south-africa

The Most Dangerous Cities In The World

by on December 11, 2011

Huffington Post…

Recently, a series of roadside bombs killed 11 people and injured dozens more in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. The attacks were part of coordinated assaults by insurgent elements around the country that killed 32 people and remind us how violent the area remains.

See original here:
The Most Dangerous Cities In The World

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

Huffington Post…

ZURICH – Swiss and U.S. officials have met in recent days in Berne to try to end a long-running dispute over wealthy Americans using secret Swiss accounts to dodge taxes, and seem to be getting closer to a deal, two newspapers reported on Sunday. The fact that Michael Danilack of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service travelled to Berne for the first time to meet Swiss negotiator Michael Ambuehl was seen as a positive sign. “That shows the U.S. has a considerable interest in the negotiations and that a breakthrough seems possible,” an unnamed Swiss diplomat told the NZZ am Sonntag newspaper. Mario Tuor, a spokesman for the Swiss secretariat for international financial affairs, confirmed the talks had taken place, but declined to comment further beyond saying more negotiations were planned. The NZZ am Sonntag and the SonntagsZeitung newspaper said the negotiators were seeking a deal for the whole Swiss banking industry, as well as the 11 banks under formal investigation over allegations they assisted tax evasion. They include Credit Suisse (CSGN.VX), Julius Baer (BAER.VX) and Basler Kantonalbank (BSKP.S). The Swiss want the investigations dropped in return for payment of fines and the transfer of hundreds, or even thousands, of names of clients suspected of tax evasion but have been haggling over how to do this given strict bank secrecy laws. The SonntagsZeitung cited an unnamed source as saying negotiators are seeking two parallel deals, one for the 11 banks under investigation, and a separate one for the industry as a whole which would levy a punitive tax on undeclared assets. In 2009, Swiss authorities reached a deal for UBS (UBSN.VX) to pay a fine of $780 million to avert criminal charges, and ultimately agreed to allow the bank to reveal details of around 4,450 clients. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Follow this link:
Swiss, U.S. Officials Inch Closer To Deal On Tax-Dodging Americans: Reports

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

Kevin L. Petrasic: CFPB Ratchets Up Consumer Complaint Surveillance

December 8, 2011

As the CFPB continues the process of ramping up its supervisory operations and consumer protection programs, emerging is a unique brand of consumer complaint supervision highlighting the special emphasis and approach in how the CFPB is pursuing its consumer financial protection mission. This was recently highlighted in separate initiatives of the new agency’s Consumer Response complaint system addressing two of the areas in which the agency is expected to be the most active. The first involves the agency’s announcement that it is beginning to process mortgage-related complaints through the Consumer Response system. The second relates to an interim report issued by the CFPB on its first three months of activity collecting data on consumer credit card complaints. These two areas of emphasis of the Consumer Response system are likely to attract considerable consumer attention and a significant portion of the consumer complaints that come into the system. Both areas have generated significant legislative and regulatory attention in recent years, and the expectations are high that the CFPB may be relatively aggressive if not activist in addressing many of the issues that have been the subject of recent lawmaking activities. Add into the mix a close working relationship between the CFPB and the various State Attorneys General, it is not difficult to foresee enforcement responses in areas in which consumer complaints highlight what the CFPB views as the most egregious anti-consumer behavior. Certainly, consumer input has been important in framing legislation and regulations tailored to address anti-consumer behavior in the financial sector, and consumer complaints are a factor in the supervisory and examination oversight activities of depository institutions by the federal banking agencies. However, the CFPB’s Consumer Response system promises to go further by using consumer complaints as a direct mechanism in analyzing potential anti-consumer behavior, which can then be used to direct supervisory activities, pursue potential enforcement actions, and formulate policy responses. While some will argue that the federal banking agencies have been doing this for many years, there is a distinct difference to how the CFPB is ratcheting up its Consumer Response system to support its supervisory mission. For one, the CFPB has consumer financial protection as its primary and only mission. In contrast, the federal banking agencies have a number of important missions — protecting the safety and soundness of the institutions they regulate, minimizing risks to the Federal Deposit Insurance system, overseeing and ensuring the integrity of the payments systems (not to mention monitoring monetary and fiscal policy, in the case of the Federal Reserve), promoting policies to ensure credit availability, as well as ensuring and promoting consumer protection. In many instances, these various missions are not always in sync and, at times, circumstances may favor ensuring safety and soundness and other important considerations over consumer protection, at least from a supervisory (if not a policy) perspective. More fundamentally, the CFPB is currently in the process of building a Consumer Response system and database that it will be able to model and draw from in pursuing its consumer financial protection mission. With respect to the agency’s announcement that it is now starting to process mortgage-related complaints, we should expect a number of things to come from this initiative. First, and most obviously, there is the possibility that particular activities or players in the mortgage space could become subject to significant CFPB scrutiny. In this regard, the CFPB highlights in its Supervision and Examination Manual that it intends to conduct both target (one entity) and horizontal (one product across multiple entities) reviews as part of its examination program. Clearly, consumer complaint information gathered from the agency’s Consumer Response system would be available to support both purposes in connection with the agency’s oversight and supervision of mortgage products, practices and industry participants. Perhaps more important is the availability of consumer complaint information to support the agency’s regulatory policy and rulemaking function, which includes the possibility of upcoming reviews of important mortgage-related regulations in areas such as the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act, Truth in Lending Act, as well as the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The area in which the Consumer Response system already has a track record is with respect to consumer credit card complaint data. Again, there are various uses for this information, not the least of which is providing an opportunity for consumer redress, as well as laying a foundation for a supervisory, regulatory or a potential enforcement response to address consumer issues arising with a particular entity or with respect to a particular credit card product or feature. Interestingly, the interim data collected by the CFPB Consumer Response system includes information on the 5,074 credit card complaints filed with the agency for the three-moth period from July 21, 2011 through October 21, 2011 . Highlighting a very proactive feature of the system, the agency notes that about 84% of all complaints were forwarded to credit card issuers, with approximately three-quarters of forwarded complaints being fully or partially resolved. Perhaps the most telling “preliminary” conclusion of the CFPB interim credit card report was the information drawn on another important area that falls squarely within the CFPB’s mission — and which offers significant opportunities for the agency to work with the industry to improve — consumer education. As noted in the report, “many complaints show consumers struggling to understand the terms of credit cards and associated products like debt protection services.” The other important finding highlighted by the agency, again which should be deemed preliminary given the relatively small number of complaints reflected in the interim report, is the extent of fraudulent charges to consumers’ credit cards made by third parties. According to the report, “the complaint system has identified recurring scams and helped to obtain redress for defrauded consumers.” Again, this is an area that offers considerable opportunities for the agency to work with the credit card industry to address. Thus, in addition to being used as being available as a supervisory and enforcement tool, and in formulating regulatory policy, the CFPB’s Consumer Response system may identify areas and opportunities for agency-industry cooperation that may serve to further the best interests of the consumer, the industry and the agency in pursuing its consumer protection mission. The challenge, of course, will be for the agency to determine how best to work with various industries to realize the potential benefits of identifying ways to improve consumer financial education, reduce fraud, and pursue other mutually beneficial areas that may be identified by the CFPB’s Consumer Response system database. Most critical in all of this is the consumers’ role in providing factual and accurate information to the agency, as well as assuming responsibility for educating themselves about the consumer financial services and products they use, and continually monitoring financial account activity and usage to be able to identify issues and potential risks.

Read the full article →

Steve Rosenbaum: Will the Postal Service Save Email from the Grave?

December 8, 2011

It sounds kind of crazy (or crazy awesome) — a company banning email for all its employees. But this is no item from News of the Weird . Far from it. The company that banned email is Europe’s largest IT company, one with 75,000 employees and $13 billion in annual revenue, which operates in 13 countries. The company, Atos, is the official IT shop for the Olympic games. Atos CEO Thierry Breton explained that “email is no longer the appropriate communication tool,” and that the “zero email” policy would be phased in over the next 18 months. Breton says he hasn’t sent an email in the past three years, and that Facebook, text, and the phone will replace email for his company, as they prepare for a new wave of usage and behavior. By 2014, the technology research group Gartner predicts social networking services will replace email as the principal method of interpersonal communications for 20 percent of business users. So, is email dead? Can we do something to change it? And should we? While connecting via social networks and walled gardens is certainly safer and more contextual, it’s also a disturbing trend toward isolationism. It says, “You can’t reach me unless you know me, or know someone who knows me who will introduce you.” How did email get so broken, so noisy, and so damned annoying anyway? Think back to the emergence of the phone. At first it was expensive and costly to use the phone for telemarketing. Imagine if all day long from morning till night your phone rang with an endless back-to-back stream of offers to “make money while you sleep,” update your FedEx account, or transfer a large amount of cash from an Ethiopian businessman. How long would it be before you ripped the phone wire out of the wall? About 10 seconds. But by the time the phone costs had come down, the federal government had begun to give telephone customers the protections to ban unsolicited telemarketers. Simply put, the cost of the phone made it too expensive for large-scale spammers. But email doesn’t cost anything — for the sender, that is. For the receiver the costs are painfully real. Time, sanity, and attention span are all suffering. Which is why I think it’s time for the United States Postal Service to take over the management, operations, and back-end billing for the users of email. How would this work? I’d propose that person-to-person communication be very low-cost, perhaps a few pennies per email. But business communications would pay a premium. And commercial advertising would be expensive, meaningfully so. This would stop a company from sending me advertisements about breast enhancements, since a simple bit of logic would say I’m probably not a customer. And perhaps most punitively, receivers should be able to bounce an unwanted commercial email and charge the sender a punitive fee for a mis-targeted outreach. So, what’s wrong with this plan? Lots, of course. The Postal Service has no legal right to control email. But I have to believe that Congress could find a way to find it in the public interest to both save the Postal Service and take some useful role in creating a reasonable governance system for email. Email was once wonderful, a magical, efficient, direct way to connect with people and share ideas and information. It’s not gone yet, but it’s facing near-term extinction. Email needs a traffic cop, with the power to manage the electronic commons and keep things running smoothly and fairly. I say save email. And I think my friend Pete the Postman is just the man for the job. What’s your solution? This piece was originally published by Fast Company .

Read the full article →

Corporate Jargon: The Overused, The Confusing And The Downright Strange

December 8, 2011

Are you tired of thinking outside of the box? According to a survey by Career Builder, so are your employees. A poll of 5,300 full-time employees helped rank the most overused and under-appreciated corporate jargon that they’d like to see leave the boardroom. In a post on its Hiring Site blog, Career Builder editor Amy Chulik wrote, “Navigating workplace issues can be tricky enough without throwing flowery, cliche (or just plain made up) vocabulary words in each other’s faces. It only takes one brave person to turn ‘outside the box’ into ‘creatively’ or ‘let’s circle back’ to ‘I’ll call you’ — and suddenly, we can begin to peel back the layers of complexity and really talk honestly to each other.” According to the survey, the most overused jargon is: Outside the Box: 31 Percent Low-hanging fruit: 24 Percent Synergy: 23 Percent Loop me in: 22 Percent Best of breed: 19 Percent Incentivize: 19 Percent Mission-critical: 19 Percent Bring to the table: 18 Percent Value-add: 17 Percent Elevator pitch: 16 Percent Actionable Items: 15 Percent Proactive: 15 Percent Circle back: 13 Percent Bandwidth: 13 Percent High Level: 10 Percent Learnings: 9 Percent Next Steps: 6 Percent

Read the full article →

Blood Diamonds Aren’t Gone, Says Global Watchdog

December 5, 2011

An International NGO at the forefront of investigating the illicit trade of blood diamonds has announced it will be leaving the United Nations-backed Kimberley Process . Global Witness said in a statement Monday that the group is pulling out of the conflict-free diamond certification program due to what they called its inability “to evolve and address the clear links between diamonds, violence and tyranny.” Launched January 2003 and named after a UN meeting in Kimberley, South Africa , the Kimberley Process program aims to trace the illicit trade of blood diamonds, with governments certifying that shipments of rough diamonds aren’t fueling wars or other violence. Nevertheless, Reuters reports the program can’t guarantee diamonds are conflict-free, pointing to several abuses across Africa where companies still mine for rough diamonds despite reported human rights abuses. In announcing their departure from the program, Global Witness Founding Director Charmian Gooch wrote on specific shortcomings: “The scheme has failed three tests: it failed to deal with the trade in conflict diamonds from Cote d’Ivoire, was unwilling to take serious action in the face of blatant breaches of the rules over a number of years by Venezuela and has proved unwilling to stop diamonds fueling corruption and violence in Zimbabwe.” Despite Human Rights Watch and Global Witness citing abuses in Zimbabwe’s mines , the Kimberley Process still gave the green light in November for two companies to export diamonds from the Marange diamond field in Zimbabwe, according to the BBC. Global Witness has long played a key role in monitoring conflict, corruption and natural resources. In 1997, the unknown NGO first discovered that diamonds were fueling war in West Africa. In late 1998, it launched a campaign that first drew the world’s attention to the blood diamond issue.

Read the full article →

China Signals Coming Shift In Measuring CO2 Limits

December 2, 2011

DURBAN, South Africa — An influential Chinese analyst says his country may adjust how it measures carbon emission targets as early as 2020, bringing it more in line with Western governments and signaling a possible opening in international climate negotiations. Xu Huaqing, a senior researcher for China’s Energy Research Institute, was quoted Friday in the semiofficial China Daily as saying Beijing could set absolute caps on its carbon emissions – comments later confirmed privately by one of China’s top climate negotiators on the sidelines of the international climate talks in South Africa. It was the first time China has mentioned a timetable toward a hard emissions cap, the article said, and was seen as a significant move by veteran China watchers. Until now, China has spoken of emissions controls purely in terms of energy intensity, or the amount of energy it uses per unit of economic production. It pledged last year to reduce its energy input by 40 to 45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. China is the world’s largest emitter of heat-trapping greenhouse gas and a main foil of industrial countries in U.N. negotiations on an accord to control global emissions. Virtually every statement, official or from one of China’s approved think tanks like the energy institute, is parsed and dissected by delegates seeking departures from its public positions. Most other countries have set targets for controlling emissions in absolute terms. The European Union, for example, has committed to slash total emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. The change in emissions limits does not mean that China will begin reducing them immediately. As its economy grows, its emissions will continue to rise, probably into the 2030s, Xu was quoted as saying. Jake Schmidt, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Xu is considered a conservative, and his words carry more punch than if they came from one of the more liberal analysts of the think tank. “Sometimes China floats ideas from groups like the ERI,” that carry weight even though they are not official policy, Schmidt said. Su Wei, head of the Chinese delegation at the 192-party talks, confirmed Xu’s comments in a private meeting with nongovernment organizations late Thursday. But Su said the shift would be dependent on the state of China’s development at the time, said Fuquiang Yang, also of the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council who once was a researcher for Xu’s prestigious think tank. Elaborating on Xu’s statement, Su told the nonprofit groups that a shift to absolute caps depended on how far China had moved toward a low-carbon economy, whether it had improved its energy efficiency, and whether it can obtain and deploy new technologies. It also wanted to see efficiency reflected in Chinese consumer behavior, said Fuquiang. In a public meeting Friday, Su said China needed to continue its development. Although it would do its part in fighting climate change, he said, China “needs to have a reasonable consumption of energy … Emissions must grow to meet the needs of the people.” The climate talks began Monday and continue next week with the arrival of higher ranking delegations. The U.N. said it expected 12 heads of state, mostly from Africa, and 136 Cabinet ministers to attend the final four days of talks, which are due to end Dec. 9.

