|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 22nd, 2008 Israel may help the Arab world reach its potential. In the wake of the Kadima party’s primary elections, the process of replacing Israel’s prime minister will begin in earnest. The leading candidates, as one would expect, have been discussing the familiar litany of problems facing the country: the threat from Iran, the challenge from Hamas, the dangers posed by Hezbollah, and the conflict with Palestinians and Arab countries. Considering the long list of grave dangers, it might seem surprising that Israel’s economy is not flashing distress signals. In fact, while the global economy has split into two camps - one swimming in oil wealth, the other limping partly because of the high price of oil - Israel, a country with almost no natural resources, has just reported its best unemployment rate in more than two decades. To be sure, Israel’s economy will slow down because it is deeply intertwined with the rest of the world. But it has kept growing strongly despite an international credit spasm and a spike in commodity prices. One can only imagine the explosion of prosperity that would follow if real peace were achieved in the Middle East. Glimpses of potential: We can already see glimpses of the potential. In Dubai, the dazzling emirate that dares to be different, an Israeli-born Italian architect, David Fisher, will build another astonishing addition to the Gulf skyline. The 80-floor tower will feature floors that rotate independently, changing the shape of the building and the views from each window. The undulating structure will produce its own energy, with solar-power cells on the roof of each floor. The idea is revolutionary for many reasons, beginning with the birthplace of the architect. Arab countries don’t do business with Israelis. But Israelis have much to contribute, and progressive Arabs working with them could create world-transforming partnerships. Israel today attracts more foreign investment than anyone, except the United States and the European Union, because its entrepreneurs and scientists have proven that they can produce and innovate. Israeli products and inventions touch all of our lives. Israel has what the Arab world needs. And Israelis would rejoice in true partnerships with their Arab neighbors. Until now, the Arab Middle East has looked like a grotesque display of haves and have-nots. Oil-rich countries have splurged on luxuries while importing servants and cheap labor from poor neighbors. Israel, meanwhile - and, for a time, Lebanon - built an economy that relies on the skills and talents of its people. Israeli prosperity created thousands of jobs for Palestinians, until suicide bombings led to check points and dreadful difficulties for West Bank and Gaza residents. A vibrant economy: Despite wars, violence, and political scandals, Israel has kept investing in its people and creating a vibrant economy that could one-day help remake the entire region. Last year, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development invited Israel to apply for membership. The exclusive OECD brings together 30 of the world’s richest economies that are committed to democracy and free markets. Undeterred by political scandals and by defense spending - far exceeding US aid to Israel - that sucks out a huge portion of the national income, Israel has an exceptional educational system that stimulates creativity and independent thinking. The country has some of the world’s highest rates of university graduates, of doctorates, book production, technology companies, patents, innovation, discoveries, and much more. The Arab world has always had enormous potential and, for a time, it produced great knowledge. Then came cultural stagnation. But that will change one day. Much of the region has been derailed by war, extremism, and despotism. Precious time and treasure have been wasted. Israel, meanwhile, has focused on survival - and has thrived.
For now, however, one hears the politicians and returns back to today’s reality. For now, it’s about facing dangers and focusing on survival. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 21st, 2008 Uri Avnery THE POLLS were wrong, as usual. And in a big way. As usual. Instead of winning by a huge margin, as predicted until the very last moment by all the polls, she just squeaked through. Of the 72 thousand or so registered Kadima members, only 39,331 troubled themselves to go to the polls, and among these she defeated Shaul Mofaz by just 431 votes. But a majority is a majority. Tzipi Livni was duly installed as Kadima chairperson. FIRST OF ALL: this is the victory of a person without a military background over someone with almost nothing apart from a military background. On the advice of his right-wing American political strategist, Stanley Greenberg, Mofaz emphasized the word “security” on every occasion, almost in every sentence. A popular talk-show turned this into a parody: Security, security, security, security. Well, it did not work. T-h-e general, the chief of Staff, the Defense Minister, was beaten by a mere woman devoid of any military experience (even if she did serve for 15 years in the Mossad.) That does not mean that Tzipi Livni may not turn out to be a warmonger, like Elisabeth I, Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi. But fact is fact: the Kadima voters have preferred a non-general to a general. MOREOVER, KADIMA is a party of the center. The very center of the center. Its members are not fervent about anything, neither on the right or the left, they have no strong convictions of any kind. So their decision can be regarded as a reflection of the general mood. Mofaz presented himself not only as Mr. Security, but also as a genuine right-winger, a man who opposes both peace with Syria and peace with the