What about removing obstacles that prevent its citizens from being economic and psychological slaves? What about creating opportunities for its citizens to better their lives and, thus, contribute to society more than they are presently doing? What about finding solutions to poverty, hunger, illiteracy, hatred, etc. — the contributors to chaos, divisiveness, war and destruction?

Hasn’t history shown that the removal of obstacles to businesses, while, perhaps, a good thing in the short run, isn’t so good in the long run when the corrupt, greedy and power-seeking nature of “man” takes over. Trickle-down economics? 1,000 points of light? Please…caring, generosity, philanthropy on the part of businesses — especially global ones — is a rarity. And we’re talking about people here — not institutions, universities, symphonies, buildings, etc., with their names on it. Not too many Schindlers around.

And, to the question about “which nations do you think will be winners and losers? Think there are no real winners per se unless everyone wins and think we may need to lose the notion of winners vs. losers. For what are we in competition? To see who’s able to get off the planet first? To see who’s the last nation “standing?”

If we consider the planet as the biggest business of them all — and isn’t that what a “real” public policy network is about? — then, what are the global strategies for it to flourish? I know…hard to even get to the point of formulating global strategies much less get agreement when there’s so much dissension, nation-centeredness, and when some “governments” and powers-that-be really only care about staying in power to enrich their own selves and those like them.

Oh, regarding business et al moving to another nation with a “more friendly” environment — like those without child labor laws? Or those that allow lead in children’s toys? Or lax environmental regs? Or salmonella in peanut butter?

So, who really “wins” here? Besides in cases where companies offshore anything from manufacturing to customer service in order to reduce cost, we’re really not seeing any reduction in price to the end user…we’re only seeing more to the bottom corporate line. And, while that may end up enriching shareholders, pension plans, etc., etc., it’s not really filtering down to the population as a whole. So, again, who really “wins” here?

Dan Gersten
Observer & Student of Life & The Human Condition

At the end of 2008, the scenario for the U.S. was that there would be a deepening of the crisis in the first half of 2009 and a possible recovery early in the second half. Now, I think the improvement was pushed one or two more quarters ahead, even in the optimistic scenario. The Madoff’s case showed that there is still much dirty water in this sea of derivatives. This creates uncertainty, it keeps the risk of the stock exchanges in a high level and lock and secure the recovery. Banks that were already apparent in land needed more money, as Bank of America and Citibank.Security Company as AIG almost bankrupt as GM.All of This facts create more uneasiness and does not recover the confidenceof the already shaken customers.In this Vicious cycle, the banks hold the credit because they do not even know about they have to borrow . It seems surreal? Surreal was the system of financial supervision of the United States.
They create a Castlle of Cards. Everyone here should have played the house of cards as chidren.And everyone knows when that after we can go with security just to 3rd floor.The US created a tale of unshakable security for their titles and bonds, as passing glue to mantain the cards and come support a house of cards up to 10th and 11th floors.
However one day the house literally falls as we are seeing nowadays.
Anyway, throughout its history, the American democracy has shown superb capacity to reinvent itself, the ability to change paradigms and overcome to recover old values ancestors, which made it the most prosperous nation in the century.
We hope so…
Dr. Marcos Nascimento,Md.
Medicine Professor at PUCPR Curitiba Brazil
Tobacco Risk Advisor
http://www.pulmaosa.com.br

Enclosed are the revert regarding your questions:

Which nations do you think will be winners and losers under the circumstances?
• Which business/industry/investment you see moving out of your nation?

From India, we expect and are seeing withrawl of Foreign institutional investors as they try to make good the losses that they have suffered in US.

• What potential risks you see of any such development?

Potential Risks are fall in stock market and property market as due to recessions,FIIs are taking there money back . Due to this, there is less demand in stock market and have a -ve effect on stock pricess and ripple effect on property prices in India.

• Which nations will rise and fall in the coming years?

Nations which will rise are those which are self-dependent and have maximum self-consumption of there own goods and services. India can be one of them All Export dependent economies like China will take much longer time to recover as they are dependent on countries like US and European nations.

With sustainable goals we can avoid “the sky is the limit” approach where we first need to reach the sky before we think about the limits ahead of us that simply can not be reversed overnight. In that respect companies that think global and allow local acting will do best and they will do best in countries that allow that.

As such the most can be gained with countries that are at the beginning of the growth curve and many of these countries are in Africa. Further I expect to see creating industries coming back as nations need creating industries as well as service industries.
At the same time nations will want to have industries higher up in the food chain which will shift industries out of nations. In other words a more sustainable distribution of industries is needed.”

So not directly answers to the questions I realize and I still think the range of answers would be to wide, so in stead I respond to the mechanisms as no country so far, at least in my thinking, has the mechanisms in place to do well.
So why is that? As an ee by education I can’t help to look at the world as a system with many feedback loops and unfortunately the overriding loops act as feed forward only. Feed forward are great to start something but without stabilizing loops they make an oscillator. So until that system is corrected every nation is losing, one more than the other.

