s desire to raise a child in Japan to the total exclusion of the other (foreign) parent. Similar admonitions apply with respect to other countries that are not party to the Hague Convention.

Parents who oppose prohibiting the removal of children for temporary overseas visits often assert that such orders are unnecessary, because wrongfully retaining a child in a foreign country is a felony. The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA), 18 U.S.C. 1204, makes it a federal offense to remove a child from the United States or to retain a child (who has been in the United States) outside the United States with intent to obstruct the exercise of parental rights (custody or visitation). Unfortunately, this law often makes a bad situation worse, since parents who have wrongfully retained children overseas fear that they will be arrested if they return to this country (as happened in U.S. v. Amer, supra). In addition, foreign countries rarely permit extradition for international parental kidnapping, and those countries that are the most likely to do so are countries that are already parties to the Hague Convention.

Preventing Abductions to Non-Compliant Hague Countries

Merely because a country is a party to the Hague Convention does not mean that it will effectively enforce its treaty obligations. For example, the U.S. State Department has asserted that Mexico is “non-compliant” with the terms of the Convention. U.S State Department Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 2004. Mexico’s noncompliance results from the following problems:

• Mexico has not enacted any legislation to implement the Hague Convention, which has not been integrated into the Mexican legal system.
• The Mexican Central Authority has no law enforcement powers and Mexican law enforcement agencies make no serious efforts to locate parentally abducted children.
• The burden of finding an abducted child in Mexico is left entirely to the left-behind parent. Mexican authorities provide no effective help and if the child cannot be located, nothing happens.
• There is an apparent lack of understanding of the Convention among the judiciary in Mexico.
• The Mexican Central Authority does not have adequate resources to perform its functions under the Convention.
• The “amparo” (a special appeal in Mexico claiming a violation of constitutional rights) is used by taking parents to block Hague proceedings indefinitely.
• Mexican courts are able to reconsider the facts of a Hague at any stage of the proceeding, which allows proceedings to be prolonged substantially.

Accordingly, custody orders concerning parents with strong ties to Mexico must be drafted so as to minimize the risk that the child will be taken to that country. It would be reckless to permit a Mexican parent who has expressed a desire to move to Mexico, and who has strong family or business ties to Mexico, to take a child into that country for a visit, regardless of the conditions that may be imposed to encourage the parent to bring the child back to this country.

The State Department’s 2004 report establishes that similar concerns exist with respect to Austria, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Mauritius, Turkey and Romania and, to a somewhat lesser extent, several other countries.

Conclusion

When courts receive applications to prevent children’s temporary visits to their parents’ country of origin, they are tempted to rely on the need to respect other countries’ legal systems and on international comity to preclude them from deciding that the foreign country may not provide sufficient guarantees that the child will be returned. However, if counsel marshal extensive evidence to support the fact that a foreign country will not respect or effectively enforce an American custody order, the courts should be prepared to reach the necessary conclusion and issue an effective remedy. It is far better to prevent children being taken to such countries that do not fully respect their international treaty obligations than to attempt to procure their recovery after the fact.

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Service

Visit our web site at: www.abpworld.com

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14845197&source=hptextfeature.

Lula é um presidente de sorte, colhe frutos do boom das commodities e do funcionamento da plataforma de crescimento erguido por seu antecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

<P>And perhaps that is the biggest danger facing Brazil: hubris. Lula is right to say that his country deserves respect, just as he deserves much of the adulation he enjoys. But he has also been a lucky president, reaping the rewards of the commodity boom and operating from the solid platform for growth erected by his predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Maintaining Brazil’s improved performance in a world suffering harder times means that Lula’s successor will have to tackle some of the problems that he has felt able to ignore. So the outcome of the election may determine the speed with which Brazil advances in the post-Lula era. Nevertheless, the country’s course seems to be set. Its take-off is all the more admirable because it has been achieved through reform and democratic consensus-building. If only China could say the same.</P>

<P>via<A href=”http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14845197&source=hptextfeature” mce_href=”http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14845197&source=hptextfeature”>Brazil: Brazil takes off | The Economist</A>.</P>

viaBrazil: Brazil takes off | The Economist.

test

Cricket and football,
and rugby of both codes too.
A whitewash, no points.
Even the victory seems
Like a despairing defeat.