Palestinians, a leader prepared to set up a coalition with the Right, even with the extreme Right. He was the declared exponent of open-ended-war. Tzipi Livni presented herself as the personification of the peace effort, the woman who conducts the negotiations with the Palestinians, who prefers diplomacy to war, who points the way to the end of the conflict. All this may be sleight of hand, pure deceit. Perhaps there is no difference at all between the two. But even if this is so, that is not the most important aspect. The important fact is that the Kadima voters, the most representative group in the country, accorded victory - well, a tiny victory - to the candidate who at least pretended to favor peace. In his “The Second Coming”, the Irish poet W. B. Yeats describes utter chaos: “Things fall apart, the center cannot hold”. The metaphor is taken from military history: in bygone days, armies drew up for battle with the main force in the center, and lighter forces defending the two flanks. As long as the center held, everything was fine. In Israel today, the center is holding. The centrist party voted for the woman of the center. *** I REMEMBER the elections nine years ago. In May 1999, Ehud Barak won a decisive victory over the incumbent, Binyamin Netanyahu: 56.08% against 43.92%, a difference of 388,546 votes. The public was just fed up with Netanyahu. The response was overwhelming. The general feeling in the peace camp was of a release from servitude to freedom, from an era of failure and corruption into an era of peace and well-being. Without any proclamations, without anybody planning it, masses of people streamed into Tel-Aviv’s Rabin Square, the place where a Prime Minister had been assassinated four years earlier. I was among them. In the square, the atmosphere was intoxicating. Delirious people danced, embraced each other, kissed. Tel Aviv had not seen anything like it since November 1947, when the United Nations General Assembly decided to establish a Jewish (and an Arab) state. I experienced a similar scene in April 1948, when I was part of the force that brought a huge relief convoy into beleaguered and starving West Jerusalem. A similar atmosphere was captured by film of Charles de Gaulle entering liberated Paris. Barak promised to be a second Rabin, only more so. He promised to make peace with the Palestinians within months. A rosy future was warming the horizon, “the dawn of a new day”. A year and a half later, nothing of all this remained. Ehud Barak, the hero of peace, brought on us the greatest disaster in the annals of the struggle for peace. He came back from the Camp David conference, which had taken place on his express demand, with a declaration that was to become a mantra: “I have turned every stone on the way to peace / I have offered the Palestinians unprecedented generous terms / Arafat has rejected everything / We have no partner for peace.” With 20 Hebrew words Barak destroyed the peace camp and brought about a public mood which even Netanyahu could not create: that there is no chance for peace, that we are condemned to live with an everlasting conflict. Therefore, no one got excited about Tzipi Livni’s victory. The masses did not stream into the square, did not dance and did not embrace - and not only because this was just a party-internal election. The general reaction was a sigh of relief and a shrug of the shoulder. So Kadima has voted. So it has a new chairperson. So there will be a new Prime Minister. Let’s wait and see. *** There are already jokes circulating about “Tzipi and the Tzipiot” (a Hebrew word-play, “tzipiot” meaning expectations), a new rock-band which is about to take to the road. Nobody really knows what kind of a Prime Minister she will be. Strong or weak. Determined or open to pressures. Tough or compromising. Warmonger or peace-seeker. One can only point at her background, as I hinted last week, and perhaps go into some detail. On the eve of the elections, in one of those vapid questionnaires the media are so fond of, she was asked who was her hero. Her answer: Jabotinsky. That was the most predictable answer there could be. Tzipi Livni grew up in a Revisionist household. She is a Revisionist, model 2008. What does that mean? Her father, Eitan, who was born in Grodno (a town that has belonged variously to Lithuania, Poland, Russia and now Belarus), came to this country at the age of 6 and joined the Irgun underground in 1938 (the same year as I did), when he was 19 years old. He lived all his life under the influence of Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky and his teachings. Eitan Livni, as I knew him, was not a brilliant or exceptional person, but rather solid, loyal, as his name suggests. (In Hebrew, “eitan” means strong, steadfast). A person one could rely on. He served in the Irgun as an operational officer, and among other operations he took part in the daring break-out from Acre prison, where he was being held. As a Knesset member for the Herut Party, the predecessor of today’s Likud, he was rather inconspicuous and supported Menachem Begin through thick and thin. In order to understand Tzipi, one has to go back to Jabotinsky. His many enemies have often called him a Fascist, but that is inaccurate. He was born in the 19th century, and was a nationalist in the 19th century mold. Born in Odessa, he lived for some years as a young man in Italy, and his heroes were the leaders of contemporary Italian nationalism: the ideologue Giuseppe Mazzini and the fighter Giuseppe Garibaldi. Jabotinsky wanted, of course, all of Palestine to become a Jewish state. When he founded his party in the 1920s, he named it according to this vision: the demand was for a “revision” of the British decision to separate the land west of the Jordan river from the land east of the river, today’s Kingdom of Jordan, then called Transjordan. In her youth, Tzipi sang Jabotinsky’s most famous song: “Two banks has the Jordan - this one belongs to us and that one, too.” But Jabotinsky was also a real liberal, and a real democrat. He entered the political arena for the first time when he formulated the “Helsingfors (Helsinki) Plan”, which demanded human and national rights for the Jews and the other minorities in Czarist Russia. A PERSON educated according to these values is faced today with a tough dilemma. ***
