En grå dag idag… väldigt grå.
Regnat har det gjort också…

I morgon ska två av mina gossar få spruta mot Svininfluensan.
Så det blir till och knalla upp till skolan…
Hämta lillgrabben och gå på Johannes tid som är då kl 9
Annars så får jag gå först kl 9 då Johannes har tid
Sen kl 13:15 då Marcus har tid…
Mår fortfarande illa och gör jag det i morgon så får jag väl stå utanför.
Dom är inte rädda för sprutor så jag behöver nog inte vara med
för att hålla handen… Men jag ska vara där ändå ifall dom börjar må kasst.

Inspirationen till att blogga börjar smyga sig på..
Men så där överväldigande lust han man ju inte…
Vi skyller på vädret…

Det går så trögt på morgnarna att få igång ungarna..
Hua för dessa tröttmössor
Dom går från sängen och till soffan för att somna om..
Sen får jag väcka dom en gång till…
Då sätter dom sig upp och vänder jag ryggen till
så tippar dom omkull igen och somnar.
Det är inte kul.. det strezzzzzar både mig och ungarna..
Ska försöka tidigarelägga hoppet i lopplådorna
Så får vi se om det funkar… en timma tidigare vore lagom.
Så det är dags snart att sova för mina ättelägg…

I vår så ska jag skaffa mig en säng kosta vad det kosta vill.
Tidigare har jag inte råd… å andra sidan har jag inte råd då heller.
Men julen är snart är och det innebär ju en massa extrautgifter.
Så det känns som om man ser ett slut på det sänglösa tiden nu =)
Men… jag kan garantera att någonting oförutsett händer.
Det slår aldrig fel … ska vi slå vad? ….Haha
Säkert går ett par glasögon sönder just då.. eller annat.
Men hoppet finns ju kvar iaf… att det inte händer någonting
så det Kör vi på stenhårt nu!!

Sängen börjar bli ett måste nu… Ryggen har börjat ta mycket stryk.
Ryggen värker konstant nu.. Jämna plågor utan variation.
Men ett halvt år kan jag nog vänta… Jag dör ju inte av värken.
Det gör bara ont… en känsla som man får försöka mota väck.

Man kanske skulle skaffa sig en karl med säng…Haha
“En Säng sökes med en karl i” kan det ju stå i annonsen.
Frågan är ju om jag ska sätta ut den på “Köpes” i anslagstavlan på Hemköp
eller i  Hemmets Veckotidning…Haha
Fasiken.. det är ju en grym idé…ska nog pröva.
Vem vet.. man kanske får tag på en helt underbar karl… Säng

På Fredag så ska Hanna till Korttis.
Har det verkligen gått en månad sen hon var där sist?
Hua vad tiden går fort ibland…

Nu har ungarna kikat klart på sin film… nu blir det The Lopplåda

Önskar er alla en helt underbar fortsättning på eran kväll!!

Sköt om er!!

KramKram!

Today, countries are in economic competition, does this further growth? The increased economic activity of earth and big companies threatened to end the world’s eco systems. The answer my friends is more protectionism and self sufficiency- this reducing the use of global resources. One would only consume what he or she produce, internalizing cost. This would make regulation much easier, and the market would reflect the cost of environmental degradation.

The General Agreement of Trade and Tariffs suggests that trade supersedes the importance of the environment.  Why must WE surrender our sovereignty to FREE TRADE?!

Red road , green field , and blue sky

He looked around 75 , but still enthusiastic, was playing guitar and singing REM .Though singing wasn’t pleasant , he was playing guitar unbelievably awesome.

His name was Vladimir, a Russian , from Leningrad . He had been in Gokarna since last one month , he comes to Gokharna every year. He was one of the many in the world who were addicted to Gokarna Just like every one of them were to Marijuana.

We reached Gokharna around Nine PM . After a long ride , long ride means 600 km of ride . We started from Bangalore at early morning . The sun was just setting up , I was enjoying the sun playing hide and seek in my rear view mirror through the ghosts of recession affected concrete forest.

The only hindrance to my ride was cows and buffalos all over the road , but we had the deal , they just move in their path, I envisage their trajectory and just ride accordingly .But some country buffaloes always braked the rule , they would stop in middle of the road and there goes my plan . One time I could almost touch the tail of one mad buffalo. From Bangalore to Tumkur , Tumkur to Shimoga , Shimoga to Jogfalls . In between shimoga and jog falls , the road turns red suddenly covered with red soil . Both sides blanket of  green fields , blue sky touching the green fields at the far end of the road . Red road , green field and blue sky , and the sound of my machine. No words to explain the feeling.

We reached the jog falls before the sun diving to horizon . The two sides of the road were cliff . Jog falls was disappointing , they say jog falls is the longest water fall in india , I would say , it is the longest artificial waterfall in india , because in week ends they open the dam when tourists arrives for watching , but in week days they wont open the dam and you could see two-three narrow falls . I imagined it would have been a fantastic view if fall was in her epitome ,which happens during the monsoon , when they have to open dam .

Initial plan was to stay near to Jog falls , as we had already covered close to 400 kilometres . But we changed the plan to ride to Honnawar which is on the coastal Karnataka . We were already in great western gatts , of course the roads were with lot of curves and hair pins , just like Vayanadu . Thick forest both sides , simply it was risky Journey .One time I lost the control of the bullet after rising from a hidden pothole , flew a little , landed back . I had to land on my right leg on ground .  That’s it , two seconds …, after that I was not able to feel my legs . I pushed the button for a long horn to inform varkey. I don’t know why , but suddenly my mind was flashed with videos of football players suddenly breaking the legs in to two ,I thought same thing happened to me ! . I Had to rest some time to understand that I still have a single piece leg , thanks god.

We had to get rid of the spiraling roads before the sun sets .But we were still maintaining seventy km/hour. On the way so many hippy gangs of ten to twenty bikes had been overtaking us like real bullets all the time  from Jog falls to Honnawar. I knew what to expect in Gokarna .

The moment you pass the western gatts , the first thing that strikes you will be the similarity between Kerala . The place created by Parashuraman is actually from Gokharna till Kanyakumari.  The places you saw till gatts suddenly changes, the people suddenly changes , the landscape changes , everything changes .Karnataka , state of Mysore , till 1973 ,twice the size of Portugal is a world itself. As I move , I experienced how everything changes on the ruler of distance. Western gatt was a fort in Kerala ,against so many invasions , not only the military invasion , but also the cultural invasion , which is the real precious thing it has done , I think.

People always gave a second look , some with some awe , some with curiosity , some with condemnation , whatever it was ,it felt good. A feeling of well-being. The machines were intimidating the people all the way. The more we traveled towards the coastal region , the more we were becoming energetic.

Cows , dogs and ohm beach

After reaching Gokharana  , we went ohm beach which is 16 kms from the national highway. When asked for rooms , the guard of rest house told us no rooms were available, but we could park our bikes there , and have to walk through beach for rooms . Engine was overloaded for the day already , after cruising six hundred kilomeres . Unloaded the bags and started walking through beach ,some couples sitting here and there exploiting the twilight for romanticizing. We got one hut for two hundred rupees . Took bath and already exhausted after riding the horse for 600 kms we ordered the dinner . And that’s where we saw Vladimir, he was sitting next to our table . And like all other westerners he also wanted to go to Varanasi , which is where they always sees “the real india” as per the western movies. Ohm beach also had everything to quench a westerner’s Indian dream. There was a trance mood , name was ohm , there were stray dogs and ofcourse a lot of cows ! , and not much people .

We walked along the beach after having a sumptuous dinner .Midnight blue sky with Orion consolation pointing towards the north as explained by varkey .Big groups of hippies , all groups had people of all age groups from infants to octogenarians , sitting around fire , singing and playing guitar. What a life! , no worry about future , no worry about jobs, no worry about making money , social status – nothing to worry, nothing to gain , nothing to loose.

On October 30:

1485 King Henry VII of England was crowned.

1865 The Native Land Court was established.

1885 Ezra Pound, American poet, was born.

1893 Charles Atlas, Italian-born bodybuilder, was born.

1894 Domenico Melegatti obtained a patent for a procedure to be applied in producing pandoro industrially.

1918 A petition with more than 240,000 signatures was presented to parliametn demanding an end to the sale and maufacture of alcohol in New Zealand.

1922 Benito Mussolini was made Prime Minister of Italy.

1925  John Logie Baird created Britain’s first television transmitter.

Le billet vert a touché hier un plus bas depuis un an face à l’euro, avant de remonter un peu. La monnaie américaine est pratiquement revenue à la parité avec le franc suisse. Cette faiblesse pousse les spécialistes de HSBC à annoncer l’inexorable déclin du dollar face à des devises émergentes «brisant leurs liens de dépendance»

Le nouvel accès de faiblesse connu ces derniers jours par le dollar fait de nouveau fleurir les thèses de l’inexorable déclin de son rôle de devise internationale.

Mercredi, alors que les autorités monétaires de Washington s’apprêtaient à maintenir leurs taux d’intérêt à un niveau pratiquement nul, le billet vert a décliné face à douze des seize principales devises. Le dollar a ainsi touché son plus bas depuis un an face à la monnaie unique (1,48 dollar pour 1 euro) avant de remonter un peu. Face au franc, la parité est de nouveau en vue, 1,04 franc suffisant à acheter 1 dollar, ce qui n’était pas arrivé depuis l’été 2008.

Découplage monétaire

A genoux, l’oncle Sam? L’idée n’est plus simplement brandie par les «gold bugs», ces inconditionnels de l’or annonçant des dysfonctionnements du système monétaire international face auxquels les lingots seraient le seul refuge.

