"Shrinking Democracy" - Arend van Dam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Showing posts with label crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crisis. Show all posts
Monday, July 6, 2015
The $18 Billion arms race helping to fuel Middle East conflict
Nothing much to say here (since, I've blogged quite a few times how members of the UN Security Council & developed countries sell weapons & arms to developing countries to keep destabilizing those regions).
The Middle East is destabilizing & turning into a war zone very rapidly, thanks to the developed countries' constant need to sell arms & ammunition to these countries, & when these weapons are used by these countries against each other or against their own public, we in the West decry how "uncivilized" these people in Middle East are.
Canada used to be considered a peaceful nation. Now, "the one Canadian deal alone – to supply Saudi Arabia with light armoured vehicles – will account for 20% of the military vehicles sold globally in years covered by the contract." That's how much Canada has changed in the global weapons market.
Why don't these developed countries sell green energy, for instance, to these developing countries? Wouldn't that be a much better investment to make the world a better place? That move alone, for instance, wouldn't create so many refugees, either, which in itself, is creating another migrant crisis in the developed countries of Europe.
Developed countries have so much modern technology in non-arms area that they could & can easily sell that technology hardware & software to developing countries & regions, & help improve lives for all. It does happen but compared to billions of weapons transactions, these transactions have not much scope & influence.
So, if we want peace in this world, the first step is to stop the developed countries to stop giving weapons to the madmen of developing countries. Who is willing to take this first step? (Per my answer, not even one developed country).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Middle East is plunging deeper into an arms race, with an estimated $18 billion expected to be spent on weapons this year, a development that experts warn is fuelling serious tension & conflict in the region.
Given the unprecedented levels of weapon sales by the west (including the US, Canada & the UK) to the mainly Sunni Gulf states, Vladimir Putin’s decision ... to allow the controversial delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran ... seems likely to accelerate the proliferation.
That will see agreed arms sales to the top 5 purchasers in the region - Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Egypt & Iraq – surge this year to more than $18 billion, up from $12 billion last year. Among the systems being purchased are jet fighters, missiles, armoured vehicles, drones & helicopters.
The Russian declaration came only 2 days before Iraq’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, disclosed that he was seeking arms worth billions of dollars from Washington – with payment deferred – for the battle against Islamic State (Isis).
Last week France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, disclosed progress in talks to sell Rafale fighter jets to the UAE, one of the Middle East’s biggest & most aggressive arms buyers.
With conflicts raging in Syria, Iraq, Libya & Yemen, & with Egypt also battling Islamist extremists in the Sinai, the signs that Russia is preparing to increase its own arms sales – & to the Gulf states’ biggest rival, Iran – are raising fears that tensions will be stoked further still. In particular, Saudi Arabia & Iran are facing off in the conflict in Yemen ... .
According to the New York Times, defence industry officials have notified Congress that they are expecting additional requests from Arab states fighting Isis – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan & Egypt – for thousands of new US-made weapons, including missiles & bombs, to rebuild depleted arms stockpiles.
Ironically, among the key weapons suppliers in the arms race are permanent members of the UN security council who have been at the centre of 2 unconventional arms control initiatives – disarming the Syrian government’s stockpiles of chemical weapons & negotiating for a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme.
The scale of the arms race was revealed this year in reports published by IHS Jane’s Global Defence Trade Report & the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri). They showed how Saudi Arabia had become the world’s largest importer of weapons & fourth largest military spender & that other Middle East states were sharply increasing their arms purchases.
Adding to the concern is the fact that the spending spree on arms comes against the background of a marked increase in military interventions by countries in the region since the Arab spring in 2011. Saudi Arabia has intervened in Bahrain (at the request of that kingdom’s ruler during the so-called Pearl revolution), in Yemen in 2009 & again in Yemen this year.
And among those concerned by Saudi’s new military assertiveness - on the back of its arms buying spree - was the Iraqi prime minister, Abadi. “The dangerous thing is, we don’t know what the Saudis want to do after [their intervention in Yemen],” Abadi told US reporters last week. “Is Iraq within their radar? That’s very, very dangerous. The idea that you intervene in another state unprovoked just for regional ambition is wrong. Saddam has done it before. See what it has done to the country.”