*** It seems that Tzipi, like her hero Jabotinsky, adheres to the national view. Hence her emphasis on “two nation-states for two peoples”. She speaks about a Jewish nation-state and is ready to sacrifice Greater Israel on this altar. That may not be an ideal basis for peace (what would be the status of Israel’s Arab citizens in this Jewish nation-state?) but it is realistic. If she has the power to implement her ideas, she can make peace. If. REACTING TO the election results, Gideon Levy wrote that the heart wants to hope, but the brain cannot. That is an understandable reaction. Since Tzipi, short for Tzipora, means bird, one wants to cry out: Fly, Tzipora, fly! Fly to heaven! After your election as Prime Minister, lose no time! Set up a government coalition with the peace forces, use the first few months of your term to achieve peace with the Palestinians, call new elections and submit yourself and the peace agreement to the public test! As Livni herself phrased it in her direct way: “There is no time for bullshitting!” That is what Ehud Barak should have done in 2000. He did not take the chance, and therefore he lost. Will Tzipora the bird reach these heights? The heart hopes. The brain has its doubts. ————- Collected articles http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/chan… permlink: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/chan… ————- ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 20th, 2008 America will need a $1,000bn bail-out. ByKenneth Rogoff, The Financial Times, September 17 2008. One of the most extraordinary features of the past month is the extent to which the dollar has remained immune to a once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis. If the US were an emerging market country, its exchange rate would be plummeting and interest rates on government debt would be soaring. Instead, the dollar has actually strengthened modestly, while interest rates on three- month US Treasury Bills have now reached 54-year lows. It is almost as if the more the US messes up, the more the world loves it. But can this extraordinary vote of confidence in the dollar last? Perhaps, but as investors step back and look at the deep wounds of America’s flagship financial sector, the public and private sector’s massive borrowing needs, and the looming uncertainty of the November presidential elections, it is hard to believe that the dollar will continue to stand its ground as the crisis continues to deepen and unfold. It is true that the US government has very deep pockets. Privately held US government debt was under $4,400bn at the end of 2007, representing less than 32 per cent of gross domestic product. This is roughly half the debt burden carried by most European countries, and an even smaller fraction of Japan’s debt levels. It is also true that despite the increasingly tough stance of US regulators, the financial crisis has probably already added at most $200bn-$300bn to net debt, taking into account the likely losses on nationalising the mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the costs of the $29bn March bail-out of investment bank Bear Stearns, the potential fallout from the various junk collateral the Federal Reserve has taken on to its balance sheet in the last few months, and finally, Wednesday’s $85bn bail-out of the insurance giant AIG. Were the financial crisis to end today, the costs would be painful but manageable, roughly equivalent to the cost of another year in Iraq. Unfortunately, however, the financial crisis is far from over, and it is hard to imagine how the US government is going to succeed in creating a firewall against further contagion without spending five to 10 times more than it has already, that is, an amount closer to $1,000bn to $2,000bn. True, the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve have done an admirable job over the past week in forcing the private sector to bear a share of the burden. By forcing the fourth largest investment bank, Lehman Brothers, into bankruptcy and Merrill Lynch into a distressed sale to Bank of America, they helped to facilitate a badly needed consolidation in the financial services sector. However, at this juncture, there is every possibility that the credit crisis will radiate out into corporate, consumer and municipal debt. Regardless of the Fed and Treasury’s most determined efforts, the political pressures for a much larger bail-out, and pressures from the continued volatility in financial markets, are going to be irresistible. It is hard to predict exactly how and when the mega-bail-out will evolve. At some point, we are likely to see a broadening and deepening of deposit insurance, much as the UK did in the case of Northern Rock. Probably, at some point, the government will aim to have a better established algorithm for making bridge loans and for triggering the effective liquidation of troubled firms and assets, although the task is far more difficult than was the case in the 1980s, when the Resolution Trust Corporation was formed to help clean up the saving and loan mess. Of course, there also needs to be better regulation. It is incredible that the transparency-challenged credit default swap market was allowed to swell to a notional value of $6,200bn during 2008 even as it became obvious that any collapse of this market could lead to an even bigger mess than the fallout from subprime mortgage debt. It may prove to be possible to fix the system for far less than $1,000bn- $2,000bn. The tough stance taken by regulators this past weekend with the investment banks Lehman and Merrill Lynch certainly helps. Yet I fear that the American political system will ultimately drive the cost of saving the financial system well up into that higher territory. A large expansion in debt will impose enormous fiscal costs on the US, ultimately hitting growth through a combination of higher taxes and lower spending. It will certainly make it harder for the US to maintain its military dominance, which has been one of the linchpins of the dollar. The shrinking financial system will also undermine another central foundation of the strength of the US economy. And it is hard to see how the central bank will be able to resist a period of allowing elevated levels of inflation, as this offers a convenient way for the US to deflate the mounting cost of its private and public debts. It is a very good thing that the rest of the world retains such confidence in America’s ability to manage its problems, otherwise the financial crisis would be far worse. Let us hope the US political and regulatory response continues to inspire this optimism. Otherwise, sharply rising interest rates and a rapidly declining dollar could put the US in a bind that many emerging markets are all too familiar with. The writer is professor of economics at Harvard University and former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. *** Hard lessons to be learnt from a Minsky Moment. By Larry Hatheway, The Finasncial Times, September 18 2008. After the US Treasury secretary Hank Paulson’s brave stand on “moral hazard” at the weekend, it took less than 48 hours for pragmatism to prevail over principle in the form of a government rescue for the ailing insurer AIG. For all the hand-wringing of the “no bail-out” proponents, the takeover was almost certainly necessary, given the potential for significant contagion via the unwinding of complex counterparty exposures. With the demise of AIG, the markets’ verdict has been rendered: a reactive, ad hoc, mostly private sector approach to the challenges of the financial sector will not work. The problems are systemic and the remedies need to be comprehensive. The challenges - including a shortage of capital, dysfunctional wholesale credit markets, widespread deleveraging and significant asset sales - are too large, too widespread and too complex to be managed by the private sector alone. US and European financial institutions do not have the capital or balance sheet strength to offset the downdraught of falling asset values. Those with capital are unwilling to subsidise those without, at least not at prevailing prices. Put differently, if a (quasi) private sector solution was in the offing this past weekend, then Mr Paulson and Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, invited the wrong financiers. The only sources of capital large enough to address the problems reside in Asia or the Middle East, not New York or London. And that speaks volumes about the future of global finance. Practically speaking, the only balance sheet capable of absorbing the deleveraging is the US government one. Understandably, Mr Paulson has been reluctant to put more taxpayers’ money at risk. But, as the events of the past two days demonstrate, he has had little choice. Moreover, the sharp fall in commodity prices is a clear sign that the tumult in the markets is expected to drag down an already weak global economy. What, then, are, the basic contours of a comprehensive financial sector strategy? * The stigma on government involvement should be jettisoned. Government intervention has precedence and can help stabilise the system. That is true of emergency liquidity provision or the relaxation of collateral rules by central banks. But it is equally true of efforts to promote consolidation, capital injection and ownership change in the banking sector. * Central banks should ease monetary policy. Falling commodity prices, the likelihood of falling inflation and the reality of sharply slowing global growth demonstrate the need for concerted global easing . * As the Financial Stability Forum recently noted, banks and other financial institutions will have to raise at least another $350bn of capital to deal with yet-to-be-realised losses. Yet, as Lehman’s bankruptcy demonstrates, capital is harder to come by and considerably more expensive. Government- sponsored re-capitalisation appears unavoidable and ought to be anticipated by policymakers. * The creation of government- backed asset management companies would allow problem banks and non-performing assets to be sold or run down in an orderly fashion. The establishment of a “clearing house” to net liabilities, including in credit default swaps, may also be necessary. * Although depositors have remained - for the most part - calm amid the turmoil, broader assurances on bank deposits may be required, backed by adequate funding for the FDIC and other national deposit insurance entities. The strong theme underlying the Minsky Moment - the tipping point between market euphoria and decline - is that a systemic problem in the financial system requires a systemic solution. Central banks can do and have done a great deal to keep the financial system liquid and funded. But the nature of the ongoing deleveraging, in which declining asset values, debt reduction and asset sales reinforce one another, calls for additional intervention by government. The matter is pressing in its own right, but also because most of the advanced economies are either already in or on the verge of recession. This is no longer just a financial matter. The author is chief economist at UBS.
Like: Bad Accounting Rules Helped Sink AIG by Zachary Karabell, The author of “Climerica: How the United States and China Became One” - to be published by Simon & Shuster NEXT YEAR, Don’t Worry About Inflation, by Frederick S. Mishkin, Professor at Columbia Business, and author of “Monetary Strategy” (MIT Press. 2007); The Credit Crunch Will Go On, by David Roche of www.instrategy.com —————– HOW OBAMA CAN DEMONSTRATE REAL LEADERSHIP ON THE ECONOMIC CRISIS ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 10th, 2008 From: euromoney_conferences@xactpromos.com Co-hosted by the Republic of Tatarstan
Euromoney Conferences and the Republic of Tatarstan invite you to attend The Euromoney Kazan International Investment Forum, taking place on Wednesday 15 October at the Korston Hotel in Kazan. The conference is FREE to attend. To confirm your place, please reply to this email. Fast track registration can be guaranteed for you.
Why should you attend?
We look forward to seeing you in Kazan in October. Next event within our portfolio: Tatarstan’s economy is growing fast. There’s a vibrant, go-ahead class of entrepreneurs encouraged by pro-business politics from the Republic’s government. The region is rich in natural resources - it holds 18% of Russia’s hydrocarbons! It has a promising consumer market and is only 400 miles east of Moscow. Many foreign companies have already invested heavily in Tartastan and many local companies are actively seeking foreign partners for joint ventures and equity investments. Tatarstan has a compelling story to tell. Co-hosted by Euromoney Conferences and the Republic of Tatarstan, the Kazan International Investment Forum will bring together the highest level of Tatar business, financial and political leaders with domestic, regional and international investors. Key speakers include: To view agenda outline please click here. Lead Sponsor: Co Sponsor: Applying to attend is free but Euromoney reserves the right of admission. Registration Details: You will receive your official email confirmation within 5 working days. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 7th, 2008 From: liasieghart at hotmail.com
### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 2nd, 2008 Gulf ruler buys top club – then reveals his plan to spend, spend, spend… The tiny Gulf state of Abu Dhabi launched an audacious raid on one of Britain’s top football clubs yesterday in a move that will transform the shape of global football. The £210m takeover of Manchester City threatens to dethrone their closest rivals Manchester United and establish City as the biggest team in the world. The club announced that it had signed a memo of understanding with the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), a holding company set up by Middle East investors, backed by the country’s royal family. The new regime’s first move was an attempt to gazump United’s £30m signing of Tottenham Hotspur’s star striker Dimitar Berbatov with an offer of £34m. And they quickly followed that by lodging bids for Spain’s highly rated forward David Villa and Stuttgart’s Mario Gomez. ADUG will spend the nextfew weeks examining the club’s books before taking control, and will become the first Middle East investor to be in control of a Premier League team. The Arab group is fronted by Sulaiman Al Fahim, a multi-billionaire nicknamed the “Donald Trump of Abu Dhabi,” who has pledged to invest enough to break up the “Big Four” of Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal by next year. It could herald a whole new era for transfer fees, as the investors’ plans could dwarf even Roman Abramovic |






















Printer Friendly