«Le soleil se couche sur l’empire dollar», a ainsi assuré mercredi David Bloom, gourou des devises chez HSBC à Londres, à un parterre de banquiers genevois, en évoquant la perspective d’un «nouvel ordre mondial». A l’en croire, l’avalanche d’argent débloqué par les Etats-Unis pour sauver leur système financier va déborder sur tous les autres marchés et y faire décoller les prix, en particulier ceux des matières premières. «Cette inflation pourrait pousser nombre de pays émergents à envisager de découpler leur politique monétaire de celle des Etats-Unis», prévient le stratège londonien. Surtout si le monde entre dans une période durant laquelle la croissance de l’activité mondiale n’est plus tirée par les Etats-Unis. Et que ces derniers maintiennent leurs taux d’intérêt à des niveaux extrêmement bas en 2010 et 2011, «ce qui est possible étant donné le défi que représente l’envolée des déficits».

Priorité, l’inflation

Par le passé, le réflexe «mercantiliste» de pays émergents souhaitant préserver leurs industries exportatrices les a cependant poussés à soutenir le dollar lors de ses accès de faiblesse. «Difficiles à changer», ces comportements pourraient cependant être remis en cause «par les pays dont la priorité deviendrait la protection de leurs citoyens contre l’inflation», prévient l’expert de HSBC. Et ce dernier de noter que le récent affaiblissement du dollar n’a pas été accompagné du même gonflement de réserves de change que celui observé par le passé.
Y a-t-il une alternative au dollar? Pas encore. Mais le renminbi pourrait remplir une partie de ce vide, la Chine étant «en train d’internationaliser sa devise». D’autres grands pays émergents, «sentant qu’ils sont pris au piège du dollar, pourraient suivre», prévient-il.

Loin de toucher la seule monnaie américaine, ces doutes s’insinuent autour des principales devises dites fortes. Selon David Bloom, la principale question sur le marché des changes n’est ainsi «plus de savoir où va le taux de change euro/dollar» qui, selon lui, évoluera autour de 1,50 l’année prochaine. Mais de mesurer la montée en puissance des devises émergentes.
le temps

Voila comment on apprend que pour l’avènement du NWO,le dollar va être sacrifié.Pourtant,nul conspirationniste,ou complotiste de bas étage,non,non,c’est le sujet de discussion des banquiers et analystes financiers.

Toute personne qui s’interresse un peu à la question ne peut arriver à une autre analyse.Les milliards de milliards imprimés pour sauver le système(pourtant mort) vont faire exploser la devise US et faire sombrer l’économie mondiale si des solutions de rechanges se sont pas très vite adopter.D’ou ce discours d’un analyste de HSBC,les pays vont se découpler du dollar et le dollar va couler.

Le leap et la chronque agora se demandent d’ailleurs comment ça se fait que le dollar ne se soit pas effondré,nous savons pourquoi grace à Jovanovic,la triche à ultra grande échelle,la FED se sert de banques offshore pour acheter des bons aux trésors,et 5 banques US représentent 40% du volume d’échange au NYSE !

Nous avons aussi entendu que les dirigeants de banques vendaient leurs stocks options,ils savent que la hausse factice de la bourse est bientôt terminé.

Enfin bref,le dollar se meurt,petit à petit,mais le mouvement est inéluctable .

With the flurry of interest generated by President Obama’s recent “tire tariff” decision, and China’s response, I’m fielding a lot of questions about a specialized and rather dusty subject, U.S. trade law.  What is Section 421?  What is dumping?  What role does the President play in deciding whether to impose trade sanctions?  And what is the role of the WTO in all of this?  So I figured I’d whip up a little primer on U.S. trade law to help answer these questions and provide a little context for what you are reading in today’s headlines.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF U.S. TRADE LAW

The foundation of U.S. trade policy is the Tariff Act of 1930 – yes, you guessed it, the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff, often credited with deepening the Great Depression.  Many of the mechanisms it established — in particular, the processes it laid out for imposing trade sanctions on other countries — remain in effect, although the law has been updated numerous times, most notably in 1974.  For the most part, any new trade-related laws passed by Congress merely make amendments to this underlying statute.

But the rules and procedures laid out in the Tariff Act hardly exist in a vacuum.  Since 1930, the U.S. has entered a wide variety of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements with other countries.  The most important multilateral agreement is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which lasted from 1947 to 1994, when it evolved into the World Trade Organization (WTO).  But it has also included more specialized agreements like the Multi Fiber Arrangement (MFA) that governed trade in textiles and apparel until it was phased out in 2005.  The U.S. also has bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with several countries, including Israel, Jordan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Peru, Morocco, Oman, and Bahrain.  Many of these were signed in the past few years.  Of course, the U.S. also has the multilateral North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico and Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

U.S. trade rules towards China are mainly defined by its own accession agreement to the WTO, as well as terms negotiated in China’s own accession agreement in 2001.  Those terms absolve China from full compliance with its WTO member obligations for a transition period, as it gradually opens it markets according to a defined schedule.  The terms also allow the U.S. to impose ”special safeguard” tariffs to help it cope with rapid and disruptive surges in Chinese imports.

Although these trade agreements, from WTO to NAFTA, are often described as “treaties,” they are in fact “congressional-executive agreements” (CEA).  Treaties require ratification by 2/3 of the Senate only.  CEAs require “implementation” by a majority vote only of both the House and the Senate.  By passing such “implementing legislation,” Congress incorporates the provisions of these international agreements into U.S. trade law.

THE TOOLS OF U.S. TRADE POLICY

Within the context of these international agreements, U.S. trade law allows the United States to take various actions to protect its interests.  These actions fall into three main categories:

1. Title VII Actions — Antidumping or Countervailing Duties 
2. Section 201 and Related Actions – Global and Special Safeguards
3. Section 301 Actions — Retaliation Against Trade Barriers

All three types of actions lie at the center of the present trade disputes between the U.S. and China.  So it is well worth taking some effort to understand what they are and the key differences between them.

1) Title VII of the 1930 Tariff Act created an administrative process for responding to two types of practices that give foreign competitors an unfair advantage and threaten to harm domestic industries.  The first practice involves foreign governments granting subsidies to their own producers.  The second involves “dumping,” which is defined in economic terms as selling products below cost (in order to drive competitors out of business, after which one would presumably raise prices in order to reap monopoly profits).  The procedure in both cases is nearly identical, as is the solution: imposing tariffs that counteract or negate the unfair advantage foreign producers might otherwise enjoy.

I say it’s an “administrative process” because it does not, at least on the surface, require any political decision by the President.  Petitions are usually filed by the affected domestic industry, or by unions representing a substantial number of workers employed in that industry.  The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), an independent federal agency whose six members are appointed by the President and are split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, determines whether harm has been caused to domestic producers.  The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), through its International Trade Administration (ITA, not to be confused with the USITC) determines whether a subsidy exists or whether dumping has actually taken place.  The process goes as follows:  petition is filed, USITC makes preliminary ruling on harm, DOC makes preliminary ruling on fairness, DOC makes final ruling on fairness, USITC makes final ruling on harm.  If, in the end, both tests are met, the DOC imposes a suitable tariff.  Of course, the Secretary of Commerce is appointed by the President and serves at his pleasure, so he will tend to reflect the President’s viewpoint on the matter.  But the President is never called upon to make a decision directly.

Although the determination process all sounds very scientific, there is actually plenty of wiggle room.  The fact that an industry has lost revenues and jobs may look like “harm,” but is it due to the imports in question or other economic circumstances?  Governments do many things that benefit industry, including tax breaks and providing supporting projects and services — which of these constitute subsidies?  There’s an additional — and very important — complication that arises in antidumping cases.  The economic definition of “dumping” may be selling below cost, but because that can be incredibly difficult to determine, the regulatory definition is selling below the price a foreign producer charges in its home market (i.e., price discrimination).  So in most cases, a manufacturer that charges at least as much for its products in the U.S. as it does at home is off the hook.  But that is only the case for countries recognized as having ”market economy status.” 

Each country makes its own determination which of its trading partners enjoy “market economy status”.  Neither the EU nor the U.S. recognizes China as a market economy.  As a result, the prices charged in its home market do not qualify as a valid benchmark for comparison with prices charged abroad.  Regulators must choose an alternative benchmark: the price charged in an “analogue market” like Brazil, South Africa, or Germany.  Who chooses the “analogue market” and whether it offers any fair basis for comparison with the exporter’s actual home market is a matter of economic judgment and political influence.  The result is that a Chinese exporter may well be found guilty of “dumping” because its US prices are lower than analogue prices for the product in a comparable market economy market, like India, even if it actually charges less in China.  This is the reason why China has been so adamant in lobbying the U.S. and EU to grant it “market economy status.”

The Commerce Department’s announcement last Wednesday, September 9, in favor of imposing tariffs on Chinese-made steel pipes is a Title VII action.  The petition was filed by both U.S. domestic steelmakers and the AFL-CIO, and the DOC made a preliminary ruling that Chinese exporters had received subsidies ranging from 11% to 31%, and proposed countervailing tariffs of the same amount.  Since this was a preliminary ruling, the DOC will consult more extensively with the parties involved and produce a final ruling sometime in November.  In the meantime, the U.S. will begin collecting the additional duties and placing them in escrow.  The USITC will also have to follow up its preliminary harm ruling with a final ruling before the tariffs can fully go into effect.  But in actual practice, nearly all final rulings agree with preliminary rulings, so observers are right to see last Wednesday’s decision as a key turning point.

2) Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 offers what is called an “escape clause.”  It allows the U.S. to impose temporary tariff ”safeguards” to protect any domestic industry seriously disrupted or injured by a sudden “surge” of imports.  Such actions offer an “escape” from normal WTO obligations, and are actually permitted by the WTO agreement on the rationale that rapid and disruptive shifts in trade can cause great hardship that might undermine overall support for free trade.  Like Title VII, petitions are initiated by the affected industry or its union employees.  Unlike Title VII, it does not require any finding of unfair trade practices by the DOC.  However, Section 201 requires a much higher level of harm (the injury or threatened injury be “serious” and rising imports must be a “substantial cause” (important and not less than any other cause) to be found by the USITC.  If the USITC finds that this is the case, it can recommend imposing a protective tariff, but this tariff must be “global” — i.e., it has to be imposed on all countries that contribute “non-negligible” amounts of imports, not just on one particular country.  Finally, the President of the United States must personally make the final decision on whether to impose a tariff and to what degree.  It therefore has far greater political implications and risks than a Title VII action, even though it may have similar effects.

The “global safeguards” provided by Section 201 derive from GATT.   There are other “special safeguard” provisions that derive from specific trade agreements and apply only to the trading partners involved.   Section 302 deals with “safeguards” specific to NAFTA, aimed at Canada and Mexico.  Section 421 was adopted in 2001 as part of the U.S. conditions for agreeing to China’s WTO accession.  The procedures under 201, 302, and 421 are essentially similar.  However, the standard of harm in Section 421 is the “material injury” standard used in Title VII cases, much lower than in Section 201.  Also, tariffs imposed under Section 421 are directed solely against imports from China.  

President Obama’s decision to impose tariffs against a “surge” of Chinese-made tire imports, which he made late Friday night, is a Section 421 action.  The petition was filed by the United Steelworkers and the USITC voted 4-2 that sufficient injury had either occurred or threatened to occur.  There was no need to find any unfair trade behavior on the part of the Chinese.  And ultimately, unlike a Title VII action, President Obama had to make the final decision himself.  President Bush, in contrast, was presented with seven Section 421 petitions approved by the USTIC, and rejected all of them — which is why Obama’s action represents such a significant shift in U.S. trade policy.   

3) Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is a policy tool available to the President to threaten or impose sanctions in order to break down foreign trade barriers abroad.  Such barriers can be almost anything deemed to interfere with fair trade.  Any interested party can file a petition requesting the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the chief U.S. trade negotiator who reports directly to the President, to launch an investigation.  The USTR can also self-initiate an investigation.  Section 301 gives the President broad discretionary authority to threaten, impose, or defer a wide range of retaliatory actions based on the USTR’s findings and the country’s broader interests and obligations.  It also gives the USTR broad authority to negotiate with foreign governments to arrive at a compromise, such as adopting voluntary import restraints.

Over the years, Congress has added additional provisions such as “Super 301,” “Special 301,” and “Telecommunications 301″.  These are essentially reporting requirements that require the USTR to monitor specific areas of concern or conflict, such as intellectual property rights.  Once a problem is identified, however, the USTR relies on the “normal” Section 301 mechanism for enforcement.

In September 2004, the China Currency Coalition, including a number of U.S. metals-related industries and their unions, joined several Members of Congress in filing a Section 301 petition with the USTR arguing that China was enjoying an unfair trade advantage by “manipulating” its currency.  By keeping the Renminbi pegged to the U.S. dollar at an artificially low valuation, they argued, China helped its exporters undercut U.S. producers on price.  The Bush Administration rejected the petition, although it always reserved the right to change its mind, a stance that helped “persuade” China to loosen the peg and allow the RMB to gradually appreciate.  This is the reason why Chinese officials reacted so angrily when Treasurer Secretary Timothy Geithner hinted earlier this year, during his Senate confirmation hearing, that China was “manipulating” its currency.  They are concerned that the Obama Administration might revisit Bush’s view and pursue a Section 301 action that would likely involve very broad-ranging sanctions against China.

The provisions of Title VII, Section 201 (and related clauses), and Section 301 overlap in many ways.   Given the facts of their case, petitioners (or politicians) must choice which route offers the greatest chance of achieving a desirable outcome.  Title VII requires proof of both harm and unfair trade practices, but minimizes political exposure.  Section 201/302/421 need not demonstrate unfair behavior, but require the President to explicitly sign on.  Section 301 is the most flexible and has potentially the broadest impact, but requires the greatest level of commitment on the part of the President.  The question is, now that a new President from a new party is in office, do the latter two options offer a more viable path than before?  Many believe that President Obama’s tire decision is likely to invite a “surge” of new Section 421 petitions, giving rise to a series of new disputes with China.

THE ROLE OF WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION

On Monday, China announced it would challenge President Obama’s tire decision before the WTO.  So what role, exactly, does the WTO play in all this?

In principle, the terms of the WTO explicitly allow member nations to take unilateral actions to protect themselves in the types of situations envisioned by Title VII and Section 201.  Even Section 301, which was challenged by the European Union, was upheld by a WTO ruling in 2000.  But the key phrase here is “in principle.”  The U.S. may impose tariffs on Chinese-made steel pipes in response to what it concludes is dumping, under Title VII.  But is it a fair response to dumping, or is that just a cover for protectionism?  The U.S. and China are not likely to see eye to eye on this question.

When a country wants to impose trade sanctions against what it sees as unfair or harmful trade practices by others, it has two choices.  It can hold off and take its case to the WTO, seeking a ruling that will allow it to impose sanctions.  So, for instance, in September 2006 the U.S., the EU, and Canada together filed a complaint with the WTO against what they claimed were discriminatory Chinese tariffs on imported auto parts.  After the WTO ruled in their favor in February 2008, China had until later this year to respond or face WTO-authorized sanctions from its trading partners.  Just a few weeks ago, China quietly announced it would begin to comply. 

Alternatively, an aggrieved country can go ahead and impose sanctions claiming WTO rules allow it to do so.  The target country, then, can challenge the sanctions and take its case to the WTO seeking to have them lifted.  That is what has happened in the tire case:  the U.S. imposed sanctions, claiming the right to “special safeguards” negotiated as part of China’s WTO accession.  China views the tariffs as an abuse of such provisions, and will challenge their propriety before the WTO.  The Chinese will likely argue that the increase in tire imports does not rise to the level of a “surge” and is not the primary reason why U.S. domestic tire manufacturing is declining, hence the U.S. does not qualify for safeguard relief.  We’ll have to see what the WTO says.

Of course a country has the “right” to disregard a WTO ruling and pursue its own course, but only at the cost of exposing itself to authorized trade actions not only from the opposing party to the dispute, but all other WTO members.  That is why China and the U.S. are both likely to defer to the WTO’s final judgment on these cases, at least to the degree necessary to avoid such exposure.

I’m spending an amazing week at Netroots Nation.  I was front and center for President Bill Clinton’s speech and it occurred to me; I like smart talk.

There was a time when I loved to watch figure skating.  I’d watch for hours, back in the days of Scott Hamilton and Dorothy Hamill.  I would relax, confident in their mastery, grace and skill, knowing they wouldn’t fall.  Then came the days of Tonya Harding.  I stopped watching.  Too much off-ice snarky drama, missed steps, hard falls, and trampy wardrobes made it impossible to enjoy.

Sarah Palin has been to politics what Tonya Harding was to the sport of figure skating.

President Clinton’s address reminded me what a political triple Salchow could look like as observed from the edge of the ice.  His message, summed up by “…gone are the days of win-lose, we need a win-win…”  was conciliatory.  Just a few months ago, I attended then Governor Palin’s speech which she polarizingly chanted, ”We win, they lose!”  I have whiplash from the comparison.  Don’t get me wrong, I thought NAFTA, GATT, and the sovereignty undermining WTO were belly flops on ice; the 1996 Telecommunication Act took the boards out, birthed right wing radio dominance, and undemocratically concentrated media into fewer, more powerful hands.

The AP story on Palin quotes her facebook page release.  The language of the health care bill is being changed to “clarify” end of life consultations.  Why? Because a quitter governor has an opinion that sticks as fact with the least educated among us?

I wonder if, in the aftermath Obama’s November victory, the balls of the Democrats didn’t high five their own spines and head off to Disneyland.  The Democrats and the Blue Dogs should be in a full court press for healthcare.  If for no other reason than spine regeneration and testicular prosthesis implantation.

I’m not sure who decided footnotes were in order for a facebook press release, but I doubt it was Palin.  Seriously, who wrote this crap? It has punctuation-a sure sign of an imposter and not one “and-also”.

SP Facebook:  Thursday at 9:11pm
I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

AGAIN, Sarah Palin is no longer a governor. She lost her bid for vice president.  Why does she have a platform or response? I’m writing about her because I’m sick to death of “crazy” being the loudest voice in the room!  She incites fear and celebrates ignorance. It will never be enough to just change one of her complaints.  Her crowd would only be happy if Obama resigned and handed the reigns over to her.

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.

INSURANCE COMPANIES RATION HEALTH CARE.

The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan…. A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3]

Yes, a public option would “crowd out private insurers”…but hey, that’s free market, right?  It’s a little competition, can’t they hold up to it?  Keep working it, Sarah, you may need money from the “Sick-For-Profit” industry some day.

A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4] The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.

Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill. Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care. Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary.”

Back to killing old people.  Aack.

In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:

“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” [5]

I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” [6] The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public.

Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill.

There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month:

“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” [7]

Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate.

Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard.