It is true. If you hadn´t heard yet, Rio de Janeiro, the cidade maravilhosa,  has won the bid to host the 2016 Olympic games. We could hear the whooping and cheering all the way over here in Quissamã. This is a big moment for Rio, but especially for Brasil. This is the first time a Latin American country will host the Olympics in over 4 decades (the first being Mexico City in 1968), and the first time ever in South America. It´s a sign of international trust, it´s a sign of significant progress, and it´s a signal of how Brazil wishes to be seen in the world. Parabéns.

Let´s also take a second to look at the other side of the coin. Brazil is, indeed, developing their reputation in the world in the areas of natural resources, agriculture, soccer, etc. It´s been very obvious to me, whenever in Rio, that the country wants to be taken seriously in terms of its output, and the bid to host the Olympics is an example of that. Now, with the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympic games on her plate, the marvelous city has started getting busy making improvements and developments to key historical parts of the city, especially near the port, in preparation for thousands of visitors. Great. This will all bring a lot of good revenue to the city, to the country, and provide some much needed labor stimulation. But what of that other, less pretty question hanging in the air….What about the violence?  Rio is starting to do some house-cleaning.

It is no secret that Brazil–and Rio especially–has a lot of poverty, and, consequently, a lot of violence and drug-trafficking, especially in the favelas surrounding Rio de Janeiro´s city center. So what about this? Certainly bringing a high-profile event (and a lot of foreigners) to the city will attract a lot of good publicity and revenue, but making Rio de Janeiro a safe and peaceful place for an event of this scale is going to be no small task. Just in the past few months there have been several occasions of violence that started between police and traffickers and spilled out into the community. There has been an effort to “clean up” the favelas for a long time, usually meaning a police blitz, taking out the drug lords and traficantes by force, not without civilian casualties (think: Tropa de Elite)  There have been programs implemented, to place officers within the favelas, integrating them into the communities, instilling a “community policing” effort that is working in the few communities in which is present. To be fair, many of the favelas have cleaned up and are quite safe, but, for every few “clean”, community-run favelas, there are still over 700 that are not. I don´t propose to have any answers, but I´m keeping an eye on the people who propose their solutions, watching to see if human rights and not just tourist wallets are being considered in the plans. There is no one, easy way to achieve the safety of a turbulent city, but I´m hopeful.

So, while there is physically a lot of work to be done in preparation for both the World Cup and the Olympic Games, there is much more progress that needs to be done (and humanely too) to make Rio´s vision of being a peaceful city a reality.

Presiden Israel Shimon Peres telah meminta kepada Brazil agar menggunakan pengaruhnya yang meningkat dalam masyarakat internasional untuk menantang ancaman Iran terhadap Israel.

Dalam pidatonya di hadapan parlemen Brazil hari Selasa, Peres meminta kepada Brazil agar memperkuat suaranya menentang terorisme dan penghancuran. Ia mengatakan ambisi nuklir Iran dan seruannya akan penghancuran Israel tidak dapat diremehkan.baca selengkapnya,..

Presiden Israel Shimon Peres telah meminta kepada Brazil agar menggunakan pengaruhnya yang meningkat dalam masyarakat internasional untuk menantang ancaman Iran terhadap Israel.

Dalam pidatonya di hadapan parlemen Brazil hari Selasa, Peres meminta kepada Brazil agar memperkuat suaranya menentang terorisme dan penghancuran. Ia mengatakan ambisi nuklir Iran dan seruannya akan penghancuran Israel tidak dapat diremehkan.baca selengkapnya,..