And if the Saudi intervention in Yemen has been overt, no less real has been the proxy conflict that has set Iran & the Gulf states against each other in Syria, where Tehran has backed the government of Bashar al-Assad with military assistance & weapons, & Gulf states have backed different rebel groups, including Islamist ones.
“It’s crazy,” says Ben Moores, author of IHS Jane’s annual report on arms buying trends. “The one Canadian deal alone – to supply Saudi Arabia with light armoured vehicles – will account for 20% of the military vehicles sold globally in years covered by the contract. And this is just the thin edge of the wedge. Saudi has booked enough arms imports in 24 months for them to be worth $10 billion a year.”
While some countries, such as Kuwait, are in the process of modernisation, a key trend identified by Moores is how states are retooling to fight insurgency conflicts in the same way the US military has in Afghanistan & Iraq. “Look at UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt & Algeria. They were all countries that bought a lot of conventional arms in the past that are no use in a sectarian war or an insurgency.
“If you look at what was bought at the recent Idex arms fair in Abu Dhabi, it was drones, high-end surveillance satellites, strategic transport aircraft for projecting power. One of the reasons Egypt went with its recent purchase of Rafale jets [from France] is because it wanted planes that could deliver precision-guided standoff weapons.”
And as Tobias Borck of the Royal United Services Institute points out, states in the Middle East are now more prepared to use the weapons they are buying. “[The] Saudi-led military operations in Yemen [are] the latest manifestation of Arab interventionism, a trend that has been gaining momentum in the Middle East since the uprisings of the Arab spring,” he says. “Middle Eastern countries appear to be increasingly willing to use their armed forces to protect & pursue their interests in crisis zones across the region.”
Referring to the inconsistent approach by key security council members towards arms control in the region, he adds: “There are a lot of different streams feeding into this arms race. On Syria’s chemical weapons & the Iranian nuclear programme, the 2 issues were ring fenced as pure arms control questions. When it comes to how we perceive our arms sales – whether they are British or US or whatever – it tends to be seen as a domestic economic issue – protecting our factories.
“That neglects the regional political dimensions, with arms sales taking place with a lack of regard for that context & without long-term strategic awareness.”
Borck says that the scale of the arms being supplied to countries such as Saudi Arabia & the UAE by the west may also be acting as an incentive for Russia to get back into the Middle East – not least via arms sales to its old clients such as Iran – & may have been a motivating factor in the Kremlin’s decision to lift the ban on the delivery of the S-300 missile system.
Putin, defending the decision to supply the missiles during a call-in television show last week, cited Russia’s prerogative to pursue its own foreign policy initiatives & suggested that the missiles could represent “a deterrent factor in connection with the situation in Yemen”.
Omar Ashour, an expert on Middle East security issues at Exeter University, has sounded a further note of caution, this time over the intentions of the new Saudi-led Arab coalition, warning that its interventions are unlikely to contribute to stability. “The rise of Arab military coalitions raises serious concerns,” he wrote in a recent piece for Project Syndicate. “Such interventions were usually aimed at empowering a proxy political force over its military & political rivals, instead of averting humanitarian disaster or institutionalising a non-violent conflict-resolution mechanism following a war.”
Speaking to the Guardian last week, he added: “On top of that, the increases in arms sales are bound to be extremely destabilising. At the moment most of the interventions have been against softer targets – Saudi Arabia targeting guerrillas in Yemen; Egypt against Bedouin in Sinai; or strikes against ragtag armies in Libya. But if the ‘soft’ keeps being hit hard, they won’t remain soft. They will find their own patrons & proxies & hit back & it will lead to a vicious cycle.”
Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher at Sipri, which maintains a database tracking arms contracts, raises another concern. “Something that doesn’t get mentioned is the complete lack of interest in arms control among the countries in the region. It is not in the minds of leaders & decision-makers, except for the need to arm to defeat any potential opponent.