I just threw up.  I guess by Palin’s blame of Governor Murkowski for the Medicaid moratorium, we can probably lay some of that ol’ debt at the feet of GWB.

Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it.

REALLY?  HOW?  Negotiating with pharmaceuticals?  Nope, can’t do that.  What are the “many ways”?  We could really use a few.

The economist Arthur Laffer has taken the lead in pushing for a patient-center health care reform policy. He noted in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month:

“A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” [8]

Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms.

When ANY politician talks about protecting freedom and then annoints themselves to be the Vagina Police and the Sanctity of Marriage Border Patrol, they are LYING about your freedom!

- Sarah Palin

The problem isn’t that Palin based her post on faith based facts.  She, a private citizen, has every right to have an opinion about her country.  The Democratic leadership, who hold health care a breath away from us, are changing policy to appease her misinformation.  Grow a pair, we need a public option NOW.

PS. Katie Couric, this is what Sarah read today…you betcha!

[1] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
[2] See http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/white-house-adviser-backs-off-rationing/
[3]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hsqzSKuC44
[4] See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc=
[5] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
[6] See http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6
[7] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html
[8] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html

Jeg så nettopp spillefilmen ‘Battle In Seattle’ (lenke: http://www.battleinseattlemovie.com  ). Den bygger på hendelsene som fant sted under WTOs mislykka toppmøte i Seattle, USA  i november-desember 1999.

WTO er et av de mange hodene til den globale markedsliberalismen som skaper så mye sult og elendighet i verden. I Norge blir institusjonen stort sett kalt for Verdens Handelsorganisasjon. Den kom som en videreføring av GATT-avtalen (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). Norge ble medlem av WTO på 1990-tallet, mot daværende stortingsrepresentant for RV, Erling Folkvord, sin stemme. Erling Folkvord er Rødt Oslos 1. kandidat i årets stortingsvalg.

WTO har i hele sin historie prioritert kapitalisters ønske om profitt foran folks behov. Sammen med IMF og Verdensbanken har WTO tvunget en rekke fattige utviklingsland til å kutte i nasjonale, sosiale velferdstiltak, med katastrofale følger.

Verdensbanken og IMF ble begge grunnlagt i Bretton Woods i USA i 1944. Disse to institusjonene fremmer en markedsfundamentalistisk økonomisk ideologi, ofte kalt for “the Washington Consensus”, siden begge organisasjonene har kontor i Washington. IMF og Verdensbanken har alltid først og fremst fremma interessene til rike næringslivstopper og aksjeeiere. Betingelsene som knyttes til disse to institusjonenes låneavtaler hemmer de låneopptakende landas rom til å føre en sjølstendig politikk.

Jamaica feirer i dag at øya fikk sin uavhengighet fra britene, den 6. august 1962. Samtidig arbeider Jamaicas regjering for å få et lån fra IMF, med alt det innebærer av omstruktureringer for Jamaica. Det er slettes ikke alle på Jamaica som er tilhengere av å ta opp et lån hos IMF. Dersom Jamaica tar opp et lån hos IMF, så vil dette ha negative konsekvenser for flertallet av Jamaicas befolkning.

Det globale samarbeidet om handel og utvikling burde kanaliseres gjennom FN-organisasjonen UNCTAD. Det aller beste hadde vært om all verdens u-landsgjeld ble betingelsesløst sletta, og om IMF, Verdensbanken og WTO ble lagt ned. Norge må melde seg ut av WTO, og kutte alle bånd til IMF og Verdensbanken.

Lenker:

Om Seattle i 1999 på Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activity

John Pilger ‘The New Rulers of the World’ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7932485454526581006

Slett U-landsgjelda: http://www.slettgjelda.no/ 

Handelskampanjen: http://www.handelskampanjen.no/

al Jazeera’s “Empire” hosted by Marwan Bishara takes a look at the new political stage in Latin America, reacting to U.S. interventionism on behalf of corporate interests and European colonialist elitism, the differences in the approaches of Bolivarian Socialists — Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador — and the ‘Third Way’ Eastern Hemisphere economic alliances of Brazil. In Part One, Mr. Bishara interviews Prof. Noam Chomsky. Part Two is a panel of scholars.

Viva la Evolucion

30 July 09 | AJE

While Manuel Zelaya, Honduras’ democratically-elected president, was unceremoniously overthrown in a military coup and sent into exile, Latin America was quick to condemn this attack on democracy. So did the U.S., eventually.

How Washington behaves in the coming period will have a lasting effect on inter-American and arguably North-South relations.

Latin America has historically been a region where empires have collided.

After decades that have seen numerous violent revolutions, military coups, the emergence and establishment of Bolivarian Socialism and more recently, catastrophic economic collapse, a new Latin America is now emerging.

The recent political and social confrontations occurring in places such as Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia and Honduras are re-shaping the continent as countries question old alliances and make new alignments.

The US has long exerted political and military influence in the region but with a succession of elected leaders such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa rejecting such influence a new era of U.S.-Latin American relations is emerging.

Upon his election as U.S. president, Barack Obama promised closer cooperation with regional neighbours, including efforts to improve relations with Communist Cuba.

In this month’s Empire Marwan Bishara and his guests examine the state of North-South relations in the hemisphere, question the extent and potential impact of the change promised by Obama, analyse the alternative political model posed by Hugo Chavez and ask whether President Lula da Silva of Brazil is now another counter-point for the region.

In a special interview Professor Noam Chomsky discusses U.S.-Latin America relations and the repercussions of the crisis in Honduras.

Part One – Interview with Prof. Chomsky (25:08):

Part Two – Dr. Celia Szusterman, Prof. Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Dr. Andres Mejia Acosta (22:12):

Kevin Carson breaks down the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party ‘philosophy’.

24 July 09 | C4SS

Last week, we examined the Republican Party’s claims to be the party of small government, personal responsibility, free markets, and strict constitutionalism — and found it wanting.

But the same is true of the Democratic Party’s claims to be the “party of compassion” or to have a special regard for the welfare of “America’s working families.”

The Democratic Party, historically, has represented one faction of the corporate ruling elite. As described by sociologist G. William Domhoff and historian Thomas Ferguson, its primary constituency is large-scale, capital-intensive, high-tech, and export-oriented business. Far from being a “constraint” or “countervailing power” against Big Business, the twentieth century regulatory-welfare state was created primarily to serve corporate capital. As Murray Rothbard put it, “Our corporate state uses the coercive taxing power either to accumulate corporate capital or to lower corporate costs.”

Or in the equally apropos words of Roy Childs, “liberal intellectuals” have been “the ‘running dogs’ of big businessmen.”

That FDR was hardly the “traitor to his class” of official mythology is suggested by the role of General Electric CEO Gerard Swope in the New Deal economic agenda, and by the army of corporate lawyers and investment bankers in the Roosevelt “brain trust.”

Take, for example, the National Labor Relations (or Wagner) Act. The sectors of the corporate economy that supported FDR were capital-intensive, with long planning horizons that required stability and predictability, and hence extremely vulnerable to disruption. But labor costs were a modest part of the total cost structure of such capital-intensive industry. So the leaders of heavy industry were willing to offer workers significantly improved wages and benefits, in return for coopting the leadership of the labor movement and creating a class of union bureaucrats that would stamp out wildcat strikes and enforce contracts against the rank and file.

If the Republicans were originally the party of protectionism, the Democrats were historically the party of what William Appleman Williams called “Open Door Empire.” That policy led to the creation of a de facto corporate world government under the Bretton Woods institutions, after WWII, with the U.S. military as enforcer. Open Door Empire was the basis for the system of global corporate-state collusion popularly (and wrongly) known today as “free trade,” and more accurately as neoliberalism. The only thing it has in common with genuine free trade is the removal of tariff barriers. But in its reliance on “intellectual property” and other statist measures, it is if anything more genuinely protectionist than anything the GOP was doing a century ago.

The National Security State and permanent war economy were created by good liberal Democrats: FDR and Truman. The archipelago of military bases and garrisons around the world, and the grand tradition of CIA-engineered coups (who was President when Diem and Sukarno were overthrown, I wonder?) , are very much a bipartisan creation.

Much of the legal framework for neoliberalism was constructed in Bill Clinton’s watch (y0u know, that “peace and prosperity” Carville is so partial to). NAFTA, the Uruguay Round of GATT, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act; you’d almost get the idea global corporate rule didn’t start with Bush.

And if that’s not enough to get your head around, the Bush police state didn’t start with Bush, either. Some of Bush’s most objectional dictatorial powers resulted, not from the USA PATRIOT Act, but from “counter-terror” legislation passed under Clinton after the Oklahoma City bombing. A good example is the power to declare organizations “terrorist” by executive fiat and seize their assets without due process — thank Clinton for that. And some of the worst stuff in USA PATRIOT was originally proposed–unsuccessfully — in the Clinton legislation. That Chuck Schumer played a major role in crafting both pieces of legislation bears more than passing significance as well, I think.

Today, despite all the soccer mom rhetoric about “working families,” the leopard hasn’t changed its spots. The role of Robert Rubin (he of Goldman-Sachs and Citigroup) in Democratic policy circles should tell you as much. Nancy Pelosi, whose family net worth is $18 million thanks to her marriage to an investment banker, is only the 17th richest member of Congress; that should tell you something.

The Obama-Geithner TARP policy, despite some symbolic tinkering with executive compensation, is in its essentials a direct continuation of the Bush-Paulson version. It’s the ultimate in neo-Hamiltonianism, saddling taxpayers with interest-bearing debt in order to buy up the banks’ bad assets and reinflate them to something approximating their pre-collapse face value, so that just maybe the banks will use some of the resulting liquidity to start lending money back to the public at interest.