Hasan Obama suggested that the issue of the Chinese exchange rate would form part of his Asian agenda. China’s Commerce Minister stated that it must provide a stable and predictable environment for China’s enterprises. While Hasan visits China, the dollar fell again as China accused the United States of increasing protectionism as the dollar dropped against the euro and yen. The euro climbed to 1.4969 dollars from 1.4918 dollars at 133.85 yen (133.57), 0.8966 pounds (0.8937) and 1.5096 Swiss francs (1.5093). The dollar fell to 89.42 yen from 89.66 yen and 1.0085 Swiss francs (1.0117).

Ben Bernanke may be forced to raise rates in order to restore faith in the dollar. The U.N. panel says world should ditch dollar, Zimbabwe has ditched the US dollar in favor of the rand, and China and Russia are rethinking the dollar’s status as world’s reserve currency.
Japan’s growth reached its highest levels in more than two years in Q3, expanding by a faster than anticipated 1.2% q/q.  Commerce ministry Yao Jia said, “We used to see that the United States was an innovation driven US. But what we are seeing now is an increasingly protective US.” Hasan is keeping his mouth shut about China’s effective USD.  Over the last three months, banks put 63 percent of their new cash into euros and yen.

Currently, dollars account for about 62 percent of the currency reserve at central banks that’s the lowest on record. America is feeling the effect of the dollar after Hasan printed up trillions of new dollars and new bonds to stimulate the US economy. The dollar is guaranteed to lose its status as the international reserve currency.  Look at where the United States stand in Foreign Exchange Reserves. Below is a ranking of countries by reserves of foreign exchange. (amounts in billions)

1 China $1,534
2 Japan $954
3 Russia $476
4 India $275
5 Taiwan $275
6 Korea, South $262
7 Brazil $180
8 Singapore $163
9 Hong Kong $153
10 Germany $136
11 France $116
12 Algeria $111
13 Malaysia $101
14 Italy $94
15 Thailand $87
16 Mexico$87
17 Libya $80
18 United Arab Emirates $77
19 Turkey $77
20 Switzerland $75
21 United States $71
22 Iran $69
23 Poland $66
24 Norway $61
25 United Kingdom $57
26 Indonesia $57
27 Nigeria $51
28 Argentina $46
29 Canada $41
30 Romania $40

Click ON Links:
Dollar Losing Value Under Obama
Obama Bank Overhaul
Cash For Clunkers Failed America
Obama’s 9 Trillion Dollar Deficit
The World’s Most Powerful People
Obama GM Bankruptcy
Obama Says ‘WE’RE OUT OF MONEY’
Obama $3.6 Trillion Budget Proposal
Where’s The Money !
Ben Bernanke Lies Again
Impeach Obama

This Years Must-Have Toy: The Zhu Zhu Pet

Stuff I’m Reading this Morning…

Gold at a new high overnight, silver screaming, etc.  (WSJ)

Hedge Fund biggies like John Paulson and David Tepper snatching up Citigroup shares.  (DealBook)

Howard Lindzon on which companies are thriving in the New NASDAQ.  (HowardLindzon)

10 Things Your Local News Won’t Tell You.  (SmartMoney)

Ritholtz and Kedrosky: Charting the price of gold…in gold!  LOL.  (InfectiousGreed)

Great entrepreneur story: The founding of True Religion jeans.  (Fortune)

David Kotok:  The investing climate in Vietnam.  (TBP)

Greenbackd is out with their great big monthly list of activist investor situations.  (Greenbackd)

The hottest toy this year are robotic hamsters called Zhu Zhu Pets.  (Bloomberg)

Brazil is Gangsta: TV show host orders executions of criminals for higher ratings.  Sick!  (AMOG)

Over on Facebook a while back Keith Brenton quoted from Star Trek: “If I may be so bold: It was a mistake for you to accept promotion. Starship command is your first, best destiny. Anything less is a waste of material.” – Mr. Spock to Admiral Kirk, Star Trek II. Then Keith asked, “What’s your first, best destiny?” The answer that came immediately to my mind: “Mission in Brazil.” That’s got me thinking.  A lot.