“There is already instability in the region on several levels. You have instability in Yemen, Syria & Iraq. There is instability between Iran & the Gulf states. What is important now is how the massive expansion of the armed forces of Saudi Arabia, UAE & Qatar will be seen as posing a clear threat to Iran.”
Borck adds a final warning: “If you are going for an ever bigger hammer, then the more desperate you are to make every problem a nail.”
The Middle East is destabilizing & turning into a war zone very rapidly, thanks to the developed countries' constant need to sell arms & ammunition to these countries, & when these weapons are used by these countries against each other or against their own public, we in the West decry how "uncivilized" these people in Middle East are.
Canada used to be considered a peaceful nation. Now, "the one Canadian deal alone – to supply Saudi Arabia with light armoured vehicles – will account for 20% of the military vehicles sold globally in years covered by the contract." That's how much Canada has changed in the global weapons market.
Why don't these developed countries sell green energy, for instance, to these developing countries? Wouldn't that be a much better investment to make the world a better place? That move alone, for instance, wouldn't create so many refugees, either, which in itself, is creating another migrant crisis in the developed countries of Europe.
Developed countries have so much modern technology in non-arms area that they could & can easily sell that technology hardware & software to developing countries & regions, & help improve lives for all. It does happen but compared to billions of weapons transactions, these transactions have not much scope & influence.
So, if we want peace in this world, the first step is to stop the developed countries to stop giving weapons to the madmen of developing countries. Who is willing to take this first step? (Per my answer, not even one developed country).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Middle East is plunging deeper into an arms race, with an estimated $18 billion expected to be spent on weapons this year, a development that experts warn is fuelling serious tension & conflict in the region.
Given the unprecedented levels of weapon sales by the west (including the US, Canada & the UK) to the mainly Sunni Gulf states, Vladimir Putin’s decision ... to allow the controversial delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran ... seems likely to accelerate the proliferation.
That will see agreed arms sales to the top 5 purchasers in the region - Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Egypt & Iraq – surge this year to more than $18 billion, up from $12 billion last year. Among the systems being purchased are jet fighters, missiles, armoured vehicles, drones & helicopters.
The Russian declaration came only 2 days before Iraq’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, disclosed that he was seeking arms worth billions of dollars from Washington – with payment deferred – for the battle against Islamic State (Isis).
Last week France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, disclosed progress in talks to sell Rafale fighter jets to the UAE, one of the Middle East’s biggest & most aggressive arms buyers.
With conflicts raging in Syria, Iraq, Libya & Yemen, & with Egypt also battling Islamist extremists in the Sinai, the signs that Russia is preparing to increase its own arms sales – & to the Gulf states’ biggest rival, Iran – are raising fears that tensions will be stoked further still. In particular, Saudi Arabia & Iran are facing off in the conflict in Yemen ... .
According to the New York Times, defence industry officials have notified Congress that they are expecting additional requests from Arab states fighting Isis – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan & Egypt – for thousands of new US-made weapons, including missiles & bombs, to rebuild depleted arms stockpiles.
Ironically, among the key weapons suppliers in the arms race are permanent members of the UN security council who have been at the centre of 2 unconventional arms control initiatives – disarming the Syrian government’s stockpiles of chemical weapons & negotiating for a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme.
The scale of the arms race was revealed this year in reports published by IHS Jane’s Global Defence Trade Report & the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri). They showed how Saudi Arabia had become the world’s largest importer of weapons & fourth largest military spender & that other Middle East states were sharply increasing their arms purchases.
Adding to the concern is the fact that the spending spree on arms comes against the background of a marked increase in military interventions by countries in the region since the Arab spring in 2011. Saudi Arabia has intervened in Bahrain (at the request of that kingdom’s ruler during the so-called Pearl revolution), in Yemen in 2009 & again in Yemen this year.
And among those concerned by Saudi’s new military assertiveness - on the back of its arms buying spree - was the Iraqi prime minister, Abadi. “The dangerous thing is, we don’t know what the Saudis want to do after [their intervention in Yemen],” Abadi told US reporters last week. “Is Iraq within their radar? That’s very, very dangerous. The idea that you intervene in another state unprovoked just for regional ambition is wrong. Saddam has done it before. See what it has done to the country.”