The Democrats, if anything, are more in collusion with the Copyright Nazis of the RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft than are the Republicans–and that’s saying a lot.

C4SS Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective, both of which are freely available online. Carson has also written for a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.

GO STRAIGHT AT THEM: – January 31, 2009

I fully support the President.  If we want positive change in America, he’s the man we should back.  He comes nearest to my own philosophy and that of people I respect and care about most.  However, I feel he is being “reasonable” with his opposition to the point of timidity, if not self-deception in the present situation.  What should he do?

• Go straight at them.
• Eschew any advice from Wall Street chameleon Robert Rubin and his clones who brought us NAFTA, GATT and WTO, and mentored Clinton, Bush, and now Obama with the same advice that created the present fiscal disaster.  Prosecute Goldman Sachs.
• Speak Keynesian economics again. Emphasize we the people, public issues, community, human rights, common sense, and the common good; not the bottomline for a gaggle of avaricious stockholders.
• Seek new, innovative solutions – not stock reprises of old routines; that’s the pattern of alcoholics and addicts.
• Corporations must pay their fair share to support the system that enabled their success; stop treating them as “individuals” in the legal system; hold executives and stock holders personally accountable for their actions.
• Protect the planet.  JOB ONE.  Everything else is subordinate in priority.
• Educate the children – dump top-heavy, discriminatory Trojan Horse Standards obstacles; eliminate public subsidies (vouchers) for boondoggle separatist, preferential, and elitist “home” schooling; insist upon a democratic public education, scholarship, and scientific rationalism.
• Call the generation to service: “Let’s get our hands on these problems and solve them.  We can do it, if we stop procrastinating and move on.”
• Tell Republicans they can worry about haircuts, dirty words, and hurting people by making money from wage slavery, exploitation, lies and violence.  The rest of us will go to work to end two disastrous wars and fix the environment, health care, and the economy, the nation’s now critical issues (thanks to years of flagrant and cynical Republican corporatist neoconservative neglect, abuse, misuse, and outright theft).

We can’t let the Republican monarchists kill the real American dream: a better life for all our people, children, posterity,  not just ourselves.

We’re not in this life for the next quarterly report, we’re here to build a lasting nation, under a rule of law that we can be proud of again; and that means saving it from the Republican cabal that brought us this fiasco, before it collapses us in an economy of chaos and death, as they smugly profit off our bones.

How’d that be?  I’d like it fine.  And, we need to dump the Bluedog Democrats and give President Barak Obama an overwhelming progressive majority in both houses of congress, too, or we will spend generations undoing the harm of the Bushies and their corporate neocon masters.

If it will be done, it must be done soon, or I fear it will not be done at all (although the planet will outlive us, barren as the moon, perhaps).

WALDO HEMMERSLEGG’S HISTORY OF THE WORLD: (Excerpt from COMMON LIVES, unpublished novel).

Our story begins – for it is literally our story, the story of humankind – about three million years ago in an African gorge in Tanganyika.  To the west is towering Mount Kilimanjaro, but here in Oldavai there is desert where once it was savannah teeming with antelope and zebra, wildebeest and all manner of animal treasures – some still with us and those now extinct.   In the midst of this was a hunting, gathering troop of advanced apelike creatures, one of whom, a female we call “Lucy” was the recipient of a rare mutated gene that made her the first human.  All human females carry that gene.  It is not present in males.  Left to the males, humankind would revert to apedom.  No wonder the ladies are considered a “civilizing influence.”  Hell, there wouldn’t be any civilization at all without them.  No man would ever think of building a chair when he had difficulty mastering the stick in the termite hole when trying to obtain a little protein.

If we had a time lapse film of the species from its beginning, we would see Lucy’s descendents evolving and expanding up out of Africa into the Middle East, hence to Europe and Asia, hence all over the planet.  The genetic material that makes human beings white, brown, black, yellow or red is 1/100^th of 1% of our genetic makeup.  Everything else is the same. We are every one of us 99.99% identical in every other genetic respect.  That should make us a tolerant, peaceful species, but we’re not.  We’ve fought and killed each other from Lucy’s day on.  We form groups and maintain them as the “best” and attempt to destroy any one or any thing (including ideas) that may come along and threaten our belief in the holy righteousness of our own brand of blind ignorance.  We are, after all, entitled to our superstitions, no matter how many other people must be destroyed in order to satisfy them.

In Rite of Passage Alexei Panshin wrote that there are “no spear carriers in real life.” A spear-carrier is the guy in the opera or movie who is stabbed as the hero goes by; the one who falls off the parapet feathered by an arrow.  They are anonymous, often faceless and assumingly soulless creatures to be killed at will for dramatic effect.  They are not other people, but props to make the hero look good.

There is, in reality, only we and us.  It’s hard for red-necked, hate-filled crackers to admit that they are part of the human race.  “Otherness” is a big issue for them.  It is only by denying the humanity of their victims that they are able to do such savagery upon them.  It is only by denying their own humanity that they are able to do such savagery upon themselves.  Tragically, both viewpoints work, if the aim is to hurt somebody.

That’s why the military concentrates on “doing a job of work.”  Moving boulders, or whole villages, or killing whole peoples is easier when these “objects” are considered inert and subject to our divinely directed whim.  When one’s “cause is right,” because “God is on our side,” and “we must protect our way of life,” murder is most holy.  Sadness to relate, we still seem to be comfortable with all that, and remain irate about our inherent equality.  What’s the real problem?  Nobody’s really all that special.

LAST WORDS:

Now, here’s an arresting classified ad:

“I would like to fight a Republican supporter.  If you are one, have a fiery streak, please contact me so we can meet and physically fight.  I would like to beat the s—t out of you.” – From a posting seen on Craigslist.org

William Kennedy, LEGS:

“I am bored by people who keep returning life to a moral plane, as if we were reducible, now, to some Biblical concept or its opposite, as if all our history and prehistory had not conditioned us for what we’ve become.  It’s enough to make a moral nigger out of a man.  The niggers are down there, no doubt about it.  But Jack didn’t put them there and neither did I.  When we get off the moral gold standard, when the man of enormous wealth is of no more importance to anybody than the man in rags, then maybe we’ll look back to our own day as a day of justifiable social wrath.

“Meantime, the game is rising, not leveling.

Jack taught me that.

Cured me.

(Brother Wolf, are you listening?)”

“LIKE TEARS IN THE RAIN”:

“Never judge a book by its cover unless it’s red.”  Leo Gorcey, Bowery Boys.

“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” – Ghandi.

INTERESTING LINKS:

 Revealed: Secret Climate Change Evidence Bush Tried to Hide.  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/26

Whistleblower Reveals Sickness of For-Profit Health Insurance.  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/26-2

Global Trend for Sit-Ins and Occupations as Mass Redundancies Continue.  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/25-2

Trillions to Banks as Taxpayers Left in the Dark.  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/25-0 

Not in Kansas

Av en händelse kom jag under gårdagen att passera en herrekiperingsbutik vid namn Gatt i närheten av Globen. Butiken skilde sig inte nämnvärt från andra butiker i stil med Brothers, MQ eller liknande i fråga om utbud eller intrycket den gav. Mitt intresse fångades av att man lagerförde och reade ut skjortor från Eton.

Då jag kikade på skjortorna som låg uppradade i butiken passerade ett manligt butiksbiträde. Välklädd och med ett måttband runt halsen. “De där skjortorna är nog väl vida i modellen för dig” konstaterade han sakligt då han passerade. Ett antagande sannolikt baserat på vad jag redan hade på mig, och min kroppsform.

Svensk kvalité

Vi diskuterade kort snittet på de aktuella skjortorna, sedan hänvisade mannen mig till en helt annan butik som hade kvar modeller vilka troligtvis skulle passa mig mycket bättre.

Detta är bemötandet jag vill uppleva i en klädbutik. Hellre hänvisa kunden till en annan butik, än att till varje pris försöka sälja det man har själv. Oavsett passform. Gott betyg till gentlemannen med måttbandet.

/Archibald

by Rachel Brinker

In Hindi, chipko means, “to embrace.”  The Chipko Movement in India became one of the most successful environmental activism struggles in the world.  Vandana Shiva was one of the women involved in this movement, which resisted industrial forestry and logging in rural India.  Local women physically put their bodies between the machinery and the forest that provided their livelihood–literally hugging the trees (Callicott, 218).  The largest success of the Chipko movement was convincing Indira Gandhi, India’s prime minister in 1981, to declare a fifteen-year moratorium on logging in the Himalayan forests in Uttar Pradesh (Callicott, 218).

Dr. Vandana Shiva is a woman whose work is focused on embracing not only the principles of feminism, but also the principles of ecology.  In fact, as an ecofeminist, she sees these two movements as interconnected and believes that the worldview that causes environmental degradation and injustice is the same worldview that causes a culture of male domination, exploitation, and inequality for women.  Vandana Shiva titles her feminist theory “political,” or “subsistence” ecofeminism, to differentiate it from the more spiritually focused ecofeminism popular in Western countries (although, since the WTO protests of 1999 and the events of September 11, 2001, Western ecofeminism has become equally politically aware).   Both her activism and theory has had a global and concrete focus.  Her work has dealt with “third world” women, whose lives are adversely affected by the forces of corporate globalization and colonialism.

A tireless author, speaker and activist, Shiva has written over 13 books that reveal the true impact of globalization on the lives of women and men in developing countries. She has founded several organizations, including The Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology, Navdanya, and Bija Vidyapeeth, an organic farm and center for holistic living.