Read the full article →

Online Sales Leap On Black Friday

November 26, 2011

LOS ANGELES — Online shoppers didn’t wait around until Cyber Monday to start their holiday shopping. According to IBM Corp. research unit Coremetrics, U.S. consumers spent 20 percent more online on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, this year than last, while online sales jumped 39 percent on Thanksgiving Day. Coremetrics measures sales data from more than 500 online retailers, including half of the top 50. It doesn’t reveal its partners or specific dollar figures. Both Coremetrics and e-commerce payment site PayPal, a united of eBay Inc., said shopping by mobile phone is increasingly substantially this year. PayPal said it saw five times more mobile payments worldwide this Thanksgiving, compared with last year. And Coremetrics said about 17 percent of Black Friday visitors to retail websites came via mobile devices, up from about 5 percent a year ago. There were sporadic reports of shoppers having trouble with crowded websites. Some visitors to Walmart.com reported problems paying for their merchandise at checkout, according to posts on GottaDeal.com and other websites. Toys R Us Inc. spokeswoman Kathleen Waugh said Friday that the toy retailer’s site experienced “some slowness” when it unveiled some online deals at 9 p.m. Eastern time Thursday. She said the company’s online sales are up “extensively” from a year ago. Online sales typically account for about one-tenth of total sales in November, one of the biggest shopping periods of the year, said John Squire, an executive with IBM’s e-commerce marketing unit. That share looks to rise this year. IBM’s Coremetrics predicts online sales will grow about 15 percent this year, compared with growth of a few percentage points for brick-and-mortar stores. Some retailers save their online deals for the first business day of the week following Thanksgiving, now known as Cyber Monday. And Squire predicted that Cyber Monday’s online sales will exceed the total reached on Black Friday by early afternoon. Squire said its partners’ websites hadn’t had major glitches Thursday or Friday. “People keep spending money online, so that’s a great indicator that the sites are running,” he said.

Read the full article →

Shoppers Answer Stores’ Call, Showing Up Early For Black Friday Deals

November 25, 2011

NEW YORK — Move over turkey – it’s time to shop. Black Friday began in earnest as Target, Abercrombie & Fitch and other stores opened their doors at midnight – a few hours earlier than they normally do on the most anticipated shopping day of the year. A few retailers even had lines of shoppers when they opened on Thanksgiving Day. Herald Square in New York was bustling at 6 p.m. with shoppers looking to snag discounts at Old Navy and other stores that were open on the Thanksgiving. By 9:45 p.m., more than 300 people were waiting outside a Best Buy in New York before it opened at midnight. An hour later, nearly 2,000 were in line at another Best Buy in St. Petersburg, Fla., ahead of its midnight opening. Roberto Rubi, 24, of Seminole, Fla., had been standing in line since 1 a.m. on Thanksgiving morning and hoped to score a cheap TV and laptop. He ate dinner with his family at home while three of his buddies took his place in line. “It’s hard times,” Rubi says. “So, any discount helps.” Retailers hope the earlier openings will make shopping more convenient for Americans who are more likely to be worried about high unemployment and the other challenges they face in the weak economy. Black Friday is important to merchants because it kicks off the holiday shopping season, a time when they can make 25 to 40 percent of their annual revenue. It’s expected that shoppers will spend nearly $500 billion during the holiday shopping season, or about 3 percent more than they did last year. “It’s a good move to try to get shoppers to spend sooner, before they run out of money,” says Burt Flickinger, III, president of retail consultancy Strategic Resource Group. About 34 percent of consumers plan to shop on Black Friday, up from 31 percent last year, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers, and 16 percent had planned to shop on Thanksgiving Day itself. For the weekend, 152 million people are expected shop, up from 138 million last year. To get people to shop, merchants pulled out of their bag of tricks. A few opened last year at midnight, but several other stores are doing so this year. Some are matching the prices of their competitors. Others are offering layaway plans that allow shoppers to pay as they go. But the deals are what’s driving many early shoppers into stores. After all, Americans are focusing more on bargains these days, a habit they picked up during the economic downturn. The Gap is offering discounts of 20 to 60 percent on many items. Old Navy has pea coats for $29 and jeans for $15. Toys R Us is selling a Transformers Ultimate Optimus Prime action figure for $30 off at $47.99 and a Power Wheels Barbie vehicle for $120 off at $199.99. And Best Buy has a $499 42-inch LCD HDTV for $199 and a $400 Asus Transformer 10-inch tablet computer for $249.99. Millie Ayala, 28-year-old receptionist, began standing in line at a Toys R Us in New York at 5:30 p.m. on Thanksgiving, armed with the retailer’s circular and a plan for how she and her sister would scour the store for deals. On her list? An interactive dog named Cookie and dolls for her two young daughters. “Finances have been tough,” she says. “Things are a lot more expensive but with Black Friday deals, things are more affordable.” After showing up at Best Buy in New York on Wednesday at 3 p.m., Emmanuel Merced, 27, and his brother were the first in line when it opened. On their list was a Sharp 42-inch TV for $199, a PlayStation 3 console with games for $199.99 and wireless headphones for $30. Merced says he likes camping out for Black Friday and he figures he saved 50 percent. “I like the experience of it,” says Merced, who plans to spend $3,000 to $4,000 on gifts this season. It remains to be seen whether that enthusiasm will linger throughout the holiday shopping season. But analysts seem to agree that if retailers want shoppers to keep coming back, they’ll have to keep discounting. “The consumer is continuing to spend and shop and look for the bargains,” says said John D. Morris, BMO Capital Markets analyst. “If it’s the right product at the right price, she’s shopping and buying.” _____ Anne D’Innocenzio in New York and Tamara Lush in St. Petersburg, Fla., contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

German Finance Minister: Eurozone States Must Give EU More Power

November 12, 2011

BERLIN – Euro zone states must do more at a European level and pass some of their responsibilities for budget setting and fiscal policy to European institutions to find a way out of the debt crisis, Germany’s Finance Minister was quoted on Saturday as saying. Wolfgang Schaeuble told Germany weekly news magazine Focus that Italy would be able to overcome its problems, which stemmed from a confidence crisis on the markets. “The actual economic data is not so bad. The problems just need to be tackled… These are also solvable by Italy itself. What Rome must overcome is nothing like the mountain Greece must climb,” he said in an interview published on Saturday Although Europe now had a more stringent growth and stability pact which allows the chance to intervene much earlier, countries also had to do more at European Union level, he said. “The pressure of the crisis is allowing things to happen which otherwise wouldn’t be possible… the bigger the crisis the greater the need for change.” “The sense that this will bring us much further in the end helps me through the frustrating times.” To better ensure euro zone members respect their commitments, existing European Union treaties should be modified to give European Commission officials the same kind of enforcement powers for budgetary matters that they already have in the realm of competition issues, he said in a separate interview with Le Monde. “Why wouldn’t the membership of the commission in charge of putting the agreements into effect not have the same rights as the competition authority,” he asked the French paper. “Why does the right exist for violations of European laws to appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union but not violations of the Stability Pact?” Schaeuble also reiterated that France and Germany needed to keep pushing their proposal for a financial transactions tax even if there is reluctance on the part of some EU members. “If we don’t find a solution for the 27 EU members, it must then be discussed on the level of the euro zone,” he said. “Those who want to be leaders must move forward. That’s the case with France and Germany.” The tax proposal, formally made to the Group of 20 leading economies earlier this month by billionaire Bill Gates, failed to win the backing of the G20 although French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said he still plans to pursue the idea. (Reporting by Alexandra Hudson and Christian Plumb; editing by Patrick Graham) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

G20 Finance Ministers To Back Big Bank Capital Surcharge

October 15, 2011

PARIS/LONDON (Francesca Landini and Huw Jones) – Finance ministers and central bankers from the world’s top economies are set to back a mandatory capital surcharge on big lenders of up to 2.5 percent to be phased in from 2016. A draft communique from a meeting of G20 finance chiefs endorses a 1-2.5 percent capital surcharge on top banks like Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase. The aim is to make sure they have enough capital to withstand market turbulence so that taxpayers won’t have to rescue banks again in the next crisis. A summit of the G20 leaders in Cannes, France in early November is set to give final approval to the surcharge plan and name the banks affected, known as global systemically important financial institution or G-SIFIs, G20 sources said. “Now that the framework applicable to G-SIFIs is agreed, we urge the Financial Stability Board to define the modalities to extend expeditiously the framework to all SIFIs,” the draft communique obtained by Reuters said. Insurers are battling against a surcharge as second tier banks. The charge — which will be in addition to a 7 percent minimum core capital buffer being phased in for all banks from 2013 — is part of a wider package the G20 ministers are set to endorse on Saturday. The other elements include common “tools” for supervisors to wind up ailing banks, compulsory “living wills” or resolution plans for every big bank, and more intensive supervision for large lenders, the communique said. The FSB, which formulates and coordinates financial regulation on behalf of the G20, has already drawn up criteria to determine which banks face a surcharge. It has said 28 banks would be affected if the regime was introduced immediately but G20 sources said the Cannes summit may name up to 50 lenders. POSITION LIMITS The FSB is also expected to update ministers on its work to define the so-called shadow banking sector before thrashing out recommendations next year to regulate it. Supervisors fear that as banks face tougher rules, risky activities could migrate to other parts of the financial system such as money market funds and special vehicles. G20 presidency France appears to have lost its battle to introduce tough curbs on what it sees as speculation in food and energy commodity markets by imposing limits on the size of positions a trader can hold at any given time. G20 sources said the group was expected to approve a report from the International Organization of Securities Commissions, which groups national market watchdogs, on the benefit of imposing trading limits but it would remain “optional.” The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is set to discuss fixed limits on Tuesday but in Europe there is no consensus, with Britain opposed to such permanent curbs. STRONGER FSB Bank of Italy Governor Mario Draghi is expected to propose strengthening the FSB, which he chairs, in order to ensure proper implementation of a welter of new rules the G20 has pledged to introduce, including the bank capital surcharge. Draghi, who steps down as chairman this month to become president of the European Central Bank, is expected to propose more members from emerging markets and developing countries on the FSB’s agenda-setting steering committee. Some Asian and Latin American countries feel the regulatory measures now being finalized plug supervisory holes in European and U.S. markets and want their circumstances to shape future G20 regulatory work. Draghi also wants representatives of finance ministries on the steering committee to add political clout. “Draghi will also discuss the possibility to give FSB a legal personality and to allow it to receive resources from more diversified sources,” a G20 source said. Saturday’s meeting will also touch on who will replace Draghi. Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney is seen by some G20 officials as the main contender so far that the Cannes summit will endorse. G20 ministers are also expected to look at proposals to reinforce non-binding draft principles on financial consumer protection authored by the OECD which have been criticized for being too weak. (Additional reporting by Daniel Flynn in Paris, editing by Mike Peacock) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Scott Walker Breaks Big Personal Campaign Promise

October 14, 2011

MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who forced public workers to pay more for their pensions as part of a push to curb union rights, broke his campaign promise to pay the full cost of his state pension immediately after taking office in January. The Associated Press requested copies of the governor’s pay stubs to see if he had fulfilled the campaign promise he made in June 2010. Walker said then he would begin paying the cost immediately in order to lead by example since he was proposing all state employees do the same. “As governor, I’ll pay my share toward my retirement because everyone should pay their own way, including me,” Walker said during the campaign. Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch made the same pledge and also didn’t pay as promised. Walker’s pay stubs provided Friday in response to the AP’s open records request made in September had details about his pension payments redacted. But Walker’s spokesman Cullen Werwie said the governor did not start paying the full cost until August, when the state law he pushed required elected officials and other state employees to contribute more. The requirement that state workers pay their 5.8 percent contribution was part of Walker’s bill that also took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most public employees. The fight over that measure resulted in protests as large as 100,000 people, led to all 14 Democratic state senators fleeing to Illinois to block the bill, and made Wisconsin the center of the fight over union rights. If Walker had fulfilled his campaign promise, he would have been paying his pension costs during that fight in February and March. Werwie did not have an explanation for why Walker didn’t pay until the law forced him to. The law required Walker and other elected officials to make payments of 6.65 percent of their salary starting in August. That goes up to 7.05 next year. Over four years, that will result in Walker paying $34,108. “Ultimately, we feel like we’re fulfilling what our campaign pledge was,” Werwie said. But Walker didn’t pay anything between January and August when the law kicked in. When asked how he could say the promise was fulfilled given that lack of payment for seven months, Werwie said, “that’s a fair point to raise.” Had the governor paid 6.65 percent of his salary during that time, it would have cost him $5,600. Democrats were beside themselves. “You’re asking people to do what you won’t do,” Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinski said. “It shows you this is a person whose priorities are warped.” Democrats, unions and others plan to start collecting signatures in November to force a recall election of Walker next year. “It is indefensible Scott Walker promised to live by these rules and then broke his word to Wisconsin,” said Scot Ross, head of the liberal group One Wisconsin Now. “Scott Walker tore Wisconsin in two to pass these unnecessary changes and then tells us `Do as I say, not as I didn’t.’” Marty Beil, executive director of the 23,000-member Wisconsin State Employees Union that fought bitterly with Walker over the collective bargaining changes, said the governor’s broken promise wasn’t surprising. “Apparently Rebecca and Scotty boy want the world to believe they’re working men and women and treat themselves like everyone else, but clearly they didn’t do that,” Beil said. This isn’t the first time Walker has run into trouble fulfilling promises related to his pension. Immediately after winning election as Milwaukee County executive in 2002, Walker promised that any staff under his control would waive all salary and benefit increases enacted after 2000. But his opponent in 2004 revealed that Walker’s staff had been taking a higher pension benefit for two years. Walker then asked the county board to reduce it. Walker also promised to return $60,000 of his $130,000 annual salary as county executive, which he did every year until winning re-election in 2008 when he dropped it to $10,000 a year. Democrats said that amounted to a broken promise, but when Walker made his original pledge he never said how many years he would return $60,000 annually. Walker also collected pension benefits based on his higher salary for two years before having it calculated based on the lower amount. Kleefisch also promised during the campaign to pay her full pension cost, but she didn’t start paying until August either. “Just like Scott Walker, I’ll pay my share of my pension, because everyone should pay their own way including me,” Kleefisch told a tea party group in September 2010. Her chief of staff Jeanne Tarantino did not explain in an email why Kleefisch didn’t make the contribution starting in January as promised.

Read the full article →

Richard Kirsch: We are the 99 Percent: A Progressive Narrative in One Powerful Phrase

October 14, 2011

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . One of the most common criticisms of progressives is that, unlike the right, we don’t have simple messages that tell our story. Our young leaders at Occupy Wall Street have come up with a powerful answer: We are the 99 percent . For the past several months, I’ve been working with a group of progressive leaders and communicators on the development of a ” progressive economic narrative” — a way of telling our story about the roles of the individual, business, and government in creating shared prosperity. The right has a well-developed view, to the point where after several decades it can now be summarized in three brief phrases: free markets, limited government and individual liberty. If we as progressives do our job well, we will also get to the point where we have three such phrases that are widely recognized. But that actually takes a long time. (Here are three candidates, but the fact that you may not nod your head readily when you read them is because you can’t shorten the process: shared prosperity, government that works for all of us, and liberty and justice for all.) For now, I’m celebrating the fact that we now have one phrase that tells much of our story: “We are the 99 percent.” This phrase’s power is in the emotions it elicits. It is triumphant, not defeatist. It says, “We have the power and the moral authority, not you!” It conveys action — we’re standing up for ourselves and occupying your turf. It declares our common humanity. It is hopeful. The progressive economic narrative I’ve been helping to draft has five conceptual pillars, and understanding them helps illustrate why “we are the 99 percent” also works intellectually. The first pillar of the narrative defines the progressive view of our economic problem: the crushing of the middle class by the rich and by corporate America. “The 99 percent” is a great unifying expression of inequality, as it avoids the separations that come from labels like “the middle class,” “working class” and “poor.” It says we’re all screwed together by rising inequality and highlights those who are responsible: the super-rich and big corporations. The second pillar defines what makes a successful economy: the well-being of our families in a big middle class and the productivity of our nation, not the stock market and corporate profits. “The 99 percent” is a simple declaration that our economy is driven by the vast majority of people, not a few super-rich. The fourth pillar (I’ll come back to the third) defines the political problem: our government has been captured by the super-rich and corporate America, corrupted by big money and politics. “We are the 99 percent” affirms that we have to take our democracy back to ensure that our economy works for all of us, not just the richest few. This has been a consistent message from the Occupy Wall Streeters, who seamlessly link inequality, corporate power and corruption. The fifth pillar is a call to action. And here’s where the triumphant power of “We are the 99 percent” works so well. It’s no accident that the phrase took root in an action that people could easily do –  posting a picture of themselves with their story — and was adopted instantly by a movement. The third pillar explains the role of government in building a successful economy and the relationship of public action to individuals and business. It can be summarized thus: We build a large and prosperous middle class through the decisions we make together, investing in our people, expanding opportunity and security, paving the way for business to innovate, and doing business in ways that create prosperity and economic security for Americans. This third pillar is essential to explaining how we should solve our problems and refuting the conservative view that the economy is driven by natural forces, best left on its own without government interference. “We are the 99 percent” opens the door for us to tell that story, but we need to fill in the blanks. When people say that Occupy Wall Street doesn’t have demands, we should look at that not as a criticism, but as an invitation to complete the story. Everything about the phrase establishes the point that we build an economy that works for all of us when we make decisions that benefit the 99 percent. Helping the American public understand a progressive worldview about the economy starts with our being clear on what we believe and telling that story consistently and widely. The best evidence that we’re on the right track is when a simple message captures the hearts and minds of us — the 99 percent.