And if the Saudi intervention in Yemen has been overt, no less real has been the proxy conflict that has set Iran & the Gulf states against each other in Syria, where Tehran has backed the government of Bashar al-Assad with military assistance & weapons, & Gulf states have backed different rebel groups, including Islamist ones.
“It’s crazy,” says Ben Moores, author of IHS Jane’s annual report on arms buying trends. “The one Canadian deal alone – to supply Saudi Arabia with light armoured vehicles – will account for 20% of the military vehicles sold globally in years covered by the contract. And this is just the thin edge of the wedge. Saudi has booked enough arms imports in 24 months for them to be worth $10 billion a year.”
While some countries, such as Kuwait, are in the process of modernisation, a key trend identified by Moores is how states are retooling to fight insurgency conflicts in the same way the US military has in Afghanistan & Iraq. “Look at UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt & Algeria. They were all countries that bought a lot of conventional arms in the past that are no use in a sectarian war or an insurgency.
“If you look at what was bought at the recent Idex arms fair in Abu Dhabi, it was drones, high-end surveillance satellites, strategic transport aircraft for projecting power. One of the reasons Egypt went with its recent purchase of Rafale jets [from France] is because it wanted planes that could deliver precision-guided standoff weapons.”
And as Tobias Borck of the Royal United Services Institute points out, states in the Middle East are now more prepared to use the weapons they are buying. “[The] Saudi-led military operations in Yemen [are] the latest manifestation of Arab interventionism, a trend that has been gaining momentum in the Middle East since the uprisings of the Arab spring,” he says. “Middle Eastern countries appear to be increasingly willing to use their armed forces to protect & pursue their interests in crisis zones across the region.”
Referring to the inconsistent approach by key security council members towards arms control in the region, he adds: “There are a lot of different streams feeding into this arms race. On Syria’s chemical weapons & the Iranian nuclear programme, the 2 issues were ring fenced as pure arms control questions. When it comes to how we perceive our arms sales – whether they are British or US or whatever – it tends to be seen as a domestic economic issue – protecting our factories.
“That neglects the regional political dimensions, with arms sales taking place with a lack of regard for that context & without long-term strategic awareness.”
Borck says that the scale of the arms being supplied to countries such as Saudi Arabia & the UAE by the west may also be acting as an incentive for Russia to get back into the Middle East – not least via arms sales to its old clients such as Iran – & may have been a motivating factor in the Kremlin’s decision to lift the ban on the delivery of the S-300 missile system.
Putin, defending the decision to supply the missiles during a call-in television show last week, cited Russia’s prerogative to pursue its own foreign policy initiatives & suggested that the missiles could represent “a deterrent factor in connection with the situation in Yemen”.
Omar Ashour, an expert on Middle East security issues at Exeter University, has sounded a further note of caution, this time over the intentions of the new Saudi-led Arab coalition, warning that its interventions are unlikely to contribute to stability. “The rise of Arab military coalitions raises serious concerns,” he wrote in a recent piece for Project Syndicate. “Such interventions were usually aimed at empowering a proxy political force over its military & political rivals, instead of averting humanitarian disaster or institutionalising a non-violent conflict-resolution mechanism following a war.”
Speaking to the Guardian last week, he added: “On top of that, the increases in arms sales are bound to be extremely destabilising. At the moment most of the interventions have been against softer targets – Saudi Arabia targeting guerrillas in Yemen; Egypt against Bedouin in Sinai; or strikes against ragtag armies in Libya. But if the ‘soft’ keeps being hit hard, they won’t remain soft. They will find their own patrons & proxies & hit back & it will lead to a vicious cycle.”
Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher at Sipri, which maintains a database tracking arms contracts, raises another concern. “Something that doesn’t get mentioned is the complete lack of interest in arms control among the countries in the region. It is not in the minds of leaders & decision-makers, except for the need to arm to defeat any potential opponent.
“There is already instability in the region on several levels. You have instability in Yemen, Syria & Iraq. There is instability between Iran & the Gulf states. What is important now is how the massive expansion of the armed forces of Saudi Arabia, UAE & Qatar will be seen as posing a clear threat to Iran.”
Borck adds a final warning: “If you are going for an ever bigger hammer, then the more desperate you are to make every problem a nail.”
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
To move beyond boom & bust, we need a new theory of capitalism
Although, this op-ed piece is a good one, posing an important question to think about in regards to the economic policy of a country & for countries, worldwide, my own view says, regardless of which economic policy we come up with, we will still have these booms & busts.
The idea of free markets, capitalism, democracy, social democracy etc are all good & noble, but the problem in them lie in the proper implementation of these ideas. We cannot ever properly implement it ... without religion.
Now, people will groan, what religion has to do with free markets or democracy or capitalism?
I can't talk about this from other religions since I don't know what other religions say or don't say about the problems the whole world is having by adhering to these ideals. I can, though, talk about economic policy & capitalism from Islamic perspective.
Since, this is a very long & deep topic to discuss even from a religious perspective, so I'll talk at a high-level. I will say here that Islam doesn't forbid capitalism. Today's problems are not with Capitalism itself; it's other factors making problems for Capitalism. What are those problems?
1. Greed: Islam abhors greed. Even Christianity has greed as one of its 7 deadly sins. One of the 10 commandments, "thou shall not steal," includes greed (when one is greedy, they will steal to satisfy their need).
Problem is greed is actually considered good in secular or atheist world. For instance, entrepreneurs are told to be hungry & greedy to achieve greatness or whatever they are trying to achieve. So, if Facebook takes your personal data & sell it to third parties for profits, then you can't complain, because it's part & parcel of free markets. Nothing is right or wrong in free markets.
After the 2008 crisis, there was, & still is, a lot of noise about market regulations in US & Europe. Well, the government agencies were made. Regulations were enacted (after they were heavily watered down, thanks to the heavy lobbying efforts from the Wall Street crowd). But, the implementation of those regulations are nowhere near to their initial objective. Why?
Because, for every law a human makes, an "anti-law" a human finds. What's an "anti-law"? A loop hole. We can see all around us that for every law, there are loop holes available.
We humans, regardless of how hard we try to make the strongest possible law, there will always be a loop hole. That's why, religion stopped it at the spiritual level; no greed. So, if bankers or executives or government leaders turn all devout Muslims, or Christians, or Jews or religious people tomorrow, they can't steal from the public to line up their own pockets. They have to shun greed for the public good.
What's that has to do with Capitalism? Capitalism says a society should have private enterprises. That's good & ok. But then, businessmen take that concept & open private companies & then to always earn more money (nobody can satisfy greed), they commit abuses (labour abuses, market abuses, corruption, lies, bribery etc etc) to fatten up their accounts. Of course, the result ends up being a major part of the populations keep becoming poorer & poorer. Inequality & injustice take the rein of society. A few elites take control of the liquidity in the market (money) & start controlling government so it makes policies favouring them (government leaders are paid handsomely). All because of few people became greedy.
2. Interest economy: Islam forbade interest because an economy based on interest creates a rich class & a poor class. Since, the money the rich has is making him/her more money, he/she will always make money without putting in that much effort, whereas, the poor does not have enough money, he/she will have to borrow more money (& hence, pay interest to the rich) to survive.
Relation to capitalism? As I said earlier, nothing is wrong with Capitalism as an idea, but this is one of the many factors which create problems for a society & its people, & then we blame capitalism.
3. Consumerism: It's sort of part of greed; a greed of accumulating / buying more things for yourself. So, of course, Islam abhors consumerism. Modern marketing thrives on this notion. Economy measurement tools, e.g. GDP are dependent on it. The more people buy, the more GDP goes up, the more a country is shown to be developing or doing good, economically.
Relation to capitalism? Again, one of the factors adversely affecting capitalism. In the race to sell more, business people abandon all ethics & morals (lying to people to buy houses with ultra-cheap interest rates, even when they know these people can't afford these houses) & people getting greedy to become homeowners at any cost. Result is in front of you all. After the house mortgages, credit card debts are the next mountain of the world. With ultra cheap interest rates around the world, people are on the hunt to load up their houses with things, even at the cost of racking up huge credit card debts. When interest rates are going to increase, & then people unable to pay their credit card bills or even service interests, the market gonna crash.
We are ready to blame Capitalism for all our economics ills but capitalism has nothing to do with whatever problem we are having. Capitalism only says private enterprises. It doesn't say anything about interest economy, consumerism, human greed, or economic measurement tools (e.g. GDP). But these, & other factors, affect how the economy performs, domestically & internationally. Most of these factors can be controlled only through religion.
Regardless of how much we think we are intelligent to make laws to control these factors, we can never completely eliminate them (there are always loop holes), & they will always win, & when these factors take over the society, the majority of human population suffers. This is not the first time we have seen human greed destroying the world; be it the Roman emperors pillaging other colonies (& for example, heavily taxing the public) to satisfy their greed or the 1 percenters of the current world keep amassing wealth, at the expense of the other 99%, to satisfy their greed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the year that economics might, if we are lucky, turn a corner. There’s a deluge of calls for change in the way it is taught in universities. There’s a global conference at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris, where the giants of radical economics ... will get their biggest ever mainstream platform. And there’s a film where a star of Monty Python talks to a puppet of Hyman Minsky.
Terry Jones’s documentary film Boom Bust Boom hits the cinemas this month. Using puppetry & talking heads (including mine), Jones is trying to popularise the work of Minsky, a US economist who died in 1996 but whose name has become for ever associated with the Lehman Brothers crash. Terrified analysts labelled it the “Minsky moment”.
Minsky’s genius was to show that financially complex capitalism is inherently unstable. Under conditions of stability, firms, banks & households will, over time, move from a position where their income pays off their debt, to one where it can only meet the interest payments on it. Finally, as instability rises, & central banks respond by expanding the supply of money, people end up borrowing just to pay back interest. The price of shares, homes & commodities rockets. Bust becomes inevitable.
This logical & coherent prediction was laughed at until it came true. Mainstream economics had convinced itself that capitalism tends towards equilibrium; & that any shocks must be external. It did so by reducing economic thought to the construction of abstract models, which perfectly describe the system 95% of the time, but break down during critical events.
In the aftermath of the crisis ... Minsky’s insight has been acknowledged. But his supporters face a problem. The mainstream has a model; the radicals do not. The mainstream theory is “good enough” to run a business, a finance ministry or a central bank – as long as you are prepared, in practice, to ignore that theory when faced with crises.
That, effectively, describes the situation among the policymaking elite today. They are trying to wrestle the economy back into a state where their models can cope with it again, using measures their theories say are not needed: quantitative easing, bank nationalisations, partial debt defaults & currency devaluations.
The radical, pro-Minsky faction is at a disadvantage because it does not possess a complete alternative model of capitalism. Some have generated computer programs showing how financial crises happen. But, by their own admission, they do not have a complete alternative model of how capitalism works.
They are, admits Dutch finance professor Theo Kocken, “roughly right” rather than “exactly wrong”. Kocken’s solution is to concentrate on why we misperceive risk. Behavioural economics has had a field day since 2008, identifying problems for the human brain when faced with complex risks: oversimplification, overconfidence & “confirmation bias”, where we ignore facts that challenge our existing beliefs. But adding behavioural insights to the Minsky model of financial mania does not turn it into a theory of capitalism.
Here, the parallels with events in physics are obvious. After Einstein’s big breakthrough, we were left with 2 competing – & mutually incompatible – accounts of the laws of physics. Einstein himself was dissatisfied with this, pursuing from the 1920s a “theory of everything”. It is a laudable aim in economics too. And this is where we come to the turning point. The defenders of orthodox economics & the Minsky rebels are, essentially, asking the same question: “What does capitalism normally look like?” The one answers “stable”; the other “unstable”. But it’s the wrong question. The right question is: Where are we in the long arc of capitalist development? Nearer the beginning, the middle or the end? But that question goes to the heart of darkness.
For the mainstream, their convictions about equilibrium & abstract models were always founded on the belief that capitalism is an eternal system: the social arrangement most completely reflecting human nature. Minsky’s followers, as with all followers of JM Keynes, assume that a better understanding of financial mania can stabilise an inherently unstable system. But even physicists, who study a universe that has lasted 13bn years, are prepared to countenance – indeed, are obsessed with modelling – its death.
So the pursuit of theory is obligatory in economics. The holy grail is not a new orthodoxy, cobbled together from Minsky & the remnants of mainstream thought so that bankers can construct trading models to iron out problems created by the way our brains work. The aim should be something bigger to model capitalism’s current crisis within an understanding of its destiny.
For me, the most fundamental question in economics still concerns the 2008 crisis. Was this event the last in a series of shocks needed to allow a third technological revolution to take off? Or was it evidence that capitalism’s tendency to adapt and reshape in response to technology has stalled, or is even finished? That is the shadow we have to jump over in economics. Amid a mania for “new economic thinking”, it is what we need to think hardest about.
Friday, May 8, 2015
Water crisis coming in 15 years unless the world acts now, UN report warns
It's funny how humans themselves are causing more crises in the world than the nature ever could. And it's happening more & more in this modern world, when a great majority is supposed to be educated. Although, a lot of developing countries have a large mass of poor who are not educated, but they are not cause of this crisis but they are the first ones who will suffer from these water & general environmental crises. The developed countries, which are educated & much better technology to help resolve these crises, are the ones which created these environmental problems & are willing to do more harm than good.
Some will counter with the argument that the world has too many people now & population control is the answer to resolve these problems. Increasing population is not the problem & controlling it won't resolve the climate change problem. Primary problem is the concentration of resources in a very few hands & those hands are misusing those resources.
For instance, the developed countries (e.g. G8 countries) could've used the opportunity of recession as the impetus to invest heavily in alternative energy & consumer products using alternative energy, e.g. transportation systems using alternative energy. That would've solved the problem of job creation & perhaps, could've took the world out of recession much more quicker.
Now, cars (e.g. Tesla) are being made to work on alternative modes of energy, but those won't be affordable for the general public for, at least, 10-20 years. Plus, in the race to becoming energy independent, America is allowing fracking all over the country to extract oil & gas, & turning a blind eye to the problems of polluting little clean water the country has, which is getting polluted because of fracking.
These water crises could have been managed much more astutely in the past 10-20 years where we wouldn't be having these reports of impending doom & gloom. Science was much farther ahead in coming up with products to counter the problems of climate change, but the leaders of developed countries never took any meaningful steps towards resolving these crises.
Now, the problems have snowballed to where the poor masses of the developed & developing countries, alike, will suffer the most & eventually, the rich will feel the pressure & pain of neglecting the suffering of the poor. Water, unlike oil, is much more vital resource & people will rise up, much more violently, when they are robbed off this basic vital resource to keep themselves alive.
On a side note, Islam told its followers 1,500 years ago to use water very carefully because you will be questioned, on Judgement Day, for each & every drop of water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world could suffer a 40% shortfall in water in just 15 years unless countries dramatically change their use of the resource, a UN report warned.
Many underground water reserves are already running low, while rainfall patterns are predicted to become more erratic with climate change. As the world’s population grows to an expected 9 billion by 2050, more groundwater will be needed for farming, industry & personal consumption.
The report predicts global water demand will increase 55% by 2050, while reserves dwindle. If current usage trends don’t change, the world will have only 60% of the water it needs in 2030, it said.
Having less available water risks catastrophe on many fronts: crops could fail, ecosystems could break down, industries could collapse, disease & poverty could worsen, & violent conflicts over access to water could become more frequent.
“Unless the balance between demand & finite supplies is restored, the world will face an increasingly severe global water deficit,” the annual World Water Development Report said, noting that more efficient use could guarantee enough supply in the future.
The report ... calls on policy makers & communities to rethink water policies, urging more conservation as well as recycling of wastewater as is done in Singapore. Countries may also want to consider raising prices for water, as well as searching for ways to make water-intensive sectors more efficient & less polluting, it said.
In many countries, including India, water use is largely unregulated & often wasteful. Pollution of water is often ignored & unpunished. At least 80% of India’s population relies on groundwater for drinking to avoid bacteria-infested surface waters.
In agriculture-intense India, where studies show some aquifers are being depleted at the world’s fastest rates, the shortfall has been forecast at 50% or even higher. Climate change is expected to make the situation worse, as higher temperatures & more erratic weather patterns could disrupt rainfall.
Currently, about 748 million people worldwide have poor access to clean drinking water, the report said, cautioning that economic growth alone is not the solution – & could make the situation worse unless reforms ensure more efficiency & less pollution.
“Unsustainable development pathways & governance failures have affected the quality & availability of water resources, compromising their capacity to generate social & economic benefits,” it said. “Economic growth itself is not a guarantee for wider social progress.”
Some will counter with the argument that the world has too many people now & population control is the answer to resolve these problems. Increasing population is not the problem & controlling it won't resolve the climate change problem. Primary problem is the concentration of resources in a very few hands & those hands are misusing those resources.
For instance, the developed countries (e.g. G8 countries) could've used the opportunity of recession as the impetus to invest heavily in alternative energy & consumer products using alternative energy, e.g. transportation systems using alternative energy. That would've solved the problem of job creation & perhaps, could've took the world out of recession much more quicker.
Now, cars (e.g. Tesla) are being made to work on alternative modes of energy, but those won't be affordable for the general public for, at least, 10-20 years. Plus, in the race to becoming energy independent, America is allowing fracking all over the country to extract oil & gas, & turning a blind eye to the problems of polluting little clean water the country has, which is getting polluted because of fracking.
These water crises could have been managed much more astutely in the past 10-20 years where we wouldn't be having these reports of impending doom & gloom. Science was much farther ahead in coming up with products to counter the problems of climate change, but the leaders of developed countries never took any meaningful steps towards resolving these crises.
Now, the problems have snowballed to where the poor masses of the developed & developing countries, alike, will suffer the most & eventually, the rich will feel the pressure & pain of neglecting the suffering of the poor. Water, unlike oil, is much more vital resource & people will rise up, much more violently, when they are robbed off this basic vital resource to keep themselves alive.
On a side note, Islam told its followers 1,500 years ago to use water very carefully because you will be questioned, on Judgement Day, for each & every drop of water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world could suffer a 40% shortfall in water in just 15 years unless countries dramatically change their use of the resource, a UN report warned.
Many underground water reserves are already running low, while rainfall patterns are predicted to become more erratic with climate change. As the world’s population grows to an expected 9 billion by 2050, more groundwater will be needed for farming, industry & personal consumption.
The report predicts global water demand will increase 55% by 2050, while reserves dwindle. If current usage trends don’t change, the world will have only 60% of the water it needs in 2030, it said.
Having less available water risks catastrophe on many fronts: crops could fail, ecosystems could break down, industries could collapse, disease & poverty could worsen, & violent conflicts over access to water could become more frequent.
“Unless the balance between demand & finite supplies is restored, the world will face an increasingly severe global water deficit,” the annual World Water Development Report said, noting that more efficient use could guarantee enough supply in the future.
The report ... calls on policy makers & communities to rethink water policies, urging more conservation as well as recycling of wastewater as is done in Singapore. Countries may also want to consider raising prices for water, as well as searching for ways to make water-intensive sectors more efficient & less polluting, it said.
In many countries, including India, water use is largely unregulated & often wasteful. Pollution of water is often ignored & unpunished. At least 80% of India’s population relies on groundwater for drinking to avoid bacteria-infested surface waters.
In agriculture-intense India, where studies show some aquifers are being depleted at the world’s fastest rates, the shortfall has been forecast at 50% or even higher. Climate change is expected to make the situation worse, as higher temperatures & more erratic weather patterns could disrupt rainfall.
Currently, about 748 million people worldwide have poor access to clean drinking water, the report said, cautioning that economic growth alone is not the solution – & could make the situation worse unless reforms ensure more efficiency & less pollution.
“Unsustainable development pathways & governance failures have affected the quality & availability of water resources, compromising their capacity to generate social & economic benefits,” it said. “Economic growth itself is not a guarantee for wider social progress.”
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)