Born in 1952, she began training as a nuclear physicist.  When Shiva’s sister, a doctor, explained to Vandana the effects of nuclear radiation on life forms, Vandana was shocked because her science education had not addressed the risks and horrors of their work.  This was a pivotal moment that caused Shiva to critique science and the worldview behind scientific ideology.  This critique led to the development of her “subsistence” ecofeminist theories, and her relentless activism to protect both women and nature.

“Ecofeminism” was a term first used by Francoise D’Eaubonne in 1980 and gained popularity in protests and actions against continued ecological disaster.  Shiva and Maria Mies explain:

“We see the devastation of the earth and her beings by the corporate warriors, as feminist concerns.  It is the same masculinist mentality which would deny us our right to our own bodies and our own sexuality, and which depends on multiple systems of dominance and state power to have its way” (14).

From Shiva’s perspective, women’s liberation cannot be achieved without a simultaneous struggle for the preservation and liberation of all life on this planet from the dominant patriarchal/capitalist worldview (Mies and Shiva, 16).  Ecofeminism distinguishes itself from other theories of feminism, which maintain the hierarchical worldview of the Western world. “Rather than attempting to overcome this hierarchical dichotomy many women have simply up-ended it, and thus women are seen as superior to men, nature to culture, and so on” (Mies and Shiva, 5).

Shiva and other ecofeminists are explicitly anti-war and anti-capitalist, because both war and capitalism are seen as patriarchal structures. “The capitalist patriarchy perspective interprets difference as hierarchical and uniformity as a prerequisite for equality” (Mies and Shiva, 2).  For Shiva there is connection between the escalation of war, “musclemen” culture, and rape and other violence against women.  “It is no coincidence that the gruesome game of war—in which the greater part of the male sex seems to delight—passes through the same stages as the traditional sexual relationship: aggression, conquest, possession, control.  Of a woman or a land, it makes little difference” (Mies and Shiva, 15).

The historical context that radicalized Vandana Shiva and many others was the Green Revolution and the vast globalization of the mid to late twentieth century.  Shiva refers to this model of economic development as maldevelopment. “Maldevelopment militates against equality in diversity, and superimposes the ideologically constructed category of western technological man as the uniform measure of the worth of classes, cultures and genders” (Shiva, Staying Alive, 5).

The “Green Revolution” is a misnomer used by U.S. industrial agriculture and biotechnology seed and chemical corporations (Monsanto, Cargill, Dekalb, ADM, et al) to aggressively promote the implementation of their products to farmers in the “third world.”  As Shiva explains in a lecture given in 2003 (An Hour with Vandana Shiva), these corporations convinced farmers in India to shift from subsistence farming (where a family grows food primarily to meet their own food needs, and trades a small amount of their crop for other local goods and services) to growing a monoculture (growing a single plant species over a large area) of a cash crop bound for the global food market (for example, growing potatoes in India that end up as French fries at a McDonald’s in Detroit, Michigan).

This method of farming, aggressively forced on Indian farmers by the WTO (World Trade Organization) and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) in the 1980s and 1990s, was disastrous for the farmers of India.  Cash crop industrial agriculture caused farmers to go into debt to the multinational seed and chemical companies, and when their crops failed, the result was over 20,000 farmers taking their own lives by drinking the chemical fertilizers and pesticides sold to them by the corporations that held their insurmountable debt.

Vandana Shiva credits Article 27.53b of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which allows corporations to hold patents on forms of life, for pushing her to become an ecofeminist activist.  Under this article, it is illegal to save seeds and plant them the following year if a corporation holds a patent on that plant.  For a farmer, this means that he or she cannot be independent, but must now pay the corporation every year to plant that seed.  For the corporation, it means that it can appropriate any life form (such as basmati rice, which had been developed over thousands of years in India through traditional breeding and selection techniques), apply for a patent, and is thereby granted complete legal and biological control over that species, anywhere in the world.  In resistance to these violent forces of globalization, Vandana Shiva founded Navdanya in 1991, an organization in India that saves seeds, promotes biodiversity, empowers women and children, and protects indigenous knowledge.

To the western worldview, the patenting of seeds or the deforestation of the Himalaya may seem completely unrelated to feminism.  For women in the global South, however, the “environment” is the place where they live, and it encompasses everything that affects their lives (Shiva, Close to Home, 2).  According to Shiva and Maria Mies, “urban, middle-class women find it difficult to perceive commonality both between their own liberation and the liberation of nature, and between themselves and ‘different’ women in the world” (5).  This disconnect is due to the fundamental dualistic nature of the western worldview, where the nature of reality is divided into opposing parts, and hierarchically arranged.  Thus, humans are seen as separate to nature, technology is seen as superior to indigenous knowledge, men are superior to women, and humans are superior and separate from animals, etc.

Shiva and Mies write, “The women’s movement…had fastened it hopes on the progress of science and technology, particularly in the area of reproduction, but also of house- and other work” (7). This progress would have to be based on the continued dominance over nature, and pursuing the goal of “catching up” to men in “advanced” societies (Mies and Shiva, 7).  But if the definition of “equality for all” is that all people in the world are able to live at the same level of consumption of resources enjoyed by men in advanced societies, this equality is quite simply impossible.  “With a limited planet, there can be no escape from necessity.  To find freedom does not involve subjugating or transcending the ‘realm of necessity,’ but rather focusing on developing a vision of freedom, happiness, the ‘good life’ within the limits of necessity, of nature” (Mies and Shiva, 8).

Dr. Madronna Holden points out that, “Political or subsistence ecofeminists such as Shiva and Mies place part of the blame for the oppressive influence of patriarchy on the rise of Western (and Marxist) ideas of development and ‘progress’” (6). To further show this disconnect between Western views of feminism and ecologically based feminism, Shiva explains:

“A common criticism leveled at ecological feminist approaches to the current crisis, is that of ‘essentialism’; relating environmental issues to women in a specific way is seen as an ‘essentialist’ world view. Yet the charge itself emanates from a paradigm that splits parts from whole, fragments and divides, and either sees the part as subjugating the whole (reductionism) or the whole as subjugating the parts—in other words, essentializing both” (Close to Home, 7).

The alternative worldview promoted by Shiva is one of partnership and cooperation. Shiva believes different definitions of freedom, knowledge, and progress are needed for the liberation of both women and the environment, from those definitions held by Western culture since the Enlightenment. Shiva’s ecofeminist perspective makes no distinction between “basic needs” (food, clothing, shelter) and “higher needs” (freedom and knowledge).

For women in the affluent North such a concept of universalism or commonality is not easy to grasp. Survival is seen not as the ultimate goal of life but a banality—a fact that can be taken for granted.  It is precisely the value of the everyday work for survival, for life, which has been eroded in the name of the so-called ‘higher values’ (Mies and Shiva, 13).

Modernization brings with it new forms of dominance to subsistence cultures.  Subsistence, on the other hand, has been shown to be a model of interdependence and cooperation.  “The complimentarity (sic) of the separate male and female domains of work is the characteristic mode, based on diversity, not inequality” (Shiva, Staying Alive, 5).  Modernization, however, brings domination and the devaluing of women’s work, which is not done for financial gain, but for meeting the daily needs of people and families.

Shiva argues that as long as the Western world sees the environmental movement and the women’s movement as separate and unrelated, the environmental movement will be co-opted by the forces of ‘maldevelopment’ and used as a “new patriarchal project of technological fixes and political oppression” (Shiva, Staying Alive, 48).  She explains that oppression will continue in the Western worldview because it devalues what she terms the feminine principle.  This concept is often confused with the promotion of gendered femininity, but Shiva sees the feminine principle as the larger creative force in the world.  “The new insight provided by rural women in the Third World is that women and nature are associated not in passivity but in creativity and in the maintenance of life” (Shiva, Staying Alive, 47).

The feminine principle is based on inclusiveness and its recovery in men, women, and nature, is the recovery of “creative forms of being and perceiving” (Shiva, Staying Alive, 53).  Shiva proposes that the feminine principle is killed in Western women by the association of passivity as a category with the feminine (53).  In men, this principle is squashed by the notion that “activity” is destruction rather than creation, and “power” is domination rather than empowerment (53).

As natural resources become more and more limited on our finite planet, a shift in our worldview will become compulsory.  Vandana Shiva’s vision for a combined movement to end oppression of both women and nature is part of the answer to how we can achieve sustainability on this planet and find our place as a species.  We must acknowledge that we are part of the larger web of life that provides for our survival, and therefore it is imperative that we protect that fragile web of life, not as dominators—men over women and humans over nature—but as partners with every other life form on the planet.

References

Callicott, J. Baird. Earth’s Insights. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1994.

Democracy Now! An Hour with Vandana Shiva. 27 November 2003. http://www.democracynow.org/2003/11/27/an_hour_with_vandana_shiva_indian.

Holden, Madronna.  WS 450 Ecofeminism Class notes. Oregon State University. 2009.

Mies, Maria and Vandana Shiva. Ecofeminism. Halifax: Fernwood Publications. 1993.

Navdanya. http://www.navdanya.org.

The Complete Marquis Who’s Who (R) Biographies.  Marquis Who’s Who LLC. 2008. Lexis-Nexis. 18 January 2009 http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library. oregonstate.edu/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.

Shiva, Vandana, ed. Close to Home: Women Reconnect Ecology, Health and Development Worldwide. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers. 1994.

Shiva, Vandana. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books. 1989.

Patriot's Dream

Political corruption is one aspect of a more general immorality. If we want to tackle it, we have to understand how it works.