Read the full article →

Anita Perry Blames Obama For Her Son Losing His Job

October 14, 2011

Anita Perry, the wife of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said she sympathized with the unemployed Friday because her son resigned from his job at Deutsche Bank to campaign for his father, reports CNN . “He resigned his job two weeks ago because he can’t go out and campaign with his father because of SEC regulations,” she said at a Pendleton, S.C. diner, in response to a middle-aged voter who lost his six-figure job and now works as a handyman. “My son lost his job because of this administration,” she added. CNN reports that the SEC recently adopted stricter rules for investment advisers undertaking political activity. However, Thursday she said that he eagerly resigned. She recalled when her husband brought the family together to discuss his run for president last May. “So, our son Griffin Perry is 28. He loves politics, and he just couldn’t wait. He said, ‘Dad, I’m in! I’m in! I’ll do whatever you need me to do. I’ll resign my job. I’ll do what you need me to do,’” she said in a speech at North Greenville University. ABC News reported that the 28-year old recently quit his job to start an independent consulting firm and to focus on campaigning for his father. He lives in Dallas with his wife, who works as an attorney. Anita Perry has been campaigning for her husband in South Carolina this week. She spoke Thursday about how opponents had “brutalized” the campaign. “We are being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party,” she said. “So much of that is, I think they look at him, because of his faith,” she added, possibly referring to questions in recent days over Rev. Robert Jeffress, who endorsed Perry and has called Mormonism “a cult.” She also compared his decision to run for president to Biblical stories of Moses and Gideon. Rick Perry responded to her comments, saying he stood by her. “You know, family members always take these campaigns more substantially personal than the candidate,” he said Friday morning on CNN. Perry gave a speech Friday morning on how he could create jobs as president. He said, “When it comes to energy, the president would kill domestic jobs through aggressive regulations while I would unleash 1.2 million American jobs through safe-and-aggressive energy exploration at home.”

Read the full article →

Sir Richard Branson Launches New Centre Of Entrepreneurship In Jamaica

September 8, 2011

Sir Richard Branson expanded yet another border for entrepreneurship, as he launched the Branson Centre of Entrepreneurship – Caribbean in Montego Bay, Jamaica, on Thursday. The facility — the first of its kind of the region — will be run by Virgin Holidays and Virgin Unite , the nonprofit foundation of the Virgin Group, providing aspiring entrepreneurs in the Caribbean region with a launch pad for their businesses. Fourteen young entrepreneurs were selected from hundreds of applicants to kick off the program, reaping the benefits of coaching and mentoring sessions with successful entrepreneurs like Chris Blackwell, founder of Island Records. Branson also opened a Johannesburg Centre in South Africa in 2005. By inspiring young entrepreneurs, the center aims to stimulate the economy and create jobs in Jamaica, where the unemployment rate hit an eight-year high in early 2011 of 12.9 percent. “Nineteen out of 20 businesses fail, so by mentoring people here in the Caribbean or in Africa, we can make sure that hopefully 10 out of 20 succeed and help give people a leg up,” Branson, a member of the HuffPost Small Business Board of Directors, told executive editor Rod Kurtz in an interview. “Almost every single big company in the world started with an entrepreneur just like these guys today, with one little idea, and the world desperately needs more jobs to be created, more entrepreneurs to give people some respect,” Branson added. “Having 10, 15 percent of people out of jobs, 20 percent in some countries, is a horror story.” Coming soon on HuffPost Small Business: an exclusive sit-down interview with Richard Branson.

Read the full article →

Labor Fight Remains Key Part Of FAA Dispute

August 10, 2011

WASHINGTON — At the heart of the bitter dispute over funding the Federal Aviation Administration is an ongoing brawl between Republicans and Democrats over the rights of labor unions, one of several that have flared up during the Obama administration. Congress struck a deal that gave the FAA temporary operating authority last week just as lawmakers began their August vacation. For nearly two weeks prior, the FAA was mostly shut down, with 4,000 FAA workers furloughed and tens of thousands of construction-related jobs idled. The unsettled labor dispute is waiting for Congress when it returns to consider a long-term FAA spending bill and could lead to another standoff. House Republicans are intent on overturning a new rule passed by a little-known agency last year that made it easier for airline and railroad workers to unionize. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have made clear they want to keep the new rule, one of the few big victories for organized labor under the Obama administration. Republicans have deplored other recent pro-union actions, including a decision granting airport security screeners collective bargaining rights, the National Labor Relations Board’s lawsuit accusing Boeing Co. of retaliation against union workers and the board’s proposal to speed up the pace of union elections. “What is important here, and it is not some itty-bitty little thing, is that we have labor law regulators out of control,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told the Senate last week. But House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., pledged that Democrats “will not allow a handful of Republicans to hijack the debate over a long-term FAA extension to serve an anti-worker agenda.” The FAA conflict began last year, when the National Mediation Board decided to change a 75-year-old rule that governs union elections at airlines and railroads. Since 1935, workers in those industries had to follow a rule that required a majority of all employees to vote in favor of a union. Those employees who chose not to participate in the election were counted as “no” votes. For example, if a unit has 100 employees and only 60 of them decided to cast ballots, even if 40 workers voted in favor of the union and 20 voted no, the union would still lose because the 40 workers who decided not to vote would also be counted as “no.” The rule was designed to make it more difficult for transportation workers to organize because of the potential disruption to the public and commerce. By contrast, most other private businesses are governed by the National Labor Relations Board, which uses traditional election rules requiring a simple majority vote. Even with the tougher rule, the aviation industry is one of the most heavily unionized sectors. Today, every major airline except Delta Air Lines Inc. is mostly unionized. But flight attendant unions at Atlanta-based Delta repeatedly lost union elections under the old rules, and the airline has vigorously resisted unionization efforts. Some Democrats have blamed Delta for pushing the stalemate, as the airline spent more than $2 million over the past year on lobbying, including a push to reverse the new rule. “What happened with the rule change process undermined the integrity of our government,” Delta spokeswoman Gina Laughlin said. “The NMB is supposed to be neutral and operate in a fair and balanced manner, but that’s not what happened here.” Delta has a key home state lawmaker in its corner, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., who is on the conference committee trying to hash out a deal between the House and Senate on the FAA bill. Isakson said his last offer of compromise would have let the new rule stand but allow employers the right of judicial review. He says Democrats rejected that but the offer still stands. “It does give it sort of a more level playing field,” Isakson said. House Republicans also might consider keeping the new rule if it included an equivalent process for companies to decertify a union. Labor leaders have resisted that approach. Ed Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department, called those “poison pill provisions.” “If compromise means caving in to a group of Republicans who don’t particularly care for the NMB rule, then there’s probably not much of an avenue for it,” he said Tuesday. In 2009, President Barack Obama appointed Linda Puchala, a former leader at the flight attendants’ union, to the National Mediation Board, giving the agency a 2-1 Democratic majority. Within months, the board proposed changing the voting rules to make them similar to those of the NLRB. Business groups called the move a blatant payoff to unions who supported Obama’s presidential bid. Congressional Republicans immediately began trying to undo the rule change. In September, the Senate voted 56-43 against a GOP resolution that would have prevented the Obama administration from enforcing the rule. House Republicans then inserted a provision overturning the rule into their version of the FAA funding bill, spurring the impasse that led to the recent shutdown. Democrats, still reeling from the concessions they made in the deal to raise the government’s debt ceiling, told Republicans they would not give in on this issue. As far as unionizing Delta, though, the new rule has not actually made a difference so far. Unions representing flight attendants, baggage handlers, ticket agents and other ground workers lost four separate elections at Delta last year under the new rules, though the flight attendants lost narrowly and are seeking a new vote.

Read the full article →

As France’s Lagarde Launches IMF Bid, China, Criticism Surfaces

May 25, 2011

PARIS/WASHINGTON (Jean-Baptiste Vey and Lesley Wroughton) – France’s Christine Lagarde has entered the race to head the IMF despite anger in big emerging economies over Europe’s “obsolete” lock on the job. France’s finance minister announced her candidacy on Wednesday, the eve of a G8 summit, after securing the unanimous backing of the 27-nation European Union and, diplomats said, support from the United States and China. “It is an immense challenge which I approach with humility and in the hope of achieving the broadest possible consensus,” Lagarde told a Paris news conference. The 55-year-old former corporate lawyer, who speaks fluent English, has won plaudits for her deft chairing of the G20 finance ministers and communications skills. But unlike Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who resigned last week after being charged with attempted rape, she is not an economist and may struggle to match his thought leadership over the management of the world economy. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa criticized EU officials in a joint statement for suggesting the next International Monetary Fund head should be a European, a convention that dates back to the founding of the global lender at the end of the Second World War. However, the countries known as the BRICs failed to unite behind a common alternative candidate, leaving the way clear for Lagarde unless she slips on a pending French legal case. Diplomats said the complaint was mostly aimed at securing a commitment from developed countries that nationality will no longer be a covert criterion for selecting future IMF chiefs. In a nod to the emerging nations’ concerns, Lagarde said she would work for “greater representativity and greater flexibility” at the IMF if elected. BRICS AGGRIEVED In the first joint statement issued by their directors at the Fund, the BRICs said the choice of who heads the IMF should be based on competence, not nationality. They called for “abandoning the obsolete unwritten convention that requires that the head of the IMF be necessarily from Europe.” Lagarde said she was running as a candidate to serve all IMF members, not just Europe, although she noted her experience and good relations with European officials would be an advantage in steering the IMF’s role in the bloc’s debt crisis. “Being European shouldn’t be a plus, but it shouldn’t be a minus either,” Lagarde said. Hours before the statement was issued in Washington, France’s government said China would back Lagarde. The Chinese Foreign Ministry declined comment. Some emerging market government officials say privately that although they are fed up with advanced economies controlling the selection process, they are not in a position to put forward a challenger who could stand up to Lagarde. Mexico has nominated its central bank chief for the job and he said some countries had welcomed his decision to run. South Africa and Kazakhstan may put forward their own candidates. Under a long-standing agreement between the United States and Europe, the top job at the IMF goes to a European while an American leads its sister organization, the World Bank. The United States also fills the number two position at the IMF. European diplomats said Washington had asked the French government about the legal case hanging over Lagarde, in which she faces accusations of abusing her authority. The Court of Justice of the Republic, a special court created to try ministers for alleged offences committed while in office, is examining the procedure followed in awarding the 285 million euro settlement to Bernard Tapie, a convicted ex-minister who backed Sarkozy’s 2007 election campaign. French officials have told other governments privately the case will not be a show-stopper, the diplomats said. Lagarde said her conscience was clear. “I have every confidence in this procedure because my conscience is perfectly clear,” she said. “I acted in the interest of the state and in respect of the law.” U.S. BACKS EUROPEAN The EU and the United States, which sources in Washington have said will back a European, have enough joint voting power to decide who leads the IMF. Securing support from some emerging economies would defuse a potentially bitter row over the decision though. In April 2009, the Group of 20 leading nations endorsed “an open, transparent and merit-based selection process” for heads of the global institutions. France, which presides over the G20 this year, has made an effort to work with Beijing on key issues for developing nations like global monetary reform and commodity market speculation. Last week, the head of China’s central bank, Zhou Xiaochuan, said the IMF’s leadership should reflect the growing stature of emerging economies. But he stopped short of saying its new boss should be from an emerging economy. Wu Qing, a researcher with the Development Research Center government think tank in Beijing, said it was plausible that China would support Lagarde as there weren’t many qualified candidates from China or Asia in general. The IMF’s board will draw up a shortlist of three candidates and has a June 30 deadline for picking a successor. (Additional reporting by Julien Toyer in Paris, Jiang Yan in Beijing, Leigh Jones and Michelle Nichols in New York; Writing by Emily Kaiser and Paul Taylor) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