At the other hand when a company is in trouble there often only is one chance to get it right and that requires taking out all that doesn’t work and start building again. When smaller steps are taken that require sacrifices the employees start losing faith and the organization spirals down.

Unfortunately I have not seen a real recognition and willingness to take out what doesn’t work, although I must say that Barack Obama has shown the vision, but must overcome a lot of power play that holds him back.

Two nations have been on the rise of late — China (far east) and India (central east)… creating many opportunities that are married with many risks…

It appears that China has been attracting many manufacturing opportunities while India has been attracting the brain power.. Given that either country has more honor students than the USA has students AND with the workforce in the USA is forecasted to dwindle between 20 and 35% during the next decade, the competition is going to be challenging for the USA… Does this make the USA a loser in the global market place? The answer lies in another question — where does and will the best resources for innovation feel best to reside?

This could depend upon which governments provide the best business, industries and investment opportunities… AS WELL AS how well each nation forms their own ‘co-operative’ that allows goods and services to be maintained in one nation for the benefit of another (aka outsourcing)… where will the innovation be most welcomed and protected… and where will the will of the people be allowed to form as democracy that will allow all this to exist… Every country that has tried to control all this has failed shortly thereafter… or have found themselves needing to reassess their own ideologies and then either imitating and/or innovating (both are from the same coin, just different sides of that coin)…

How the global economy and the management of the risks by other countries continues this way in the East is really dependent upon the governments of both India as well as China… not to mention Russia…

We saw the many faces of China during the Olympics and though they were trying to put on their best face, the clash with their government ideology left us looking at a cracked pottery lamp… nice looking but very sensitive to handling…

For India, there is much going on in the Near East that could overflow and domino into the Central East – relations among Pakistan, India, Palestine, Israel, USA, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, U.K. and Europe, Iraq, Somalia… The whole Near and Central East area is basically a huge set of dominoes ready to be tipped… Question is when will the collective set of dominoes tip and over power the small groups of dominoes that are there and falling now…

The Central and Near East will mostly likely affect and lead most global economies… and most likely they will find themselves with resources that have been replaced by alternatives that are logarithmically appearing on the market place…

All this is not dooms day but the birthing of a new global perspective… many cultures that will need to be dependent – like it or not – upon each other… Holding out or controlling countries by other countries against their will always finds them up against the will of the many — global warfare’s have already proved this twice…

Which presents another question — what is the will of the many and who are they?

Of course, one exploded nuclear bomb will be the biggest domino to set everything off and bring many nations to their knees until all is said and done — which is why it is best to avoid proliferation in the first place… gaining this type of weapon when there is already so many out there does not type the scales in any nations favor — it is much like going after a swarm of bees with a baseball bat, you will take some down along the way but overall you are going to get stung to death…

But the biggest risk — is not taking any risk…

•Which nations do you think will be winners and losers under the circumstances? Well I think that part of the problem is that the barriers have been removed and as a result this is how we have gotten into the economic situation that we are in. Unfortunately the barriers that have been removed were ones that controlled the sectors that represent economy. However, there are fringe areas that get impacted even though they aren’t contributors to this issue (like IT, outsourcing, retail, and consumer related product lines). Unfortunate, to accomodate large organizations concessions are made out of fear. Not sure what they are fearful of but when you base decision on feels and not on facts… the game is over.

• Which business/industry/investment you see moving out of your nation?
At present… NONE. We are in a state of paralysis. Investors (where the money is sitting) aren’t investing, the markets are a form of legalized gambling where non-win speculation is awarded with bail outs, etc. It would be so much better if investors understood the risk and dealt with the organizations directly or through an agent, not a mechanism that fluctuates wildly based on news that may/may not be scientifically founded. I suspect that what we will see move first is a new form of business (yet to be determined) that is innovative and balances domestic needs with global service. This isn’t rocket science but more of the same is not what it will take to turn things around.

• What potential risks you see of any such development? I think we still have come to the realization that ‘feel good’ politics accomplishes much, if anything. We need to make some hard decisions, face some very ugly realities, and be willing to recast the way we exist. Much is to do with be responsible and remove greed. Greed is at the root of most problems that we face including the improprietaries that have occured. What we need to realize is that these are avoidable and that you can’t hold an entire country or culture as being accountable for them. Like India with Satyam, the US has had Equity Funding, Enron and a long list of individuals who have been responsible, accountable and possessed a greed trait.

• Which nations will rise and fall in the coming years? I guess I would have to ask the question, based on what? You can be economical strong but morally week, you can ethical righteous but business poor. The nations that will emerge as recognized are ones that have control of their internal affairs, in all sectors, there is a balance of wealth, and operate in a respectful non-hostile way in the world community. If any country fails to recognize this then the world will never be a place of peace. I don’t want to sound too much like a ‘dove’ but we have to reach this balance first as individuals, then as communities, then as countries, and finally in the full context of the globe. Just because someone isn’t like you doesn’t make them bad. Accept these things and don’t try to change them, by force, by reason, by money… they have all proven to be ineffective means to a not so pretty end.

I think that the role of governments is to promote the pursuit of hapiness, to guarantee freedom and to implement justice. I am not convinced that this is the same thing as removing obstacles for competition, because to me competition is not inherently good. The wise man often refrains from action, or some quote like it I remember from the Bhagavat Vita. So sometimes, I infer, one should sit and think instead of compete for material or spiritual resources.

Also I believe that a humble politician is often a wise politician, because things always end up being overly complicated, and that for this same reason one should not expect too much of the state. Economists – a rather unpopular trade these days- who warn against foreign aid, like mrs Mojo, may well be right. She says that western governments should not support african governments but should invest in african enterprises and should buy state-owned bonds (or obligations) that will rise if these respective states do well.

I offer some examples, based on reading newspapers: Japan has taken much debt on its shoulders because their government and ruling classes tried to outcompete everyone. The Danish welfare state offers security for people to concentrate on non-material aims, like to take care for your children instead of competing for more money. Typically, they have a decent health care for everyone. And a retirement plan for dictators, guaranteeing a decent life in old age, seems a reasonable way to promote freedom and justice.

So I expect that countries with humble social democrats in government and with free elections will fare better than countries where agressive and greedy neo-liberal economists somehow take over the traditional political discourse and try to translate everything into a market or an economical advantage. America will do better than China, Danmark will do better than Japan, and Israel will do better than Egypt.

Also I believe that open innovation of health care and of many government services is underused and may allow better quality at a lower price. In a way, this is my definition of humble politics: create a better life for a lower price.

If you object that I am far too ideological I would agree, feeling sorry to admit. But then is your question unbiased towards competition and economics?

The US built an integrated global economy and drove it like a teenager in their first car; not knowing what speed and a sense of indestructibility could do.

Additionally to use the car metaphor, Economically, we built a sports car, using the internet we turbo charged it and then marketed it as free trade. The problem was this sports car was driven not by a single driver but by a “crew”. The crew all had separate tasks and were each governed by a different regulator. There was a crew for the gas, a crew of changing gears, a crew that turned only right and one that turned only left. There was no crew assigned to reverse and the braking crew was assigned to the red headed step children that were branded nay-Sayers and who nobody liked anyway.

The car was built on a slope (NAFTA & the “Most favored Nation” status assigned by the US). So when it was time to set off, the car moved forward all by itself, the Acceleration Crew thought this was tremendous and conditioned to believe that acceleration was limitless and expected, drove the pedal to the metal. Not only that, the Acceleration Crew chiefs considered themselves infallible; arrogantly silencing the Red Heads on the brakes. After all as the Acceleration Crews are paid the most, surely that means they know the most?

Now the Steering Crew felt they had little to do as the road ahead was straight and narrow: CRA, Entitlement and flat screen TVs for all!

Then in 2006 a bend in the road occurred and then some additional traffic, when it was too late, the crews decided to try and speak to each other and coordinate their activities. Little did they know some of their own were cashing in their stocks or purchasing gilded commodes. The Steering Crew tried to take charge however as they lurched one way then another, instead of driving us in to a tree they drove us off a cliff instead.

The US will find it difficult to particpate in an integrated global economy, because it cannot work with “independent crews”, each governed by different regulator or sets of rules. Nor can it work while arrogant “empty suits” with handfuls of buzz words and no disenable talent, other than marketing themselves, hold positions in any “crew”.

I disagree with the comment about China. When it may be a loser in the short term, a nation and and political system that thinks in terms of 50 years is going to trump most democracies that view life through a four year prism.

I agree that social unrest is China’s “soft under belly”, but unless it is driven by mass starvation and death, it will most probabay successfully suppress any unrest albeit rather harshly.

Recent events and its economic “fatal embrace” with the US have been a salutory lesson. The resource aquisition spended frenzy it continues is a sure sign that the Party intends on not making the same mistakes again

I also think Russia would survive due to the sheer abundance of resources – no amount of mismanagement can cancel it out. Actually, the mismanagement itself is embedded in the culture that grew around abundance of resources.

The EU, as an entity with all the new members, will not survive, but some members of the EU, like Germany, France, Spain “have been there and done that” before, so they have a good track record.

The UK is a special case, but everything that was said above about the EU above in this context applies to it. It may lose its position as the best US ally in the region – it would be too costly to maintain that position.

I am afraid the biggest looser in this will be China. It may not be able to sustain itself for several years on the money that it accumulated, while export will almost completely dry out. Social unrest is almost unavoidable. And then the position for the new Mao is up for grabs.

India being 50% self-sufficient will weather this as well.

NATO will probably fall apart – there will be too many conflicts of commercial interests inside, and no real benefit to compensate for it.

Iran will become a major power, since there are no sufficient resources anymore in the world to contain it.

The rest will come back to its original relatively boring self in several years.

–Vladimir