Sober, personal virtues of honesty, willpower, honor, and high-mindedness have given way to “the most important single factor, the effective personality,” which “commands attention by charm,” and “radiates self-confidence.” George W. Bush is a prime example of the phenomenon. Personal relations – image, in short – have become part of public relations, a sacrifice of selfhood on a personality market, to the sole end of individual success in the corporate way of life.

In the corporate era, economic relations are impersonal – and executives feel little personal responsibility (witness NAFTA, GATT and the WTO). Within the corporate worlds of business, war making and politics, the private conscience is attenuated and immorality is institutionalized. Many of the problems of white-collar crime and of relaxed public morality, of high-priced vice and fading personal integrity, are problems of this structural immorality. Its acceptance is an essential feature of our mass society.

In economic and political institutions the corporate rich now wield enormous power, but they have never had to win the moral consent of those over whom they hold this power. The general immorality, the general weakening of older values, and the organization of irresponsibility have not involved public crisis; they result from creeping indifference and a silent hollowing out.

The images of the powerful that prevail are of the elite as celebrities. They share it with the frivolous or sultry creatures of the world of celebrity, which is a dazzling blind of their true power.

Two things are needed in a democracy: articulate and knowledgeable publics, and political leaders who, if not men of reason, are at least reasonably responsible to such knowledgeable publics as exist. Such a public and such leaders – either of power or of knowledge – do not now prevail, and knowledge does not now have democratic relevance in America.

The lack of knowledge as an experience among the elite ties in with the malign tendency of the expert, not only as fact but also as legitimization. The trend has been abdication of debate and the collapse of opposition under the easy slogan of bipartisanship. Public relations displace reasoned argument; manipulation and undebated decisions of power replace democratic authority.

Status, no longer rooted in local communities, follows the big hierarchies. Status follows big money, even if it has a touch of the gangster. Status follows power, even if it be without background. Below, in the mass society, old moral and traditional barriers to status break down and Americans look to standards of excellence above them, to model themselves and judge self-esteem.

Those in the higher circles are not truly representative; their high position is not a result of moral virtue. They sit in the seats of the high and the mighty selected and formed by the means of power, the sources of wealth, and the mechanics of celebrity. They are not shaped by nationally responsible parties that debate openly and clearly the issues this nation now so unintelligently confronts. They are not held in check by a plurality of voluntary associations, which connect debating publics with the pinnacles of decision. Commanders of power unequalled in history, they have succeeded within the American system of organized irresponsibility.

In a 1997 poll, 76% of Americans distrusted government at all levels. To any pollster, 24% approval spells big trouble. We experience its outfall, in part, as an accelerated and often irrational growth of nimbyism as people rebuff and turn away from an apparently indifferent and insensitive leadership. They seek other solutions. It’s also obvious that if leaders consistently fail to effectively engage a true majority of citizens in solving community problems, but defer almost exclusively to any exclusive group, they do not promote community, representational or democratically participative government. In the absence of genuine community building and true citizen involvement, the solution to an expanding, disaffected underclass may only be more police officers, more prison construction and tougher sentencing.

University of Wisconsin law professor Joel Rogers says, “Public opinion in the United States is conventionally mapped on a liberal-conservative axis understood to run from government do-gooders without values on one end to free marketeering rich people without hearts at the other end. Most people in America place themselves in the middle. They don’t find either end particularly attractive. Today, the fight isn’t really between liberals and conservatives but between the workers/consumers/citizens who actually want the economy to reflect our values and those who want to keep things the way they are with a few irresponsible corporations running the country for their own benefit. In that fight we can win. It’s our country. Let’s run it for the people.”

We cannot make minor process changes, but must deal with the value system, which powers our economic engine to the divorce of all other concerns. Social Darwinism supposedly died after striking U.S. Steel workers were murdered by union-busting toughs while Andrew Carnegie played golf in Scotland. Carnegie turned a blind eye to what his managers were doing at the Homestead Mines. It seemed good business to lower labor costs. It got out of hand. Carnegie learned that individual action, even when the most rational and best for the individual, may be a terrible disaster for other individuals.

Our national debate has become timid. The tyranny of experts disguises our true best interest. Recall that French art experts kept Vincent Van Gogh out of the National Academy. The Neville Brothers sing, “You can tell the truth, if you don’t tell too much.” So what can one do about all this? Here’s a starter list:

-  Stick up for your rights – your own integrity matters more than loyalty to a negative cause.

- Stimulate sympathy – there are social and political reasons for what we do. The social reasons create the greatest measure of self-identification and response.

- Speak only from fact – listen, especially when you don’t agree.

- Use a variety of sources of information; try to understand the other view.

- Act. Do something positive everyday.

In 400-320 BCE Sun Tsu wrote On War, “War is of vital importance to the state. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied. Appraise it in terms of the five fundamental factors: the first is moral influence. The moral influence causes the people to be in harmony with their leaders, so that they will accompany them in life and unto death without fear of mortal peril.”

“When one treats people with benevolence, justice and righteousness,” Chang Yu, Sung Dynasty commentator, wrote, “and reposes confidence in them, the army will be united in mind and all will be happy to serve.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves.”

There are legitimate and good reasons why we must participate in our own governance. We either use our rights, or we lose them.

- John Legry, (paraphrase: C. Wright Mills, Joel Rogers, and others), copyright 2007.

 More PROGRESSIVE thought: links in sidebar.

Agathocles & Gatt split-CD (Blood Spit Records, 2009)

Split-album dari dua band yang berbeda generasi, beda negara, namun tetap disatukan oleh satu perekat, yakni: Grindcore! Band pertama yaitu, Agathocles (www.agathocles.com); legenda grindcore/mince-core asal Belgia. Bayangkan, band ini sudah eksis di scene D.I.Y punk/metal/hardcore sejak pertengahan era 80-an! Seangkatan dengan Napalm Death, Pestilence, dan masih eksis hingga sekarang! Agathocles juga adalah salah satu band “senior” yang diakui kerendahan hatinya, karena mau melakukan split-album dengan band-band kecil dari penjuru Bumi manapun! Katalog diskografi mereka penuh dengan rilisan split bareng band-band yang underatted! Hanya sedikit saja split dengan band-band yang sudah memiliki nama besar. Agathocles juga sudah beberapa kali melakukan split-album dengan beberapa band asal Indonesia lainnya.

Band kedua adalah Gatt (www.myspace.com/gattcrusher), trio d-beat/grindcore asal Jakarta. Gatt juga merupakan salah satu proyek dari Uri, personil yang dikenal lewat duo post-metal/sludge-metal bernama Ghaust; band yang akhir-akhir ini banyak mengisi halaman dari media-media musik independen lokal. Tapi untuk sementara mari kita sejenak lupakan Ghaust, karena di sini kita membahas Gatt!…

Di split-CD ini Agathocles menyumbang 12 lagu, sementara Gatt menyumbang 9 lagu. Untuk kalian yang into scene extreme hardcore-punk/grindcore, mungkin sudah tidak asing lagi dengan musik Agathocles; oldschool grindcore yang punkish (grindcore memang aslinya berasal dari scene punk, bukan dari scene metal –ed), juga disertai lirik-lirik politis (that’s why they called “Mince-Core” –ed). Di album ini Agathocles menyumbang lagu-lagu dari rehearsal-demo mereka di tahun 1995!

Kalau Gatt memainkan mid-tempo d-beat/heavy-crust/grindcore dengan guttural vockill, sound gitar yang berat juga metallic, plus sedikit sisipan ketukan drum hyperblast a la band-band d-beat kekinian yang mempunyai nama awal “Dis”. Mungkin seperti Disfear? (well, lil’bit slower maybe… –ed). Semua itu juga ditambah dengan pengaruh “Tennessee sound” brutal crust-core acts, seperti: His Hero Is Gone, Deathtreat, Warcry, Union Of Uranus, etc. Sound rekamannya keren. Tidak heran kalau sekarang banyak orang di scene d.i.y HC/punk lokal yang notice akan band ini. Jujur, untuk split-album ini, saya lebih banyak mendengarkan Gatt daripada Agathocles…

CD ini dirilis oleh tiga label sekaligus (co-release), yakni: Blood Spit Records (Russia), Jerk Off Records (USA) dan Show Me Your Tits Records (beneran, namanya emang kaya’ gini! ) dari Perancis. Terbatas. Dirilis hanya sebanyak 500 keping saja. Jadi pesan segera split-album ini, sebelum kehabisan!… – Dede

(pesan di: www.bloodspitrecords.com, www.myspace.com/jerkoffrecords atau www.smytrecords.com )

Genre musik: Crust, D-Beat, Grind-Punk, Mince-Core, Grindcore.

Untuk penggemar: Reign Of Terror, Malignant Tumour, Violent Headache, Unholy Grave.

El Modelo Político Empresarial, ¿Ocaso del Estado nacional?,

Una forma de leer las noticias locales e Internacionales,  

Por Juan Chamero, Universidad Caece, 29 de Mayo 2002

Actualizado a Junio 2009

Actualización a Junio 2009

 Básicamente la actualización encara la aparición de neologismos y nuevas fuentes del fenómeno corporativo como voluntad de poder regional y mundial.