DSK Replacement Should Come From Developing World

May 23, 2011

Nothing against French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde , who by all indications seems qualified to oversee the International Monetary Fund, but here’s a vote for anyone else who is qualified from the developing world. Let’s recap why there is suddenly a vacancy in the highest office of the IMF: Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a man reared in rarefied Parisian suburbs, educated at elite French academies and more recently occupant of an office that entitles him to fly around the globe fraternizing with fellow members of the powerful set, allegedly stepped out of the shower in a $3,000-per-night suite at a deluxe New York hotel. There, he encountered an African immigrant employed as a maid, who was presumably arriving to make the bed and remove the trash. The alleged sexual assault that followed is uncomfortably close to a workable metaphor for how much of the developing world has long viewed its relations with the Washington-based institutions at the center of the global financial order, the IMF and its sister agency the World Bank. Not without some merit, it must be added. Why was DSK the one stepping out of the shower and headed for an elegant lunch in a Manhattan restaurant? By dint of many reasons, to be sure, but surely in part because of his good fortune of being born in the capital of a wealthy nation and being the son of parents able to reinforce their own good fortune by sending him to the most exclusive schools. And why was this woman from Africa here on this day? Every life is complex, but one can assume that her decision to come to the United States, rent an apartment in the Bronx and ride the subway to Manhattan so she could scrub the toilets of the global elite amounts to her calculation that this was the best economic opportunity available to her. This is not a broadside against the World Bank and the IMF, whose histories and world views are far more complex than they are often made out to be by its legions of critics. The two institutions are full of dedicated and well-intentioned people who spend their days trying to build a more equitable economic order and spread the fruits of innovation to more parts of the globe (though the same cannot always be said about the leadership). Rather, it is a recognition that the inequalities that divide nations and the classes within nations are so deep and self-reinforcing that it is going to take some real doing to transform the centers of power into forces for greater good. That, and the recognition that it would be disgusting to fill a vacancy created by an alleged sexual assault of an African immigrant maid by a European master of the universe with another European — yes, even a woman — through the same secret, clubby process that has been used to staff the place since its inception. Over the weekend, the sense took hold that Lagarde’s appointment was gathering unstoppable momentum . But that would be a stay-the-course move. Why not reform from the top down? For far too long, the IMF and the World Bank have been perceived as institutions intent on perpetuating the privileges of wealthy countries while displaying callous disregard for the lives of ordinary people around the globe. Time and again, a fresh financial crisis in Indonesia, Argentina or Greece has prompted the IMF to prescribe its usual regimen of austerity as the condition for an emergency bailout, requiring government budget cuts, the elimination of subsidies for food and fuel and the cessation of other spending. This medicine has been served up as a needed salve for a global financial system lacking confidence, which is really a euphemism for the needs of the enormous banks who play an outsized role in the national affairs of the countries that pay most of the IMF’s bills: Its policies have ensured that lenders based in the United States, Europe and Japan are not forced to absorb losses on loans made recklessly in pursuit of emerging market riches. Better that ordinary people in Indonesia, Argentina or Greece should lose access to luxury items like rice and kerosene than that shareholders of Deutsche Bank or Goldman Sachs should forego dividends. One may be tempted to reject that portrayal as cartoonish, but every now and again a window opens up on the views of the people running the ship. Recall the memo that Larry Summers signed in 1991 , when he was the chief economist of the World Bank, advocating the bank encourage more toxic waste be transferred from wealthy countries to poor countries. Among the reasons? Poor people earn less than rich people, so the lost wages from their deaths are not as great. “The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that,” the memo asserted. Summers later characterized the memo as a sarcastic retort . Hilarious. Whatever the tone, the logic of the infamous memo is the same sort that holds as a natural outcome the fact that African immigrants should serve the needs of European and American potenates inside delightful hotels: Every actor pursues their own economic self-interest, and thereby maximizes the greatest aggregate good. So speaks the text book. That is no justification for an attempted rape — the crime alleged — but it helps explain how these two individuals found themselves standing opposite one another in the same hotel room. We simply need the institutions that govern the world’s money to be representative of the world’s people. Yet the way the DSK episode has been absorbed by the power centers reflects a tendency to accept the sorts of assigned roles the IMF and the World Bank generally view people outside the most powerful countries as: cheap hands to be exploited, miserable wretches to be pitied and perhaps aided or, most of the time, rounding errors on the ledger books of a global economy. The New York Times keeps referring to the alleged rape attempt as a “tawdry” episode, as if implying that DSK was caught consorting with a woman of lower class and ill-repute, brought down by an unclean act — an embarrassment, as opposed to a crime of violation and brutality. In France, to judge from the polls and the press coverage, concern seems to focus on claims that DSK was set up — an exculpatory frame that turns him into the potential victim — and worries that he is being ill-treated as we glimpse him placed on the hardwood benches of a New York City courtroom or paraded in front of cameras on his way to being arraigned. “He’s not like everyone else,” the French intellectual Bernard-Henry Levi reportedly told a German newspaper , expressing his revulsion over seeing his friend DSK led into court in handcuffs. The French reaction speaks to the deep-seated sense of entitlement that governs the powerful class: The maid and her story are not even in the picture. Let us contemplate the injustice of being yanked from the front of the plane to the courtroom! Did DSK even get to finish his pre-takeoff cocktail? This is, frankly, one of the rare times I find myself feeling almost patriotically proud over the workings of the American justice system. The New York Police Department appears to be putting its nose to the ground and investigating the case as a straightforward crime, in which one human being allegedly violated the rights of another. Considerations of class and race and national origin appear to be trumped by a straightforward process of fact-gathering and deliberation. Isn’t this how the global financial system ought to work, too, as the IMF sets about finding a replacement for DSK? The clearest argument for giving prime consideration to someone from the developing world is the name for the process that has governed in the past — the “gentlemen’s agreement” that the World Bank chief must be American, while Europe has claim to the head of the IMF, as if these offices are colonial spoils to be divvied up among empires. The IMF has in recent years made a show of adjusting the byzantine system through which it allocates votes according to the financial contributions of its members, s lightly adjusting upward the shares that accrue to China, Brazil, India and Russia . But that is mere tinkering around the edges. We need something bold, a clear assertion that the gentleman’s agreement is no more. Four years ago, as Wold Bank President Paul Wolfowitz was forced to leave his post under an ethical cloud, prominent academics called for an end to the gentleman’s agreement and the adoption of a transparent process to replace him. But the old system was indulged again. Now, the same calls are being heard again. Over the weekend, the finance ministers of Australia and South Africa released a joint statement urging that DSK’s replacement be selected on the basis of merit, not nationality . “For too long, the IMF’s legitimacy has been undermined by a convention to appoint its senior management on the basis of their nationality,” the statement declared. “In order to maintain trust, credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of its stakeholders, there must be an open and transparent selection process which results in the most competent person being appointed as managing director, regardless of their nationality.” That’s a good start, but better yet, why not urge for the active pursuit of a managing director from the developing world? To which one might respond that the moment at hand is too fraught with peril to allow political correctness to dictate. Greece is in trouble again. Portugal remains a worry. Spain may yet need a bailout, with awful ramifications for the rest of Europe . But part of the clubbiness that prevails inside the IMF and the World Bank, not to mention the American Treasury, includes subscribing to the increasingly ridiculous assumption that the West knows best when it comes to prudent financial management. China, whose banking system is oft-described by the power set as a disaster in waiting, has now skirted two global financial crises in a row (Asia in the late 1990s, and the Grand Disaster of 2008) without a domestic meltdown. The knock on China is that relationships and insider deals determine where money goes. How to put this? France, Germany, the United States and Great Britain also seem to have this problem. That’s how the good taxpayers of the United States wound up giving money to AIG to bail out Goldman Sachs while letting the executives keep rewarding themselves with bonuses. India is a growing economic power that happens to be a democracy. South Africa has emerged from apartheid to assume a seat at the table among responsible nations. Latin America is increasingly integrated into the world economy. Surely, somewhere other than Europe or the United States resides a person capable of overseeing the IMF. Dominique Strauss-Kahn has shined a momentary light on something that was never really hidden to begin with, yet manages to go largely unseen — the degree to which institutional privilege perpetuates itself to the detriment of most citizens of the world. His demise presents us with an opportunity to address that, one that ought not be squandered.

Read the full article →

Al Norman: Argentina to South Africa: Beware of Wal-Mart!

May 10, 2011

South Africa has been warned. A global coalition of organized labor converged this week on Pretoria, South Africa — where a government office known as the Competition Tribunal is considering a mega-acquisition of MassMart by Wal-Mart that will reboot the retail landscape of an entire continent. MassMart owns roughly 290 stores in 13 African nations, and has been described as ” the perfect African entry vehicle ” for Wal-Mart. Queued up against the plan is the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), in alliance with the UNI Global Union, a worldwide umbrella union representing 20 million workers. They are all part of an Anti-Wal-Mart Coalition which includes the South African Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers’ Union (Saccawu), and the South African Clothing and Textile Workers’ Union (Sactwu). One of the most stark statements before the tribunal was presented by Sofia Scasserra , an economic advisor to the Argentine Federation of Commerce and Service Workers (FAECYS). According to Scasserra, Wal-Mart’s worst impact was not on wages — but on the nation’s supply chain — resulting in “a detrimental effect on the business middle class.” Instead of buying products, Wal-Mart de Argentina offers a “sale spot” to suppliers — who bear the cost of unsold merchandise. “In the event the product sells,” Scasserra explained, “the supplier gets paid, but if the product does not sell, then it was deemed never to be Wal-Mart’s to begin with, and therefore the supplier bears the full adverse effect of the unsold stock… Wal-Mart does not take ownership of the goods until the product is sold.” Scasserra said many companies were forced to close, especially in the food sector, where products are perishable. Some merchants were forced to sell on consignment, putting “immense pressure” on the supplier if goods don’t sell. Wal-Mart also forces supplies to wait at least three months to get paid, and to make matters worse, Wal-Mart uses a trade agreement between China and Brazil to import Asian goods, and then imports the merchandise from Brazil into Argentina protected from tariffs. All these strategies, said Scasserra, “makes local producers unable to compete.” Local apparel makers in Argentina watched as shirts, jeans and underwear poured in from China to Brazil, and then into Argentina through the tariff reduction agreement. Even when Wal-Mart uses local vendors, “the suppliers are victims of constant pressure to lower the price of their products,” Scasserra noted, “with the threat that the company will be better prices by bringing the merchandise from Buenos Aires.” In the case of home appliances, Wal-Mart would force its suppliers to give the retailer discounted and free merchandise, “and it advertises ‘unbeatable deals’, with the cost of these deals being forcibly absorbed by their suppliers.” Scasserra cited one case where Wal-Mart offered a discount on air conditioners — without even consulting the supplier. “The first notification that the supplier receives is when they receive a check for less money than they were expecting,” she told the Tribunal. All these anti-supplier policies mean that “small producers are often left out of the equation,” Scasserra explained. Wal-Mart cannot be counted on to support “a local sustainable supply chain,” she concluded. Labor relations with many of Argentine’s unions were described as “troubled.” In one case, Wal-Mart began outsourcing its union workers by laying them off, and hiring new workers from subcontract agencies. Scasserra advised the South African Tribunal to force Wal-Mart stores to locate in “the outskirts of the city” to protect the “small neighborhood traders and their jobs.” She also advised that “group collective bargaining be imposed as a condition,” a sort of “centralized table” where workers could bargain with the huge retailer, rather than face fragmented negotiations. Finally, Scasserra recommended that the policy of allowing a merchant to force the producer to be responsible for unsold products should be banned. Wal-Mart should be obligated to purchase the goods up front, and be limited to 30 days credit. The American experience with Wal-Mart was also heard in Pretoria. “We have witnessed the devastating effect that the Wal-Mart model has upon small businesses, suppliers, and communities,” said Michael Bride of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW). Bride urged the tribunal to “place the needs of South Africa’s citizens at the center of its deliberations and ensure that if Wal-Mart does enter the country, that it does so on a basis that will promote economic development rather than destroy it.” For all its high-toned statements about sustainability, Wal-Mart’s backroom practices in Argentina should be vivid enough to scare away any nation tempted by the “live better” motto. It shouldn’t be too difficult for a ‘Competition Tribunal’ in South Africa to recognize the MassMart/Wal-Mart merger is the beginning of the end of retailing competition on the African continent. At least no one can say they were not warned. Al Norman is the founder of Sprawl-Busters , and the author of The Case Against Wal-Mart.

Read the full article →

South Africa’s unemployment up 25%

May 4, 2011

South Africa’s unemployment up 25%

Read the full article →

Abebe Aemro Selassie: Confessions of a Dismal Scientist — Africa’s Resilience

May 3, 2011

Like many economists, I tend to fear the worst. I have witnessed phenomenal changes for the better in sub-Saharan Africa over the past 20 odd years. Part of me still worries that this trajectory will not endure. But, the more I see of the region’s economic performance and outlook , the more I’m changing my tune. Old anxieties set aside Until my latest source for anxiety took hold a few months ago (more on this in a moment), I’d worried about the impact of the global financial crisis on sub-Saharan Africa. The crisis hit just as many countries in the region were starting to enjoy a hard-earned period of economic growth, their best since at least the 1970s. I did not want this to be derailed by the crisis. Previous global economic slowdowns were unkind to the region. While other regions tended to recover quickly, recoveries in sub-Saharan Africa tended to be more protracted, looking more U- or even L-shaped. So, in the face of the worst period for the global economy in two-generations, what chance did the still fragile economies have? However, it soon became clear that this time would be different. And in fact, my initial fears were unfounded. This time the region’s recovery has been more V-shaped. Credit for that goes, in large part, to policymakers in the region. Good macroeconomic policies in many more countries the years before the crisis put them in good stead to weather the crisis relatively well. This allowed them to adopt strong counter-cyclical monetary and fiscal policies. And, looking ahead, the recovery to pre-crisis growth rates is well underway in most countries. As we report in our latest Regional Economic Outlook , output in sub-Saharan Africa looks set to expand by around 5½ this year and 6 percent in 2012. To be sure, the crisis has caused considerable dislocation. The 1 million or so jobs lost in South Africa are a case in point. Elsewhere, progress towards the poverty reduction Millennium Development Goal has also been delayed. But it could also have been much worse. In the face of the largest shock to the global economy, many sub-Saharan African countries have shown surprising resilience. Tackling worries My latest worry is the recent sharp increase in food and fuel prices on world markets. When food prices spiked in 2008, there was a prompt and pronounced increase in local prices in most African countries. So far, this time, we have seen a more diverse picture. In a number of countries, strong harvests have helped in limiting increases in local food price. But, in many other countries, prices have started to increase sharply. This will be particularly harmful for the urban poor and landless rural households. The surge in fuel prices will also test the resilience that the region has exhibited in recent years. For the region’s 37 oil importing countries, it will imply higher oil import costs, and higher fiscal deficits where the pass-through of international price to domestic price is delayed. And, across the region, it will imply higher inflation. To help minimize the dislocation that this shock may entail, countries should consider a two-pronged policy response: Wherever food price increases are pronounced, governments should consider targeted interventions–providing the poorest families with transfers from the budget or, less directly, by subsidizing food items they consume. In the case of fuel prices, however, we recommend that local prices should adjust in line with international prices. Fuel price subsidies tend to be highly regressive–the bulk of the benefits go to the richest households–and very costly. So, once again, I might fear the worst. But, witnessing how countries handled the global financial crisis gives me hope–hope that the appropriate policies will be adopted and will be as effective this time too. And that gives this dismal scientist cause for optimism. From iMFdirect blog

Read the full article →

South Africa’s trade USD147m

May 3, 2011

South Africa’s trade USD147m

Read the full article →

Emerging Economies Meeting Could Shuffle Global Power

April 13, 2011

BEIJING — The leaders of the world’s largest emerging economies gather this week in southern China for what could be a watershed moment in their quest for a bigger say in the global financial architecture. Thursday’s summit comes at a crucial moment for the expanded five-member bloc known as the BRICS, which groups Brazil, Russia, India, China, and, for the first time, South Africa. Chinese President Hu Jintao, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and South African President Jacob Zuma will attend. With the G-20 group of major economies seeking to remake parts of the global financial architecture, it’s time for the BRICS to test whether they can overcome internal differences and act as a bloc pursuing common interests. “The key priority is for the BRICS to put creative ideas on the table rather than just react defensively to proposals put forward by the advanced economies,” said Cornell University economics professor Eswar Prasad, former head of the International Monetary Fund’s China Division. Though largely an ad-hoc grouping at present, the BRICS have the potential to emerge as a new force in world affairs on the back of their massive share of global population and economic growth. With the inclusion of South Africa, the group accounts for 40 percent of the world’s people, 18 percent of global trade and about 45 percent of current growth, giving them formidable heft when dealing with the developed economies. Thursday’s one-day meeting in Hainan’s resort city of Sanya marks only the group’s third annual summit, while moves to lend it greater structure, such as establishing a permanent secretariat, remain under discussion. The five countries are loosely joined by their common status as major fast-growing economies that have been traditionally underrepresented in world economic bodies, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. All broadly support free trade and oppose protectionism, although China in particular has been accused of erecting barriers to foreign competition. In foreign affairs, they tend toward nonintervention and oppose the use of force: Of the five, only South Africa voted in favor of the Libyan no-fly zone. Yet, while the economies of Brazil, Russia and South Africa are driven largely by raw material exports, India and China – the world’s second-largest economy – are oriented more toward manufacturing and services. Brazil and India are also concerned over large trade deficits with China that critics say are supported by a deliberately undervalued yuan. Politically, Brazil, India and South Africa are functioning democracies, while China, and to a lesser extent, Russia, are authoritarian states characterized by heavy government control over the economy and civil society. The very lack of a common cultural, political or geographical identity brands BRICS as a new type of grouping forged by nontraditional concerns such as trade barriers and monetary policy, said Li Yang, a finance expert and vice president of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. “The fact that they are grouped together shows the impact of new factors on international relations,” Li said. In approaching G-20 reforms being proposed by France, which holds the body’s rotating presidency, the BRICS can already point to China’s success in advancing a 6 percent shift in voting rights at the IMF that would give it the third-largest say in decision making after the U.S. and Japan. That move also creates seats for Brazil, Russia, India and China on the IMF’s expanded 10-member governing board, while reducing the influence of Britain, France and Germany. A key concern now will be stemming inflation and pushing back against debt-fueled expansionary monetary policies being pursued by developed nations that now suffer from negative or anemic growth. With about 40 percent of world reserves lead by China with $2 trillion, the BRICS countries share a concern over exchange rate volatility and macroeconomic instability in the developed world. Other priorities include reducing economic imbalances and volatility in commodity prices, pushing for even greater influence in the IMF and other bodies, and gaining a say in the potential introduction of new reserve currencies, possibly including the Chinese yuan. Manbir Singh, a top official in India’s Ministry of External Affairs, said discussions should also cover global security, climate change, and social development goals. At this juncture, the five need to answer some fundamental questions about the future of their bloc, such as whether to plan for a permanent organization or to admit new members, said Zhang Yuyan, director of China’s Institute of World Economics and Politics. “They need to decide whether to focus on boosting coordination among their members or simply representing emerging economies in their dealings with the developed nations,” Zhang said. Regardless of the outcome of such debates, the growth of the BRICS represents an important attempt to create new centers of influence and prevent domination of the world economic order by one or two major players, said South Africa’s ambassador to Beijing, Bheki Langa. “This formation plays a very important role in rebalancing the balance of forces on the world stage,” Langa said.

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: Free Trade Isn’t Helping World Poverty

March 19, 2011

The propaganda for free trade tells us that not only is it the master key to our own prosperity, but also the master key to lifting the world’s poor out of poverty. So if we don’t support free trade, we’re in for a guilt trip like the one that used to make us stick quarters into UNICEF boxes. Unfortunately, free trade just doesn’t work as a global anti-poverty strategy. The spreading Third World affluence one sees in TV commercials only means that the thin upper crust of Western-style consumers is now more widespread than ever before. But having more affluent people in the Third World is not the same as the Third World as a whole nearing the living standards of the First. This is actually not a terribly big secret, and is fairly well known to the people who promote free trade. For a start, the World Bank standard for poverty is $2 a day, so “moving people out of poverty” can merely consist in moving people from $1.99 a day to $2.01 a day. In one major study, there were only two nations in which the average beneficiary jumped from less than $1.88 to more than $2.13: Pakistan and Thailand. Every other nation was making minor jumps in between. The developing world’s gains from trade liberalization (insofar as there are any) are concentrated in a relatively small group of nations, due to the fact that only a few developing nations have economies that are actually capable of taking advantage of freer trade to any meaningful extent. Although it depends a bit on the model, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Vietnam, and Turkey generally take the lion’s share. This list sounds impressive, but it actually leaves out most Third World nations. Dirt-poor nations like Haiti aren’t even on the radar. Even nations one notch up the scale, like Bolivia, barely figure. So forget helping starving children in Africa this way. They’re not even in the game of international trade–let alone winners of it. Like it or not, this is perfectly logical, as increased access to the ruthlessly competitive global marketplace (which is all free trade provides) benefits only nations whose industries have something to sell which foreign trade barriers are currently keeping out . Their industries must both be strong enough to be globally competitive and have pent-up potential due to trade barriers abroad, a fairly rare combination. As a result, the most desperately impoverished nations, which have few or no internationally competitive industries, have basically nothing to gain from freer trade. What progress against poverty has occurred in the world in recent decades has not been due to free trade, but due to the embrace of mercantilism and industrial policy by some poor nations. (This is, of course, the same way nations like the U.S. and England became prosperous hundreds of years ago.) According to the World Bank, the entire net global decline in the number of people living in poverty since 1981 has been in mercantilist China, where free trade is spurned. Elsewhere, their numbers have grown. The story on global economic progress for poor nations in the last 30 years is roughly as follows: 1. China (one fifth of humanity) braked its population growth, made a quantum leap from agrarian Marxism to industrial mercantilism, and thrived–largely because the U.S. was so open to being the “designated driver” of its export-centered growth strategy during this period. 2. India (another fifth) sharply increased the capitalist share of its mixture of capitalism and Gandhian-Fabian socialism after 1991. It did reasonably well, but not as well as China and not well enough to reduce the absolute number of its people living in poverty, given unbraked population growth. 3. Latin America lost its way after the oil shocks of the 1970s, experienced the 1980s as an economic “lost decade,” and tried to implement the free market Washington Consensus in the 1990s. It didn’t get the promised results, so some nations responded with a pragmatic retreat from free market purism, others with a lurch to the left, the former showing results in the last five years or so. 4. The collapse of Communism left some nations (Cuba, North Korea) marooned in Marxist poverty, while others (Uzbekistan, Mongolia) discovered that the only thing worse than an intact communist economy is the wreckage of one. Much of Eastern Europe and the ex-USSR got burned by an overly abrupt transition to capitalism, then recovered at various speeds. 5. Sub-Saharan Africa spent much of this period in political chaos, with predictable economic results (except for South Africa and Botswana). Washington Consensus policies in the 1990s did not deliver, and the few recent bright spots have yet to deliver increased per capita income or lower unemployment. 6. Other poor countries followed patterns one through five to varying degrees, with corresponding outcomes. China is unquestionably the star here. But all its brutally efficient achievements in forcing up the living standards of its people from an extremely low base, it still has serious problems. Its growth miracle has been largely confined to the metropolitan areas of the country’s coastal provinces. Of the 800 million peasants left behind in agriculture, perhaps 400 million have seen their incomes stagnate or even decline. Over the last 30 years of greatly expanding free trade, most of the world’s poor nations have actually seen the gap between themselves and the rest of the world increase. As economist Dani Rodrik of Harvard summarizes the data: The income gap between these regions of the developing world and the industrial countries has been steadily rising. In 1980, 32 Sub-Saharan countries had an income per capita at purchasing power parity equal to 9.3 percent of the U.S. level, while 25 Latin American and Caribbean countries had an income equal to 26.3 percent of the U.S. average. By 2004, the numbers had dropped to 6.1 percent and 16.5 percent respectively for these two regions. This represents a drop of over 35 percent in relative per capita income. Today, because a few formerly poor nations are succeeding economically while most have been hit with economic decline, the world is splitting into a “twin peaks” income distribution, with a hollowing out of middle-income countries. A significant number of nations have gone backwards, and are now poorer than they were a generation ago. Most poor nations have high fertility, so population growth drags down their per capita income by a percentage point or two every year if economic growth does not outpace it. Contrary to impressions in the media, economic success is actually becoming more concentrated in the Western world, not less. According to one summary of the data by Syed Murshed of Erasmus University in Holland: Between 1960 and 2000 the Western share of rich countries has been increasing; to be affluent has almost become an exclusive Western prerogative–16 out of 19 non-Western nations who were rich in 1960 traversed into less affluent categories by 2000 (for example, Algeria, Angola, and Argentina). Against that, four Asian non-rich countries moved into the first group. Most non-Western rich nations in 1960 joined the second income group by 2000, and most non-Western upper-middle-income countries in 1960 had fallen into the second and third categories by 2000. Of 22 upper-middle-income nations in 1960, 20 had declined into the third and fourth income categories, among them the Democratic Republic of the Congo, also known recently as Zaire, and Ghana. Most nations in the third group in 1960 descended into the lowest income category by 2000. Only Botswana moved to the third group from the fourth category, while Egypt remains in the third category. We seem to inhabit a downwardly mobile world with a vanishing middle class ; by 2000 most countries were either rich or poor, in contrast to 1960 when most nations were in the middle-income groups. (Emphasis added.) This is no accident. Free trade tends to mean that the industrial sectors of developing nations either “make it to the big time” and become globally competitive, or else they get killed off entirely by imports, leaving nothing but agriculture and raw materials extraction, dead-end sectors which tend not to grow very fast. Free trade eliminates the protected middle ground for economies, like Mongolia or Peru, which don’t have globally competitive industrial sectors but were still better off having such sectors, albeit inefficient ones, than not having them at all. The productivity of modern industry is so much higher than peasant agriculture that it raises average income even if it is not globally competitive. Nations which open up their economies to (somewhat) free trade relatively late in their development, and continue to support domestic firms with industrial policy, are far more likely to retain medium and high technology industry, the key to their futures, than nations which embrace full-blown free trade and a laissez faire absence of industrial policy too early in their development. There are numerous documented cases in which trade liberalization simply killed off indigenous industries without supplying anything to replace them. To take some typical examples given by the International Forum on Globalization: Senegal experienced large job losses following liberalization in the late 1980s; by the early 1990s, employment cuts had eliminated one-third of all manufacturing jobs. The chemical, textile, shoe, and automobile assembly industries virtually collapsed in the Ivory Coast after tariffs were abruptly lowered by 40 percent in 1986. Similar problems have plagued liberalization attempts in Nigeria. In Sierra Leone, Zambia, Zaire, Uganda, Tanzania, and the Sudan, liberalization in the 1980s brought a tremendous surge in consumer imports and sharp cutbacks in foreign exchange available for purchases of intermediate inputs and capital goods, with devastating effects on industrial output and employment. In Ghana, liberalization caused industrial sector employment to plunge from 78,700 in 1987 to 28,000 in 1993. One unhappy corollary of this is the so-called Vanek-Reinert effect, in which the most advanced sectors of a primitive economy are the ones destroyed by a sudden transition to free trade. Once these sectors are gone, a nation can be locked in poverty indefinitely.

Read the full article →

Australian Market Report of March 11, 2011: Aquila Resources (ASX:AQA) To Target 2Mtpa Operation At Avontuur Manganese Project In South Africa

March 11, 2011

Australian Market Report of March 11, 2011: Aquila Resources (ASX:AQA) To Target 2Mtpa Operation At Avontuur Manganese Project In South Africa

Read the full article →

David Morris: And the Academy Award for Cowardice Goes to…

March 3, 2011

From all accounts, Charles Ferguson’s acceptance speech was the highlight of the Oscars. After winning an Oscar for Best Documentary for Inside Job , a compelling and searing indictment of Wall Street’s role in the economic crisis, Ferguson injected some much-needed real world relevance amidst the fabulously glitzy proceedings. “Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail — and that’s wrong.” That bears repeating. Not a single financial executive has gone to jail. The government was not always so cowed by Wall Street. In the 1980s, after deregulation led to the takeover of Savings and Loans by aggressive entrepreneurs who committed fraud on a massive scale, the federal government swung into action. Joe Nocera in the New York Times recalls, “There were a dozen or more Justice Department task forces. Over 1,000 F.B.I. agents were involved. The government attitude was that it would do whatever it took to bring crooked bank executives to justice.” Nearly 1,000 savings and loans — a third of the industry — collapsed, costing taxpayers over $200 billions. And the Department of Justice won 1,000 felony convictions in major cases. The Department of Justice still prosecutes cases of financial malfeasance, as long as the perpetrators are not heads of major financial institutions. Consider its vigorous prosecution of Martha Stewart, who was convicted in March 2004, not even of insider trading but of lying to the SEC and the FBI about insider trading. She served five months in a West Virginia federal prison. Compare that to the way the Department of Justice approached the investigation of John Mack that same year. Mack had just stepped down as President of Morgan Stanley and would soon become its CEO and Chairman of its Board. In the most recent of what are rapidly becoming iconic pieces of an era in Rolling Stone Matt Taibbi tells the story of a young man named Gary Aguirre who joined the SEC in September 2004 and shortly thereafter began investigating an insider-trading complaint against a hedge fund manager named Art Samberg. One day, with no advance research or discussion, Samberg had suddenly started buying up huge quantities of shares in a firm called Heller Financial. “It was as if Art Samberg woke up one morning and a voice from the heavens told him to start buying Heller,” Aguirre recalls. “And he wasn’t just buying shares — there were some days when he was trying to buy three times as many shares as were being traded that day.” A few weeks later, Heller was bought by General Electric — and Samberg pocketed $18 million. Aguirre identified Mack, a close friend of Samberg’s, as the person most likely to have tipped Samberg off. He discovered that Mack had been begging Samberg to cut him into a potentially lucrative deal involving a spinoff of the tech company Lucent. “Mack is busting my chops” to give him a piece of the action, Samberg told an employee in an e-mail.” A few days after Samberg sent that e-mail, Mack flew to Switzerland to interview for a top job at Credit Suisse First Boston. Among the investment bank’s clients was Heller Financial. As soon as Mack returned from that trip, he called Samberg. The next morning, Mack was cut into the Lucent deal, an investment that made him more than $10 million. And as soon as the market reopened after the weekend, Samberg started buying every Heller share he could, right before it was snapped up by GE. The deal looked like a classic case of insider trading. But in the summer of 2005, when Aguirre told his boss he planned to interview Mack, things started getting weird. His boss told him the case wasn’t likely to fly, explaining that Mack had “powerful political connections.” (The investment banker had been a fundraising “Ranger” for George Bush in 2004, and would go on to be a key backer of Hillary Clinton in 2008.) Aguirre was contacted by Morgan Stanley’s regulatory liaison, a former top aide to Eliot Spitzer. A few days later, another of the firm’s lawyers, Mary Jo White, formerly U.S. attorney of the Southern District of New York, called the SEC director of enforcement. Taibbi caustically and accurately sums up the situation. Pause for a minute to take this in. Aguirre, an SEC foot soldier, is trying to interview a major Wall Street executive — not handcuff the guy or impound his yacht, mind you, just talk to him. In the course of doing so, he finds out that his target’s firm is being represented not only by Eliot Spitzer’s former top aide, but by the former U.S. attorney overseeing Wall Street, who is going four levels over his head to speak directly to the chief of the SEC’s enforcement division — not Aguirre’s boss, but his boss’s boss’s boss’s boss. Mack himself, meanwhile, was being represented by Gary Lynch, a former SEC director of enforcement. Aguirre didn’t stand a chance. A month after he complained to his supervisors that he was being blocked from interviewing Mack, he was summarily fired, without notice. The case against Mack was immediately dropped: all depositions canceled, no further subpoenas issued. In 2011 neither Congress nor the White House has much stomach for prosecuting Wall Street. Indeed, the four Republicans on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) voted to strip the following words from its report: “Wall Street,” “deregulation”. As

Read the full article →

Elinor Steele: Talking With Iraq’s Women: Big Dreams and Enormous Challenges

January 31, 2011

In my six years managing worldwide communications for Tupperware, I’ve met with businesswomen from around the globe, from accomplished cosmopolitan women in European capitals to incredibly resourceful women in places like Indonesia and South Africa with no formal education who practically willed themselves to succeed. I’ve always been moved and motivated by these wonderful women, but the women I met — in, of all places, Baghdad — have affected me like few others. First, let me explain what brought me to Iraq. Tupperware CEO, Rick Goings, and I were invited as part of the Department of Defense Task Force for Business and Stability Operations partnering with Business Executives for National Security Delegation. The goal of the delegation was to learn about Iraqi businesswomen, the challenges they face in their country’s rapidly changing (and rapidly growing) economy, and the potential business and investment opportunities there. As studies have repeatedly shown, providing earnings opportunities for women is critical to a country’s growth. The World Economic Forum’s 2009 Global Gender Gap report suggests that closing the gender gap could boost U.S. GDP by as much as 9 percent, European GDP by as much as 13 percent and Japanese GDP by as much as 16 percent. The potential for growth is even greater in developing countries. As the Atlantic pointed out in a powerful article last summer, the greater the economic and political power of women, the greater a country’s economic success. Iraq is an interesting case, because juxtaposed with its long history of empowering women and incorporating them into the traditionally male-dominated Arab society, is a disturbing increase in violence against women since the start of the war. Female Iraqi professionals are often targeted for abduction and murder. Solving this problem will be the first critical step toward the success of women in Iraq, and likely the success of the Iraqi economy as a whole. My natural orientation is to believe that with sheer determination anything is possible. I’ve seen that first-hand working at Tupperware. But seeing the challenges women in Iraq are up against puts my belief to the ultimate test. After 30 years of war, Iraq has become a brown, dusty and fractured country. The infrastructure to rebuild is nearly nonexistent. We stayed in a compound in the international zone. There are heavy and huge metal gates with round-the-clock armed guards — one of many security checkpoints that you must pass through to go in or out of the Green Zone. As many of you know, the Green Zone is a 5.6 sq. mile area in central Baghdad that is the main base for foreign and Iraqi government officials. The official name is the International Zone, or as referred to locally, the IZ. The Red Zone obviously connotes danger, and refers to anything outside the Green Zone — which, in practical terms, is the rest of the country. Parts of the IZ were originally home to the villas of government officials and a number of palaces belonging to Saddam Hussein and his family. It was the center of Ba’athist Iraq. Our visit began with an introductory session during which we spoke with nine Iraqi businesswomen. Nearly all of them own construction or supply businesses that they built through contracts with the American military or American companies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). I was especially impressed with a strong and confident woman named Azza. Azza returned to Iraq from the United States with her husband in 2004. He is a government official who works on educational partnerships for Iraq and the U.S. She leads training and development seminars aimed at helping small and women-owned Iraqi businesses win contracts. She also coordinates with NGOs to fund Iraqi women’s initiatives. Azza has a bachelor’s degree in business administration and a master’s in information technology, and she is determined to use her knowledge to help Iraqi women develop and grow businesses. Best of all, Azza has been encouraging every woman she meets with to be a leader in her community and to work with other women. This is essentially the model we’ve used to grow the Tupperware business in emerging markets — provide one woman with an earning opportunity that gives her money and self-confidence, then encourage her to serve as a mentor to others so they can achieve the same things. However, Iraq has unique obstacles that could make this model, or any business model, difficult to implement. While the women we met are amazing, this group was much different than businesswomen in other countries, due to the nature of their work. Most of the women’s businesses are heavily dependent on one customer — the U.S. government. Our government is not only the source of much of their income, but also the root of many of their contacts. When the U.S. pulls out of Iraq at the end of the year, most, if not all, of these contacts will disappear and these Iraqi businesswomen will have to transition to either contracting with the Iraqi government or establishing their businesses in the private sector. Two major challenges with this are an inherent distrust of the Iraqi government and the fact that these women aren’t able to find banks to lend them money. There’s a vicious cycle at work here. These businesses can’t transition to the private sector without financing, yet no bank will lend them money without 30 percent collateral and a business plan that demonstrates proof that they can be profitable. We asked why the women we met can’t take the knowledge they gained working with the U.S. government and use it to generate contracts with the Iraqi government. They responded that they don’t know if the Iraqi government will pay on time — or at all. However, they all hope that things will improve with the new government in place and that corruption will decrease. Of course, the problems go deeper than just the business environment. There are social obstacles that must be overcome as well. I’ll talk about those in my next post. In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts on how American businesses can help improve the situation in Iraq.

Read the full article →

Australian Market Report of January 27, 2011: Universal Coal (ASX:UNV) Makes Strategic Coking Coal Acquisition in South Africa

January 27, 2011

Australian Market Report of January 27, 2011: Universal Coal (ASX:UNV) Makes Strategic Coking Coal Acquisition in South Africa

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: Outsourcing War and Peace: Part 2

January 9, 2011

Here is the second of five excerpts from law professor Laura Dickinson’s book, Outsourcing War and Peace: Preserving Public Values in a World of Privatized Foreign Affairs . Find the first part here. PMC supporters will be heartened to read her view that she does not believe the cure to more effective oversight and accountability is passage of more laws. She makes the point, which some have argued for years, that the main problem is in choosing to act, i.e., mustering the political will to do so, as opposed to finding the proper means. But insofar as means are an issue she make the case that tort law is just as effective than criminal or civil law. If, as we have seen so far in this book, the use of private military contractors is on the rise and unlikely to be eliminated in the near future, the obvious question is: How can these contractors be regulated and restrained? Even if the kinds of abuses described above are not typical, what mechanisms of accountability might be available when such incidents do occur, and how effective are these mechanisms likely to be? Each of the next four chapters examines a different possible mechanism of accountability and constraint and assesses its efficacy. Let us begin with the most obvious such mechanism: the use of formal legal regulatory systems, either criminal or civil, to hold contractors accountable for the wrongs they commit. This focus, in turn, leads to a new set of questions: What laws regulate these contractors? Might international or domestic law be applied to prohibit states from hiring private contractors altogether? Alternatively, assuming states do privatize, what laws exist to hold these actors in check? And finally, what accountability mechanisms can be used to enforce these laws, and how effective are they? This chapter answers these questions in ways that may be surprising to some. Contrary to the claim often made that private military contractors inhabit a virtual regulatory void, I argue that they are in fact subject to a broad legal and regulatory framework that seeks to control their behavior. To be sure, this framework has holes that need plugging. But perhaps even more important, privatization poses challenges to the organizational and institutional apparatus used to enforce existing laws and regulations. Thus, if we want to strengthen our legal and regulatory framework, we need to look beyond writing new treaties, statutes, and agency rules, and focus more attention on finding better ways to ensure that these treaties, laws, and rules have force on the ground. To begin, it is important to recognize that international law does not pose an outright bar to the use of contractors, at least in most circumstances.7 Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, drafted in the 1970s, does seek to punish mercenaries somewhat, by denying them prisoner-of-war status. But even this protocol defines mercenaries narrowly and elsewhere both extends protections to indigenous guerrillas and preserves the rights of foreign military forces fighting on their behalf, clearly reflecting postcolonial debate and biases regarding the use of mercenaries in struggles for liberation. The International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries (drafted between 1980 and 1989) goes further, because it imposes criminal liability on mercenaries, accomplices to mercenaries, and anyone who “recruits, uses, finances, or trains” them. In addition, the convention seeks to impose an affirmative duty on states to prohibit, and perhaps prevent, mercenarism. Nevertheless, the convention on mercenaries, like the protocol, defines “mercenary” narrowly, requiring, for example, proof that the contractor was motivated by financial rather than ideological gain. Moreover, it is significant that, even with such limitations, the treaty took quite some time (until 2001) to enter into force–when Costa Rica became the twenty-second state to ratify it–and it still does not enjoy particularly widespread support. Likewise, though some countries, such as South Africa, forbid the use of military contractors as a matter of domestic law, such provisions are not common. And, of course, none of these provisions–international or domestic–would bar the use of contractors in the foreign aid context. Although states are therefore unlikely to be barred from privatizing altogether, both international humanitarian law and human rights law, as well as domestic criminal law and tort law, do place important limitations on contractors. And while this regulatory framework is more of an uneven latticework than a solid wall, I argue that the architecture is there, and it can potentially be used more aggressively in the future to better deter and punish abusers. On the criminal side, the problem is not so much an absence of applicable law (though there are holes that need filling) but rather the mobilization of sufficient political will to actually enforce the laws that exist by making important organizational reforms or through other means. On the civil side, although some important threshold questions remain unresolved, contractors could potentially be more subject to accountability through the tort system than are comparable governmental actors. This chapter is divided into four parts. The first part discusses the general international humanitarian and human rights law governing the use of force and prohibiting serious human rights abuses. Here, I address the extent to which this law applies to private military and security contractors and can therefore be used to place limits on their behavior. The second part surveys domestic law potentially applicable to private military contractors, focusing primarily on the United States. The third part examines the organizational and institutional apparatus used to enforce this legal framework, and shows how privatization poses particular challenges for enforcement. The fourth part then analyzes how useful this international and domestic legal framework is actually likely to be in holding private actors to account. Using the contractor abuse story from Abu Ghraib as an example, I discuss the various possible means of subjecting these contractors to criminal or civil actions. I conclude that, although international criminal prosecution is unlikely, the legal framework for domestic criminal prosecution is in place if U.S. government officials are willing to use it. Moreover, domestic tort suits are at least a possibility. Thus, while the mechanisms of legal accountability over contractors could certainly be improved, we should not leap to the conclusion that the mere fact of privatization eviscerates all legal oversight. To the contrary, as we shall see with regard to civil suits under ordinary domestic tort law, legal actions against contractors may sometimes have greater chances of success than similar suits against government or military actors. This does not mean, of course, that the existing legal and regulatory framework merely requires minor adjustments in order to cope with the growing use of contractors. Rather, my argument is that, contrary to what some have suggested, and contrary to the dominant frame in the popular press, we cannot solve the accountability problem simply by enacting more federal statutes to allow for criminal prosecution of contractors. Congress has already provided a legal framework for holding contractors criminally accountable, either in civilian or in military courts, when they commit abuses–but this framework does not work. To be sure, as discussed in more detail below, there are some jurisdictional holes in the law, and Congress could, and should, address these deficiencies. But the real problem is that neither civilian nor military prosecutors have thus far done much to enforce these statutes. As we shall see, prosecutors probably could have indicted the contractors implicated at Abu Ghraib under existing law–but they did not. This failure is evidence of a lack of political will, but it also suggests an absence of the critical organizational and institutional structures necessary to foster meaningful enforcement. Thus, the point of this analysis is not to say that the legal framework is sufficient and therefore we have no problem but to say that we should not be focusing exclusively on how to solve the supposed legal gaps regarding contractors. Instead, real accountability for contractors requires organizational and institutional arrangements that would encourage enforcement and help mobilize political will: law in action is as important as the law on the books.

Read the full article →

Leslie Lipschitz: Today’s Bounty, Tomorrow’s Promise: Better Policies to Manage Natural Resources

December 15, 2010

Countries rich in natural resources are often looked at with envy: they face few financial constraints and that should speed their development path. But the reality is less rosy. Countries with an abundance of natural resources–typically oil, gas or minerals–have, on average, performed less well than comparable non-resource rich countries. That raises one of the perennial questions in economic policymaking. How to manage the economic and social challenges that stem from resource wealth? Or, to borrow the words of Professor Thorvaldur Gylfason (University of Iceland), how to prevent “nature’s bounty” from “becoming the curse of the common people”? Broadening the policy dialogue While this issue isn’t a new one, it is particularly topical for a number of African economies that have new natural resource discoveries about to come on stream. So, in early November, the IMF Institute, in cooperation with the Bank of Algeria, organized a High Level Seminar on Natural Resources in Algiers , focusing on the challenges that these countries face, and distilling lessons from countries that have managed their natural resources successfully. The seminar brought together senior officials with experts from academia and civil society organizations. One of the advantages of being an international organization with a near-global membership is that the IMF is a unique repository of examples of member countries’ good and bad policy practices and experiences from which other policymakers can learn and benefit. The IMF is thus well placed to bring together policymakers and experts to discuss what has worked and what has not–that is, to learn from one another and from history. Participants from Botswana, Chile, Mexico, and Norway discussed what had worked best in their countries, and some other country representatives were quite frank on what had not worked in their experience. Common themes The benefits from “picking each other’s brains” were immediately evident in Algiers. Representatives from countries with newly discovered natural resource wealth, such as Ghana and Uganda, had the opportunity to ask direct questions and get advice from experts and from other policymakers about how best to manage resource wealth. Several themes emerged. Many acknowledged the difficulties of negotiating contracts with big multinational extraction firms about the sharing of exploration costs and the distribution of profits. Clearly governments want to ensure that a fair share of the profits stay in the country, while companies want to be certain that the initial investment in exploration and discovery will yield a fair return. While countries shared their experiences, they also heard the point of view of a major global petroleum company. Various technical experts also weighed in with suggestions on how contracts could be structured to deal with various contingencies. A second universal question is how the benefits should be shared between current and future generations. This entails a careful balancing act between the urgent need to address current poverty and the longer-term investment strategy–and it often requires substantial political fortitude and robust institutions to ensure that domestic spending does not exceed the level that can be absorbed effectively. While there is clearly no single ideal, universally applicable solution, elements from many of the countries’ strategies might well be useful in other cases. The primary common denominator of success was undoubtedly good governance underpinned by robust and transparent institutions. Underlying these natural resource-specific issues is the need for a stable and predictable macroeconomic environment to enable countries to capitalize on their resource wealth. Here, the views of the IMF were sought on a range of macroeconomic issues–such as designing fiscal policies, monetary and exchange rate policies for cushioning the volatility of resource revenues, and the efficacy of ‘industrial policies’ designed to favor specific sectors (for example, through trade policies or budgetary subsidies). Continuing the dialogue on good policies While the High-Level Seminar in Algiers provided a rich and varied discussion, it would be naive to think that there might be a ‘quick fix’ for an issue that countries have struggled with for many years. But, to the extent that this seminar–the proceedings of which we plan to publish as a book–has stimulated policymakers’ thinking about both the complexities and successful examples of managing natural resource endowments, it will have met our objectives. What is needed is an ongoing consultative dialogue inclusive of the civil society and a collaborative approach. We at the IMF are committed to being part of that conversation. In addition to country level policy discussions, we will continue to engage on two broad fronts: First, by providing technical assistance in areas such as tax and expenditure policies, monetary policies under alternative exchange rate regimes, and the use and management of sovereign wealth funds. Second, by providing training opportunities. For example, following the Algiers Seminar, the IMF Institute launched a new two-week course on “Macroeconomic Management in Resource Rich Countries” (at Stellenbosch University in South Africa). This course aimed at giving a broad overview of all topics and challenges involved in policymaking and strategic planning for countries with resource wealth. Next year the course will be offered again–to different regional audiences at the Joint Vienna Institute in Austria and the Joint Partnership for Africa in Tunisia. From iMFdirect blog

Read the full article →

IMF cuts South Africa’s 201 growth forecast

December 5, 2010

IMF cuts South Africa’s 201 growth forecast

Read the full article →

South Africa introduces economic growth scheme

November 25, 2010

South Africa introduces economic growth scheme

Read the full article →

South Africa sets aside $115b to develop power grid

October 24, 2010

South Africa sets aside $115b to develop power grid

Read the full article →

South Africa to build six nuclear plants by 2023

October 10, 2010

South Africa to build six nuclear plants by 2023

Read the full article →

Sulzon plans wind energy projects in South Africa

October 7, 2010

Sulzon plans wind energy projects in South Africa

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: Sloppy Language and Human Rights

October 6, 2010

Last week, on Oct. 1, the U.N. Human Rights Council decided to establish a Working Group to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the regulation of the impact of the activities of private military and security companies on the enjoyment of human rights The Working Group will have the mandate to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the impact of the activities of private military and security companies on the enjoyment of human rights, on the basis of the principles, main elements and the draft text for a possible convention proposed by the United Nations Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination. The vote on resolution A/HRC/15/L.22 regarding the open-ended intergovernmental working group was adopted by a vote of 32 in favor, 12 against, and 3 abstentions. The intergovernmental open-ended working group shall meet every year until the fulfillment of its mandate, that it shall have a session of five working days a year and that the first session shall take place no later than May 2011. The result of the vote was as follows: In favor (32): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay and Zambia. Against (12): Belgium, France, Hungary, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States. Abstentions (3): Maldives, Norway, and Switzerland. Below are some comments from various countries explaining their votes. OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), introducing draft resolution L.22, said that they had the honour to introduce the draft text on behalf of the African Group. The draft resolution called for an international monitoring mechanism on the activities of private military and security companies. The draft resolution called for the establishment of an open-ended intergovernmental Working Group, which would make recommendations to the Council on how to proceed on this important issue. A legally binding instrument would be able to hold private military and security companies accountable to their international human rights obligations. The use of mercenaries remained a controversial issue and Nigeria felt that clear legal measures needed to be pursued. The open-ended intergovernmental Working Group would be able to help guide this process and make valuable suggestions in this regard. Nigeria also raised a number of oral amendments and concluded by saying that they hoped that this resolution would be adopted by a substantial majority of the Council’s members. EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the United States took seriously the issue of private military security companies and their accountability. The most effective way to address those concerns would be the better implementation of existing laws, including the international code of conduct, which would oblige the private military security companies to conduct themselves in respect of human rights. The United States was disappointed that their and other delegations’ suggestions were not adequately addressed in the resolution. The United States said that the draft resolution would not produce an effective resolution of those issues and would divert resources, time and attention from more constructive approaches. Furthermore, the fundamental issues had not been sufficiently considered by the resolution, such as its implications on training and recruitment for private military security companies and even United Nations peacekeeping missions. The United States than called for the vote and said it would vote against the draft resolution. ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said South Africa was to be thanked for its efforts to accommodate the concerns of all States. Nevertheless, the European Union was unable to support the resolution, as it did not consider that discussion of private military and security companies was appropriate in the Human Rights Council. It was not primarily a human rights question, and therefore went beyond the competence of the Council. The European Union did not support the proposal that a body established by the Human Rights Council should have the responsibility of establishing an international regulatory framework, nor a possible Convention. The European Union would therefore vote against the resolution. PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that its objectives on private military and security companies was to reduce the risk that these companies might violate human rights. Taking into account various consultations, the Government of the United Kingdom had decided to implement robust codes of action for private military and security companies with which it worked and also to ensure adherence to those codes and the rules of international law. In light of these facts, the United Kingdom did not support the call for an international regulatory framework nor a legally binding document on the use of private military and security companies, which it did not consider to be a human rights issue. Furthermore, if the resolution was passed, the United Kingdom said that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should find internal resources to pay for the activities of the intergovernmental Working Group. For these reasons, the United Kingdom would vote against the draft resolution. BENTE ANGELL-HANSEN (Norway), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the growing trend of using private military security companies to implement various assignments was of a great concern. It was particularly so because their use for military purposes blurred the essential difference between combatant and non-combatant, thus undermining the protection of civilians and humanitarian workers. Norway believed that development of a new legal instrument in the international law was outside of the Human Rights Council’s mandate and that the Council was not an appropriate forum for such discussion. Norway would therefore abstain from the vote. ALBERTO J. DUMONT (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Argentina would vote in favour of the resolution, since it supported inter-Governmental control on security companies, and hoped for a convention in this area. The Human Rights Council needed to look very carefully at the content and scope of such an undertaking, and the Working Group needed to be able to examine all possible inputs for such an aim, not just the documents of the Expert Group. DANTE MARTINELLI (Switzerland), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Switzerland was in favour of the better regulation of private military and security companies and their use in armed conflict. Switzerland added that it was not against a dialogue on the issue of establishing an international mechanism to monitor and oversee the activities of private military and security companies but this needed to be conducted in an inclusive and balanced manner. In summary, Switzerland regretted that the resolution was not adopted by consensus, which is why it had decided to abstain from the vote. KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Japan was concerned that the Council had undertaken various new initiatives without taking into account their budgetary implications. In the future sessions of the Council, Japan asked that a way be found to provide members with the information on programme budgetary implications and the sufficient time to study them. Japan chose not to block consensus, but it hoped that additional budgetary needs would be met though savings and the prudent use of the current biennial budget. What I find interesting about the comments from countries like Belgium, USA, Norway, and UK was that they do not consider the issue of private military and security contractors a human rights issue. Yes, of course, some shade their response by saying (Belgium) it is not “primarily” a human rights issue or (United States) that other existing laws are more appropriate for considering the issue. But, at least with respect to private security, if not private military, contractors, where the salient issue is ensuring that people with guns don’t do things they should not do, they are, as a definitional issue, no different from regular military forces. And all states agree (see Geneva Conventions for example) that the actual or potential use of deadly force by them is very much a human rights issue. So judging from the state’s objections listed above one might be forgiven for concluding that at least some countries think that when a state does something wrong it is a human rights concern. But when the private sector does it, it is, perhaps, just business as usual? I can’t help but think of George Orwell’s famed 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language” which focused on the link between sloppy language and sloppy thinking.

Read the full article →

South Africa – House price rises slowing

October 6, 2010

The average value of all houses in South Africa increased 7.1% over the year to August 2010, according to ABSA. But this is a deceleration, from the 9.4% price rises seen during the year to July.

Read the full article →

Video: RMB’s Taylor Sees Further Gains in South African Rand

September 16, 2010

Sept. 16 (Bloomberg) — Brigid Taylor, a senior currency trader at Rand Merchant Bank, talks about the impact of the rand’s gains on South Africa’s economy. South Africa’s currency rallied to the strongest level since January 2008 on Sept. 14. Taylor speaks with Mark Barton on Bloomberg Television’s “Countdown.”

Read the full article →

Robert Hormats: The State Department’s Jobs Agenda

September 6, 2010

Normally, my blog entries are short and succinct. (Or, at least, I hope so!) But I wanted to use this entry to provide a bit more depth about one of the State Department’s highest priorities: supporting American jobs. As President Obama underscored in his address to the nation on August 31, “Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work.” Under Secretary Clinton’s leadership, the State Department is focusing fully on that goal by advancing an international economic policy that promotes opportunity and job growth for Americans. The primary task of the State Department’s international economic policy is to promote American economic success in the global economy. That means crafting policies that help create — and sustain the growth of — well-paying, productive American private sector jobs. We do so by using a wide range of tools: promoting exports, protecting intellectual property rights, expanding trade opportunities, attracting foreign investment, supporting a fair business environment abroad and drawing on the successful experiences of other countries. Secretary Clinton has made our jobs agenda a top priority and is leading our efforts to ensure that our diplomacy supports American workers. As the Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, this is my central focus — as it is for our entire team here at the State Department. We also recognize that a strong domestic economy, with high levels of employment and growth, is the fundamental base for a strong foreign and national security policy. Our overriding aim is to connect with the concerns and aspirations of the American people. While many of us in the Department actively engage with representatives of other countries to promote American interests abroad, we are engaging at least as actively on the home front with leaders of businesses — large and small — as well as labor and farm groups. Our international economic policy must earn the support of these groups by delivering tangible benefits to them, or it will not be sustainable — especially at a time when so many Americans are feeling economic pain. And the most tangible benefit we can deliver is to demonstrate that what we are doing abroad increases the ability of American companies to generate good jobs at home. To achieve this, we are taking action in several key areas: Implementing the President’s National Export Initiative. The President has set the goal of doubling American exports over five years to support two million new U.S. jobs. To achieve this goal, we have mobilized senior officials here in the Department and in our embassies abroad. As Secretary Clinton has noted, “Other businesses from other countries have a strong partnership with their government; whether it’s state-owned enterprises from China or private companies from Europe, they often have much more support from their governments than we have in recent years given to our businesses.” The Obama Administration is stepping up its efforts to support U.S. companies competing in global markets — and the State Department is actively supporting this effort. We believe that American businesses should receive the same enthusiastic and forceful support from the top levels of our government as foreign competitors receive from theirs. This is vital to creating jobs at home. Exports currently support 10 million American jobs. We know that by helping more companies, particularly small and medium sized companies, to export and tap new markets, we can substantially boost that figure. But we also know that many of the largest American companies are our biggest exporters. They frequently must compete against national champions abroad supported by foreign governments. So we work closely with them to actively advocate for their export sales. The profits our companies make from sales abroad play a key role in funding more research and investment at home. And that will lead to new hiring and additional well-paying jobs for Americans. Secretary Clinton has mobilized her team here in this Department and all of our embassies to ensure that our businesses are being fully supported overseas. And she personally has been a strong advocate on her trips abroad. Day-in and day-out we work alongside colleagues in the Department of Commerce under Secretary Locke’s leadership and with other agencies. Our embassies provide enormous support to American businesses in foreign markets. Our diplomats are also traveling across this nation to help American companies learn how our embassies can provide information and contacts for the development of business opportunities in other countries. In fact, a group of our ambassadors to Middle Eastern nations will visit several American cities in mid-October. And we have similar plans for our Asian, Latin American and Central European Ambassadors. Opening markets abroad — and keeping them open. We pursue reverse trade missions and comparable programs because trade is a contact sport. As President Obama noted, 

”We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores.” The President is exactly right. There is a temptation during periods of high domestic unemployment to turn inward. But that is exactly what we should not do. That would cost us jobs, not increase them. Instead, we must take greater advantage of opportunities to increase our exports. With 95 percent of all the world’s consumers living abroad, expanding trade must be a central component of any job creation strategy. Ambassador Ron Kirk and his team at the Office of the United States Trade Representative are leading the effort to further open markets abroad. We, at the State Department provide strong support. The Administration’s key priorities include the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement and the Trans Pacific Partnership, which will provide new opportunities in the Pacific for American workers and companies. Completing the Doha trade round with ambitious and mutually beneficial results is another priority. We, and our trading partners alike, need to determine whether we can achieve the greater level of ambition necessary to make an agreement feasible. We are also using forums like Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the Trans-Atlantic Economic Council (TEC), where State plays a central role, to achieve more open markets. The State Department also supports the efforts of USTR and the Commerce Department to enforce the rights of American companies under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other agreements. Together, we press governments in myriad ways to end discrimination against American goods, farm products and services. The strong alliance between USTR, Commerce and the State Department on these matters demonstrates to other nations our resolve to defend our interests whenever violations occur. Protecting American Intellectual Property. Our greatest assets in today’s knowledge-based economy are the ingenuity and creativity of the American people. President Obama has declared the Administration’s commitment to “aggressively protect our intellectual property… It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century.” Led by Vice President Biden and a top White House team, senior officials of the State Department in Washington and abroad are carrying out the President’s commitment to ensure that intellectual property is being protected around the world. My colleagues and I meet regularly with business leaders, union officials, and leaders of the technology, entertainment and pharmaceutical industries to identify problems in this area and forge effective responses. Protecting our intellectual property — the patents, copyrights, trademarks, innovative technologies, and creative products that drive our economic growth against piracy, counterfeiting, forced transfer, and discriminatory procurement practices — is a core interest of the United States. The stakes for American jobs are high. The information and telecommunications sector alone — one of the many sectors in our country that depend on intellectual property and constant innovation — employs five million people. And we want to enable American workers and businesses to continue innovating, creating, and designing the products that will ensure our prosperity for years to come. Ensuring that their innovative products are protected against counterfeiting and various other techniques that jeopardize their intellectual property is essential to doing this. Ensuring a welcoming environment for foreign investment. From the time of our founding through today, foreign investment has made an important contribution to American economic growth and job creation. The strength of the foreign investment we attract is testimony to the strength of our economy. And investments by foreign-based companies in the U.S. employ a great many Americans: Currently, foreign direct investment in the United States supports roughly 5.5 million American jobs — in highly unionized and largely non unionized states alike. About 4.6 percent of all American private sector workers are employed by foreign-based multinational companies that invest here; two million of these are in manufacturing jobs. Foreign investments account for nearly 15 percent of the research and development in the United States and 18.5 percent of our goods exports. We must and will firmly enforce American laws that require the careful review of investments that could have adverse national security implications. But the vast majority of foreign investment does not come under that heading. And through visits by U.S. officials abroad and the work of our embassies and missions we seek to demonstrate that we — along with governors and mayors throughout the country — welcome that investment. The State Department, utilizing our embassies abroad, helps foreign investors better understand American laws and regulations. We also emphasize the great opportunities foreign investors have to succeed in our country’s very open business environment, highlight the security of investments here, and communicate the benefits of our first-class workforce. Fairness and transparency in international business practices. In an effort to achieve a truly level playing field for American businesses overseas and in so doing to sustain and increase the jobs these companies support at home, the State Department and others in the Administration are working to build an effective international anti-corruption regime. We aim to galvanize the world’s leading economies to support a clean business environment. Both bilaterally and through multilateral fora, we are encouraging other countries to step up and enforce strong anticorruption measures. We have also strengthened our enforcement actions under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; this includes taking measures against foreign companies for actions falling within the scope of U.S. jurisdiction. In addition, we have pressed for international commitment to a robust peer review of implementation of the UN Convention Against Corruption. With our G-20 partners, we have formed a G-20 Anticorruption Working Group, which will make comprehensive recommendations on international efforts to combat corruption. We have called for enactment and enforcement of transnational anti-bribery legislation among the world’s leading economies, in concert with the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Forging new partnerships. The international economic geography has changed dramatically over the last decade. New economic powers have become important players in global finance, trade, investment and technological innovation. A key part of our jobs agenda is working with them to expand exports, encourage more investment in the U.S., and strengthen cooperation to promote growth, balance and stability in the global economy. Increased engagement in such forums as the G-20 and in bilateral arrangements such as the Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China, the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, the U.S.-Russian Bilateral Presidential Commission, and similar dialogues with Brazil, South Africa and other nations will be important instruments to establish a more solid framework for our bilateral and multilateral economic relationships. In many of these dialogues, parallel business-to-business commissions meet to strengthen private sector commercial collaboration. These forums also provide vehicles for encouraging the newly rising economic powers to assume responsibilities for the international economic system, and international norms and rules, consistent with their commercial and financial strength and their shared interest in the openness and stability of the international economy. Progress in such areas will significantly improve prospects for American firms and job growth. Learning from other nations. As in so many other nations these days, many Americans are unemployed and large numbers have been so for a long time. Several nations are currently struggling with average unemployment of even greater duration than ours — and some of them have drawn on past experience to craft new policies to address these problems. Our embassies abroad carefully track the economic problems and policies of other nations. And we work closely with experts in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to share experiences. Working with the Department of Labor — and using our international outreach — we in the State Department can inform the U.S. economic debate by distilling the practices and programs of other nations to reduce their levels of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, and by convening experts from other nations to identify policies that could be applied here. We will continue to bolster American efforts and policies to support jobs and prosperity at home. The State Department and the entire Obama Administration are dedicated to promoting, protecting, and enhancing American prosperity in this rapidly changing world.

Read the full article →

Video: South African State Employees’ Strike Enters Second Week

August 23, 2010

Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Poppy Trowbridge reports on South Africa’s nationwide strike. State employees are demanding an 8.6 percent pay increase and a housing allowance of 1,000 rand ($136) a month. The government says it can’t afford to raise its offer of a 7 percent increase and a 700 rand allowance. South Africa ’s annual inflation rate is currently 4.2 percent.

Read the full article →

Peter Bosshard: China’s Biggest Bank "Not a Mercenary" in Africa

August 10, 2010

The Gibe 3 Dam in Ethiopia is Africa’s most destructive dam project. So far, the Ethiopian government has not managed to attract any international finance for it. After several other funders pulled out, China’s biggest bank is expected to decide about a loan for Gibe 3 soon. The decision is an important test case for the environmental responsibility of China’s overseas lenders. The Gibe 3 Dam is currently under construction on Ethiopia’s Omo River. Environmental organizations have documented in eyewitness reports, articles and commentaries, the dam could lead to the collapse of the fragile ecosystems of the Lower Omo Valley and Lake Turkana. No less than 500,000 poor indigenous people depend on these ecosystems for their survival. The dam endangers two World Heritage Sites . The concerns of affected people and NGOs have meanwhile been confirmed by official studies. A review of the project’s impacts on Lake Turkana commissioned by the African Development Bank states: “Lake Turkana is dependant on the Omo River for almost 90% of its inflow. The river is the lake’s umbilical cord. If the Omo River inflow is cut, the lake level will fall. (…) The filling of the dam has the potential to dry up Ferguson’s Gulf, the most productive fishing area of the lake.” The Ethiopian government has expressed an interest in using the Gibe 3 Project for irrigation. If this happens, the study finds, the world’s largest desert lake “could drop 40 metres, and could ultimately be reduced to two small puddles.” Ethiopia will not be able to build the $1.7 billion dam project without international support. Yet in spite of strenuous efforts over the last four years, the government has not managed to secure any foreign funding. The institutions which have evaluated Gibe 3 include the World Bank, the African Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, Italy’s export credit agency SACE, and US bank JP Morgan Chase. For one reason or the other, none of them have become involved. Funders don’t usually inform the public if they decide not to finance a project, but it is clear that the Gibe 3 Dam would violate environmental standards which many of them have endorsed. In May, Ethiopia’s government announced that the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) would fund a Chinese equipment contract for Gibe 3 with a loan of approximately $450 million. ICBC is China’s and the world’s biggest commercial bank. Kenya’s Friends of Lake Turkana, BankTrack and International Rivers immediately called on ICBC to stay out of the project. “Funding the Gibe 3 Project would seriously damage ICBC’s reputation as a diligent, environmentally responsible bank,” the three organizations warned in a letter to the bank’s CEO . ICBC has meanwhile clarified that it has not yet taken a decision on the Gibe 3 loan. Wei Guoxiong, the bank’s Chief Risk Officer, assured a Chinese business newspaper that ICBC was evaluating the project “very carefully, very carefully”. “Although ICBC is a commercial bank, we are not a mercenary,” Wei Guoxiong said. “We will not support [projects with serious environmental impacts], whether domestically or abroad.” ICBC has expressed a strong commitment to China’s Green Credit Policy and has won numerous banking awards , including a prize for the country’s Best Corporate Citizen. Gibe 3 will put those commitments to the test. ICBC has a 20 percent stake in South Africa’s Standard Bank . Standard Bank is advising ICBC on African projects such as Gibe 3. The South African bank has signed the Equator Principles , an environmental standard for the international banking sector. The Gibe 3 Dam would violate the banking standards on social and environmental assessment, indigenous peoples, and biodiversity conservation. While ICBC has not signed the Equator Principles, its Chief Risk Officer argues that its policies are “in some cases more stringent” than these standards. Chinese investment in African infrastructure is much needed. We have often pointed out problems with specific projects and the environmental standards of Chinese funders. We have also acknowledged the environmental progress that has happened in recent years. With this background, the Gibe 3 Dam is a test case for China’s future role in Africa. Hardly any other project has been so extensively documented, discussed by international financiers and civil society, and covered in the media. If ICBC declines to fund Gibe 3, China’s biggest bank will demonstrate that it respects international environmental standards in its funding decisions, and that it can become a leading actor in the global banking sector. If ICBC does provide funding for the project, it will put hundreds of thousands of poor people at risk, undermine international environmental standards, and taint its own reputation.

Read the full article →

South Africa’s foreign reserves climb 2.3%

August 8, 2010

South Africa’s foreign reserves climb 2.3%

Read the full article →

Russia, South Africa sign nuclear power deal

August 6, 2010

Russia, South Africa sign nuclear power deal

Read the full article →

South Africa’s June inflation slows to 4.2%

July 29, 2010

South Africa’s June inflation slows to 4.2%

Read the full article →

Danny Schechter: Justice on Steroids–for Ruskie Spies, Not Wall St Bigs

July 12, 2010

We just witnessed justice on steroids. Ten Russian “spies”–even if we still don’t know what they were spying on or why–were brought to court, copped a plea, and were on their way out of the country by midnight. The wheels of justice move quickly when governments want them to. Wam, bam, thank you ma’am. When a crisis is looming–in foreign affairs or even potential embarrassment for a country in the spotlight, Courts jump to; cases are rapidly disposed of and the wrath of the law is felt with dispatch. In South Africa, land of the World Cup and vuvuzelas, special courts were set up to avoid a crisis of image if an expected crime wave erupted. Noted the New York Times : To swiftly handle the anticipated caseload — to satisfy the robbed, the throttled, the burgled, the scammed — 54 courtrooms around the country were set aside, “on the ball” from 8:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. and staffed with 110 magistrates, 260 prosecutors, 1,140 court officials and 200 translators. But only 172 cases have come to the World Cup courts, the noise of the gavels no match for the vuvuzelas. The scorecard, as tallied by the Justice Ministry through July 5, reads: 104 convictions, 7 acquittals, 28 withdrawn or dismissed, 33 pending. Now contrast this approach to the handling of our financial crisis where nary a financial big shot has gone to jail or even been tried. Despite the loss of trillions and the destruction of our economy, it’s business as usual in the halls of justice where, as Lenny Bruce once quipped, “the only justice is in the halls.” The government is not pushing prosecutions and there are no special courts despite all the anger in the public at the crimes of Wall Street. According to a recent report in Forbes , the Business magazine, financial crime is growing. Mortgage fraud is on the rise, as are bogus job counseling services and frauds conducted over the Internet. Since the financial crisis erupted in 2008, the FBI’s 1,000-agent New York office has tripled its mortgage fraud investigations squad and beefed up its securities and financial fraud group. The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center says it received 336,655 fraud complaints last year related to financial losses of $560 million, double the dollar amount reported the year before. Instead of “all deliberate speed” (to use a civil rights era phrase), there is no deliberate speed in going after this financial crime wave. Yes, the FBI rounded up low-level mortgage fraudsters but did not go after the firms that securitized the bogus mortgages or insured them. Instead you get cases like this one reported by Business Insider , Robert Miller, a former lawyer for the SEC (and also a former money manager) deserves a prize for his performance in court the other day. He just escaped a potential 20-year prison sentence by telling the judge that he used to be a “fearful, self-loathing suicidal alcoholic,” says the Wall Street Journal. He was just too drunk to realize that he was participating in a fraud. It’s like he told his lawyer: ‘No matter how drunk I was, I wouldn’t have” [done it had I known it was a fraud]. Now Miller won’t have to spend anytime in jail. He will just have to live under “supervised release” for 2 years. This is amazing because Miller already plead guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud and securities fraud in November. Part of the reason for this shocking judicial failure is the way the industry, through lobbying and political contributions, managed to change the laws and decriminalize their scams. It’s hard to remember that 1500 bankers went to jail after the S&L crisis. Almost none are going to jail today. That’s why we need prosecutions of criminal enterprises under the RICO laws used against the mafia. In other countries, there are more creative ideas writes financial analyst Janet Tavakoli on Huffington Post: Broadcaster Max Keiser interviewed Luc Saucier, a Parisian lawyer to the financial community and Fulbright Scholar, on how to create a fast remedy to amoral behavior in the global financial markets. …Saucier explains that labeling a financial institution “obscene” is an effective social deterrent. U.S. citizens have the right to own property and to make money. We also enjoy freedom of speech, up to a point. The Supreme Court stated that when “art” becomes obscene-and the court worked hard to define what is meant by “obscene”-it is no longer considered art and does not enjoy the protection of freedom of speech. The most highly compensated players in finance are hedge fund managers earning $1 billion to $4 billion per year. Saucier says that when you see someone making money-billions of dollars a year in bonuses by exploiting the subprime crisis-then one can take the view that part of the remuneration is obscene. The same can be said for many bank CEOs, who may earn somewhat less economic compensation, but enjoy countless valuable perks. …Mr. Saucier puts it this way:

”They are committing acts of obscenity…They are morally bankrupting society…It’s obscene like kiddie porn is obscene…On the financial front that’s what [corrupt financiers are] guilty of.” Too many Americans don’t see it this way, says another financial blogger, Martin Andelman of Mandelman Matters , I think everyone has a friend or family member who thinks the crisis was caused by irresponsible sub-prime borrowers, who are now lowing their homes and should be. They’re wrong, and you know they’re wrong, but it’s a tough argument to win. More than a few of my readers have contacted me over the last year saying that they wish I could come over and set their special someone straight, and frankly I wish I could too, because no one… and I do mean no one… has any chance of winning that argument if I’m involved, and not because I’m such a brilliant debater, but because they have their facts wrong… they are misinformed. I am not, and neither is Danny Schechter. He then goes on to call for “Plunder Parties” to show my film Plunder The Crime of Our Time because our media is not doing enough to cover the criminal basis of the crisis. Boing Boing reports that “Italy’s media is going on strike today, and practically no news will be reported. This is in protest of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s plan to ram through anti-wiretapping legislation that includes a gag order on reportage concerning government investigation (especially investigation of corruption).” Unfortunately, in our country, we don’t need laws like this. Most of the media is already complicit with little inclination and few resources to investigate institutional corruption. Give them a celebrity scandal, a sex siren like Anna Chapman or an already wealthy ballplayer like Lebron James and they will beat the story to death in a mad pursuit of ratings and revenues. Ask them to investigate the collapse of our economy and hijacking of our country and you don’t get called back. News Dissector Danny Schechter directed Plunder The Crime of Our Time http://plunderthecrimeofourtime.com) that views the financial crisis as a crime story, (Plunderthecrimeofourtime.com). Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org

Read the full article →

Max Bergmann: The Other Side of the World Cup

July 11, 2010

With today marking the end of the World Cup, assessing the legacy of the World Cup for South Africa can now begin. In other words, will this event attract more investment and usher in greater economic growth that can begin to make a dent in the huge levels of poverty. South Africa is a country of dualities. It is a country with a dark past, yet judging by the World Cup it has a bright future. It is a country that is the richest of sub-Saharan Africa, yet is plagued by poverty and an exorbitantly high rate of HIV/AIDs. It is country that struggles with crime, yet is one of the most friendly and warm countries I have experienced. While South African cities, like Port Elizabeth, where I stayed, have beautiful beach fronts and safe neighborhoods, on the outskirts sit black South African townships that mainly developed during apartheid. It is in these townships were the challenges confronting South Africa are clearly visible. Government neglect and denial of the AIDS crisis has led to a public health catastrophe, where in some townships 40 percent struggle with HIV/AIDs. Unemployment is also rampant and estimated to be as high as 80 percent in some areas. City services like electric, water, sewer are often absent, as are quality access to education. Government corruption, negligence, and incompetence are problems – as they are everywhere – but the scope and size of the challenge in arresting poverty is so huge and resources are so stretched that narrowing the two worlds of South Africa will be a long term process dependent on continued economic growth. Critics of hosting the World Cup have noted the absurdity in spending millions in constructing beautiful new stadiums – many of which will go unused after the World Cup – when so many live in poverty. Yet while the long term economic benefits remain unclear, it is certain that this tournament has done a tremendous amount in giving the world a different view of a more prosperous Africa. And in that is one of the keys to tackling poverty – creating a virtuous circle of growth that attracts significant foreign investment into the country. Large global companies have long been investing in South Africa – as it is Africa’s most vibrant economy – and while the jobs and training provide direct benefits many have also become important players in anti-poverty efforts. I was fortunate enough to have traveled to South Africa for the World Cup in a program through Volkswagen and was able to see the impact first hand. Volkswagen has a major auto factory outside Port Elizabeth – one of the World Cup hosts cities – where they employ about 7,000 people. As one of the largest companies in the region, Volkswagen invests millions annually in social investment projects of all types. The types of projects vary considerable. VW invest in local seamstresses from a nearby township, whose entrepruenerial spirit led them to pool their activities and produce reusable grocery bags for use at the South Africa’s largest grocery chain. They are building an education center for children in an impoverished township and contributing to the Ubuntu education fund , which seeks to provide an educational learning center for orphaned and disadvantaged kids after schools. Some projects come from the initiative of VW, on others VW invests in programs that are already up and running and are looking for capital. VW has also long been involved in soccer. They own a club in the German Bundesliga – Wolfsburg – which started from VW autoworkers, and they sponsor other clubs such as DC United and clubs in the South African league. VW also invests in soccer in South Africa through the “A Chance To Play” initiative . The South African government due to budget restrictions largely abandoned spending on arts and sports as part of their school curriculum. A ‘Chance To Play’ helps provide sports competition, but also ensures that anyone that participates in the program is also taught about HIV/AIDs. The program therefore is not just about sports, but about providing a safe alternative for children to spend their time while simultaneously important life lessons at the same time. Now VW, and companies like it, often claim, perhaps legitimately, that it is making such investments due to altruistic concerns. But there is also a cold hard capitalist logic to reinvesting in the communities in which they have such an out-sized presence. Henry Ford for instance, not one for altruism, greatly increased his employees wages so that they too could buy cars. For companies doing business in countries with strong democratic institutions, ensuring that the local community has a favorable view of the company is a clear strategic interest. There is a real interest in consumer based companies – ie companies that are dependent on people to buy things – to help make those people richer. And Volkswagen doesn’t just export its cars from the port at Port Elizabeth – it sells the most cars to the South African market and is looking to grow further. To do so, it is dependent on South Africans getting richer. But whatever the motivation, VW’s investments are creating positive social outcomes, that while not filling the gap by any means, are providing services and opportunities to many who would otherwise not get them. For instance, VW has emphasized worker training and health. In a country with such a high HIV/AIDS rate ensuring proper medical care and treatment is a must. VW has a clinic within its factory and requires employees to visit. This is also not altruism. Autoworkers have to be trained and the longer workers they are there the more valuable they become – it is bad business not to take care of the health of people you have spent money and years investing in. Volkswagen is also a among a number of other auto companies in South Africa and their presence, while in many ways due to cheaper labor than they would find in Germany and convenient shipping routes to markets in the east and west, is also due to the stability and strength of South Africa’s democracy. While labor might be cheaper in South Africa, it is by no means the cheapest source of labor on the continent and the country also has very robust labor unions. There has long been a fear that global companies would continue to search for countries with cheaper and cheaper labor and weaker and weaker regulations. While this is no doubt the case for some industries, for capital intensive industries that are dependent on a skilled work force, the key is stability. Car companies that build capital intensive factories are investing for the long haul and need to be assured of a level of political and economic stability. Therefore stable democratic countries that have relatively strong institutions are a must for many large multinationals. No one doubts that VW’s first focus is on making a profit for its shareholders. But what is in a company’s core interest can be interpreted broadly (or narrowly) and Volkswagen chooses the broader interpretation, as do most companies that believe they are going to be around for a while.

Read the full article →

South Africa’s gross reserves up 2.4% in June

July 7, 2010

South Africa’s gross reserves up 2.4% in June

Read the full article →

The World Cup’s Effect On Productivity: InsideView (INFOGRAPHIC)

July 2, 2010

InsideView , a sales data and intelligence firm, has put together this impressive infographic on just how much productivity has been lost by all of the rapt attention paid to the World Cup. (Hat tip to Mashable .) In the U.S. alone, InsideView predicts, the U.S.lost some $121 million in decreased economic output. And in the U.K., the total cost has come to $7.3 billion. In host nation South Africa, the AP reports, employers have even be known to let their workers leave early to watch games. Patrick Craven, the head of COSATU, South Africa’s biggest trade union said, “We believe any marginal effect on the production is completely outweighed by the enormous positive effect that this event has had on the country as a whole.” Check out InsideView’s chart: Sales Productivity Software – InsideView.com

Read the full article →

Expect G-20 Leaders To Clash Over How To Spark Global Recovery

June 25, 2010

HUNTSVILLE, Ontario — As world leaders gathered to deal with the aftermath of the global financial crisis, President Barack Obama boasted about a congressional compromise on overhauling the U.S. banking system and called for an international effort to prevent future economic meltdowns. But Obama was still facing major obstacles in convincing a balky Congress to provide more money to fight high unemployment and many countries were resisting Obama’s appeals for continued stimulus spending to support the global economy. They were moving in the opposite direction to raise taxes and cut government programs out of fears of a Greek-style debt crisis. After meeting through the night in Washington, congressional negotiators cleared the financial overhaul proposal with the help of an administration-brokered compromise on derivatives trading. The agreement was certain to be a major discussion point as Obama and other leaders of the Group of 20 major economies gathered for three days of talks in Canada. Those discussions were beginning Friday with a session at a Huntsville, Ontario, resort, a three-hour drive north of Toronto in Canada’s Muskoka lakes region. “We need to act in concert for a simple reason: This crisis proved and events continue to affirm that our national economies are inextricably linked,” Obama said on the White House lawn before leaving for Canada. “At the G-20 summit this weekend, I’ll work with other nations not only to coordinate our financial reform efforts but to promote global economic growth.” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters on Air Force One that Obama had taken a number of bold steps to deal with the financial crisis since taking office last year and now “he leads the world in financial reform.” Leaders of the Group of Eight major industrial nations – the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Canada and Russia – were meeting Friday to discuss a range of initiatives to alleviate global poverty. Those discussions were to move back to Toronto on Saturday and Sunday for talks with the larger G-20 group which includes the rich countries and major developing nations such as China, Brazil and India. The G-20 group represents 85 percent of the global economy and the United States wants this group to endorse the outlines for global financial reform to eliminate the threat that banks facing tougher regulations in one jurisdiction will move their operations to countries with more lax rules. Even before the summit began, the leaders engaged in a series of dueling letters and interviews that exposed their conflicts. A key discussion point for the G-8 was a proposal being promoted by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the summit host, to bolster support for maternal and child health care in poor nations. The G-8 was also holding an outreach session with leaders of seven African nations. Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan said the G-20 should be expanded to include more African nations. At present, only South Africa is a member. “If African nations have challenges, the West also pays for it,” Jonathan said in an interview in Toronto’s “The Globe and Mail.” Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, would be a likely candidate for inclusion if the G-20 is expanded. In an opinion piece the newspaper published Friday, new British Prime Minister David Cameron said he was determined to make his first international summit a success. “Too often, these international meetings fail to live up to the hype and the promises made,” Cameron wrote. “A lot of money is spent laying them on. Host cities disrupted for days, even weeks. The cavalcades roll into town.” Cameron said Britain’s main priority at the meeting was to hear each country provide details about plans for getting their “national finances under control.” The G-8 was also scheduled to spend time over dinner Friday night discussing the nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea and seeking consensus on ways ahead. The U.S. and its allies will be looking to convince China to support U.N. Security Council action to hold North Korea accountable for the sinking of a South Korean warship in March. On Iran, the U.S. and European nations will push other major powers to join them in imposing tough new sanctions on Tehran over its suspect nuclear program, building on expanded Security Council measures adopted earlier this month. But China and Russia only reluctantly supported the sanctions, and have balked at new unilateral steps against Iran, saying any measures should not exceed those called for by the Security Council. The House-Senate conference committee agreement on financial overhaul, which the administration hopes can be passed by Congress and on Obama’s desk by July 4, represented a welcome triumph for a White House that has had a tough two months dealing with the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history and a Congress increasingly worried about soaring U.S. deficits. On Thursday, solid Republican opposition caused the defeat of legislation that would have provided billions of dollars for job creation and extended benefits for unemployed people. Other G-20 leaders have not signaled much support for Obama’s warnings that countries should not pull back their stimulus efforts too quickly. Britain, Germany, France and Japan have all unveiled deficit-cutting plans. Canada’s Harper was urging the countries to agree to concrete deficit-reduction goals as a way of restoring investor confidence following the turmoil caused by the Greek debt crisis. Toronto’s downtown core resembled a fortress with a big steel and concrete fence erected over several blocks to protect the summit site. Canadian police patrolled the Lake Ontario waterfront from boats and jet skis with the number of security forces protecting the summit meetings estimated to total 19,000, drawn from all over Canada. The G-20 leaders’ summits began in the fall of 2008 in response to the global economic crisis that struck with fury after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a major U.S. investment bank. At that time, the leaders joined to assemble multibillion-dollar support packages to restart economic growth and financial rescue efforts to rescue a froze global banking system. But now that the banks are back from the brink and the world’s economies are growing again, unity is proving more elusive. ___ Crutsinger reported from Toronto. Associated Press writers Rob Gillies, Darlene Superville, Jane Wardell and Tom Raum contributed from Toronto.

Read the full article →