 Corporación – empresa es un colectivo socioeconómico formado por un “cuerpo de gente”, del latín “corpus” y en la jerga moderna se aplica a un cuerpo de gente organizado para hacer negocios. El antecedente más antiguo de este tipo de corporación es la Stora Kopparberg, Gran Montaña de Cobre, una sociedad creada para explotar una mina de cobre sueca en el año 1288 y de la cual se

1/8 de acción de la mina Stora Kopparberg, Junio 1288,

 En el siglo XX estos conglomerados multinacionales comenzaron a crecer desmesuradamente pues fueron desapareciendo las restricciones iníciales sobre fusiones y adquisiciones. El debilitamiento progresivo del Estado Nacional posibilitó además un “boom” de “privatizaciones”, acompañadas de peligrosas “desregulaciones” permisivas, un  “laissez faire” que se ha ido convirtiendo en un verdadero descontrol, caldo de cultivo de una creciente corrupción corporativa. Hoy, las corporaciones privadas controlan desde los recursos naturales a los servicios. Las corporaciones modernas aumentan incluso su inasibilidad legal y hasta física convirtiéndose en entidades sin nombre y sin dirección física, o sea existen, tienen centenares de miles de agentes y sus oficinas y centro de atención a clientes y proveedores son virtuales.  Incluso se ha acuñado el neologismo “micro-multinationals” por micro-multinacionales, no tan micro en cuanto a negocios pero si a su cuasi invisibilidad jurídica para designar a estos emprendimiento ampliamente favorecidos por Internet en sus versiones Web 2.0 y Web 3.0.

El Bilateralismo es una vieja forma de acuerdos diplomáticos y comerciales entre dos países las más de las veces para luchar contra un tercero o entre países de marcadas asimetrías, a la larga para acentuarla a favor del poderoso. Para muchos historiadores el bilateralismo ha sido una de las causas de la Primera Guerra Mundial. Para combatir sus efectos nocivos se crean entidades Multilaterales globales que luego de la Primera Guerra Mundial en lo político fue la Liga de las Naciones y en lo comercial, luego de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, el GATT, acrónimo en inglés por ACUERDO General sobre Tarifas y Comercio. Evidentemente la Liga de las Naciones falló en su cometido básico que era evitar una Segunda Guerra Mundial y sobre sus cenizas se creó luego de la Segunda Guerra Mundial las Naciones Unidas.

            Logo de La Liga de las Naciones – Logo de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas

 El Trilateralismo se refiere en cambio a una alianza privada orientada a fortalecer los lazos entre Estados Unidos, Europa y Japón. Su ente orgánico fue la Comisión Trilateral fundada en 1973 a iniciativa de David Rockefeller,  a la sazón Presidente del influyente Consejo para las Relaciones Internacionales. Su leit motiv fue bregar por La Paz y la Prosperidad de las naciones pero desde su creación fue siempre mirada con recelo.  No obstante es y sigue siendo uno de los “lobbies” más importantes del mundo. Entre sus fundadores están: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert R. Bowie, Alan Greenspan y Paul Volcker. Sus vinculaciones más notorias son con la Reserva Federal de Estados Unidos, con la Universidad de Harvard, la Institución Brookings y con las Fundaciones Ford y Rockefeller. El máximo criticismo la acusa de conspirar para tomar el control del gobierno de Estados Unidos y por su intermedio imponer un Nuevo Orden Internacional y a un Gobierno Mundial Uno.

 Logo de La Comisión Trilateral

Si nos atenemos al poder del “viejo” trilateralismo, que para algunos es una de los tantos cuentos de las Teorías Conspirativas, podemos decir objetivamente que si por tal se entiende una manifestación del modelo corporativo mundial conformado por las corporaciones Estados Unidos, Europa y Japón su poder seguiría vigente. En efecto, dentro de las “500 de Fortune” se aprecia que de las 500 primeras nada menos que 400 corresponden a ese block.

El Multilateralismo es la tendencia natural de organizaciones evolutivas. La sociedad humana tiende a la mundialización y a establecer equilibrios mediante acuerdos más que a través de enfrentamientos. Hoy las la Organización de las Naciones Unidas es mucho más poderosa y estable que la Liga de las Naciones. Evidentemente el antónimo “Unilateralismo” es la reacción de potencias y bloque políticos y económicos que no quieren ceder privilegios.

¿El Modelo Corporativo solo como primera aproximación evolutiva?

Posiblemente estemos contemplando una fase muy primitiva de Globalización, digamos los primeros intentos de administrar y gobernar el planeta como una unidad en forma justa y que permita continuar su proceso evolutivo. Posiblemente también se estén siguiendo las líneas de todo proceso evolutivo biológico.

Reflexionemos al respecto: El concepto de Estado Nacional ha sido un importante hito evolutivo, necesario pero no suficiente. Ir a mayores conglomerado políticos  ha encontrado marcadas dificultades siendo la UE, Unión Europea, el logro de integración “gobernable” más avanzado. Justamente la mayor dificultad es superar el voluntarismo de las fuerzas políticas y crear entidades superiores gobernables.

Si por ejemplo a nivel de ciencia ficción imagináramos una integración Occidente – Oriente alrededor del foco Trilateral ya mencionado y una alianza económico política entre China y La India – “Chindia”, y organizáramos un “brain storming” de expertos en geopolítica para proponer posibles soluciones resultaría frustrante por el problema de la gobernabilidad de entes culturalmente tan heterogéneos, casi tan complejo como pensar en la gobernabilidad de una unidad político y socio económica de dos arquetipos de “homo sapiens”.

Por el contrario sería mucho más viable imaginar un mega  complejo simplemente Corporativo motivado exclusivamente por la “rentabilidad” económica y si ello fuera viable a nivel sistémico, lo que sería casi diríamos lógico, no hay que interpretarlo como algo especialmente “malévolo” sino simplemente evolutivo. En mi humilde opinión el ´proceso de integración desde un punto de vista evolutivo seguiría la línea económico => social => político, en ese orden. Ver al respecto La Gobernabilidad de Asia Central, documento elaborado por ODI, Instituto de Desarrollo Interoceánico. Por su parte la Corporaciones están en esta su primera etapa de expansión mundialista prestando extrema atención a la geopolítica, aunque por ahora limitado a “como seguir siendo rentable” sin importan demasiado ese “como”. Ver al respecto el artículo Geopolítica en los Negocios de Parag Khanna. 

Listado de las Principales Multinacionales

 24/7 Customer, ABB, ABN-Amro, Accenture, Accor, Activision Blizzard, Aditya Birla Group, Advanced Micro Devices, Affiliated Computer Services, Airbus, Air France-KLM, Akzo Nobel, Alcatel-Lucent, Allianz, Alstom, Altria Group, American Express, ANZ, Apple Inc., Aquent llc, Arcelor Mittal, Arcor, Assicurazioni Generali, Atari, Activision, AXA, Bacardi, Banco Santander, Bank of Montreal, Barrick Gold Corporation, Barilla Group, BASF, Bayer, BBVA, Bic, Billabong, BMW, BNP Paribas, Boeing, Bombardier Inc., BP (British Petroleum), Cadbury Schweppes, Capital One, Caterpillar Inc., Celestica, Centocor, Chevron, Citigroup, ConocoPhillips, Coca-Cola, Costco, Creative Labs, Credit Suisse, Crédit Agricole, Cummins, Daimler AG, Danone, Daud World, Dell, Dilmah, Dow Chemical, EA, EDF, Electronic Data Systems, Electrolux, Emerson Electric, Eni, Enel, Embraer, Epson, Ernst & Young, Etisalat, ExxonMobil, Faber-Castell, France Télécom, Ferrero, Fiat, Ficosa, Finmeccanica, Ford Motor Company, Gazprom, General Electric, General Motors, Generali, Gerdau, Gillette, GlaxoSmithKline, Google, Halliburton, Hearst Corporation, Heineken, Hewlett Packard, Hindustan Computers Limited, Hitachi, Ltd., Honda, HSBC, Huawei, Hutchison Whampoa Limited, ICICI, Infosys, Ingersoll Rand, ING Group, Intel Corporation, Isuzu, Jardine Matheson, JFPI Corporation, Johnson Controls, Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Konami, KPMG, Krispy Kreme, Kronos Inc, Lagardère, Lactalis, Lear, Leoni AG, Lesaffre, Lexmark, LG, Lockheed Martin, L’Oréal, Lukoil, Luxottica, McDonalds, Maggi, Malaysia Airlines, Manthan Software Services, Martini & Rossi, Masterfoods, Matsushita, Microsoft, Millipore Corporation, Mohabbatte Corporation, Monsanto, Nestlé, News Corporation, Nike, Inc., Nintendo, Nissan, Novartis, Parmalat, PepsiCo, Petronas, Pfizer, Philips, Procter & Gamble, Proton (carmaker), PSA Peugeot Citroën, Red Bull, Reebok, Regus, Renault, Shell/Royal Dutch, Royal Bank of Canada, Rusal, SABMiller plc, Samsung, Sanofi Aventis, Sasken Communication Technologies Limited, Schlumberger, Scotiabank, Servcorp, Shell, Siemens, Sony, Société Générale, Square Enix, Suez, Syntel, Tata Group, Techint (Tenaris/ Ternium), Telefónica, Tesco, Tetra Laval, Texas Instruments, The Coca-Cola Company, The GAP, The Walt Disney Company, The Toronto Dominion Bank, Toshiba, Total S.A., Toyota, UBS, Unicredit, Unilever, Veolia, Virgin Group, Vivendi, Vale do Rio Doce, Videocon, Vodafone, Volkswagen, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wipro Ltd., Woodbridge Foam, Xerox, Yahoo!, Yakult.

El Modelo Político Empresarial, ¿Ocaso del Estado nacional?,

Una forma de leer las noticias locales e Internacionales,  

Por Juan Chamero, Editor Jefe de aunmas.com, 29 de Mayo 2002

Actualizado a Junio 2009

 Tags: