In a global age, leading nations are noted for their ability to conceive, plan and realise ‘major projects’. Major in terms of impacting not only a large number of people, not only impacting people on a maybe not a global but at least continent-wide and generation-spanning scale. These projects can be hardware / infrastructure (cross continent high speed railway networks), can be energy (smart-coupled coast-spanning windparks), can be income sustaining (health care, funded retirement financing), etc.

Nations that are politically (near) grid-locked due to partisan landscape or mental/financial corruption, have shown to be unable to maintain sufficient “deal-flow”. This means: Every now-and-then, by-hick-or-by-trick they deliver a major piece. But not frequent enough to deliver each year the numer of such “projects” that is required to maintain the type of society that is implicitly assumed to be one’s birth right, let alone the next level society that people may be hoping for.

In short, leading nations deliver sufficient quantity of good quality projects each year. Observing the US from the outside it seems to have lost the capability of a sufficient flow of “major projects”.

Many nations are facing the challenge of finding ways to do the “major projects” quick enough and yet ensure that enough people have contributed to ensure quality in all facets, to ensure that it is broadly carried to ensure survival over the generations and yet avoid the well-published and much-feared negative aspects of participation including sectoral, private, ‘nimby’, etc hold-ups.

There is still much research work and interlectual exploration to be done to help nations to remain or become ‘leading’ in the aspects that I focussed on.

In my own I am working with the people at EDHEC-Risk in Nice (France) on finding ways in which we can bring global ( or just major) infrastructure projects faster into development while we ensure the risks have been identified and valued along the many monetary and non-monetary ‘currencies’.

I hope this contributes to an element of the intended dialogue.

Regards, Mark van Huijstee – Project risks in major infrastructure.

I am a trained professional for Business Education in Secondary Education; the United States has a theme to prepare the next generation. However, in that there is an alarm going out that our educational system has failed our children. View the website below cited that teaches this at:

ETS. (2009). The Perfect Storm. Educational Testing Services. Retrieved October 17, 2009; from http://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/perfectStorm/perfectStorm.html

•Do you see your nation’s educators, educating students based on facts and not political ideology?

The educational system of any nation is much like an energy box that feeds the electric to all the people. If the executive branch of the government has a power switch in the cabinet for the educational sector, how will it be non partisan?

•Do you see your nation’s education trend dictated by nation’s ruling governance?

This question is really answered in the above statement. In a non partisan answer; isn’t it true all over the globe? Economics are managed on who works, where, and how much they make while they work. Freedom of choice is not determined by the individual’s hopes and dreams, but by the individual’s capacity to be capable of doing. Those that do not work are scrutinized by the educators and placed into categories for future developmental projects and social security programs. People with better starting points in the economy will have better advantages.

•Do you see a need to privatize your nation’s education system?

Correction of the nation in which I live would not solve the problem as a reoccurring problem in the globe. Why? The United States is a living document and is still only that… a document that may be understood from many different perspectives. Education is already labeled an equal opportunity. A representative debate may consist of reviews of scientific evidence for budgeting; however, in the final outcome, the representatives can only debate in whatever light is available (debates may actually darken issues). Therefore, many things are not clearly reviewed and the needed changes go off into compromise to end a legislative debate. Isn’t this what is wrong with partisan-ships and political agendas? Isn’t this why neutrality should exist in governments? Neutrality is so that the people that are poor may not feel poverty and be abused by tyranny, correct? (Is that the gist of the Declaration of Independence-1776?) Yet, the system that governs the economics is policies of either democrat and or republican or even independent, but not rich or poor policy platforms…neutral stands should be felt within each, right? Private education begins at home and then the government takes over in a group format for individuality. Which is it? May we keep our children home from now on and teach them basic community survival techniques? Are we a collectivist society or an individualistic culture? May social change in collectivist perspective change the face of education in the global economy?

The answer or resolution is not in private teaching enterprises that could somehow become a puppet for the government, but in the educational system being for the people with insight towards the future. Should education be based on individual pocket prices of economical social economic status or on human needs? Allow the children to design the world they want to live in and promote true freedom of thought (with guidance of course). The future belongs to the children.

Political statements that answer this question would eliminate the role of neutrality. It is evident from the demonstration of realities that all governments o the globe play a role in the reoccurring crisis…this is a neutral answer in that all national groups are part of the globe and are then responsible partakers in the crisis of economics, pollution, and extinction. To say anything else would become judgmental on one nation more than another. Is that neutrality?

2. Do you think your nation’s governance has the capability to understand and acknowledge your nations challenges?

In a neutral stand, it must be self evident to the viewer that realities exist that explain the national group’s responsibility to their people and their existence.

3. Do you think any meaningful steps are being taken to manage the governance challenges of your nation?

All over the globe, people speak for the survival of the planet; those in higher places have a larger voice and are clearer in their messages. When each nation stands in neutrality on the issues of the crisis then all will be heard. Thus that is the first step in any nation, becoming aware of the problem and thinking what can we do?

I always have such a challenge with the context of your questions because they are very control oriented, as opposed to letting events flow freely to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. I can speak partially about this topic, but only partially, and I hope the information I provide is of help.

I am in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and I have had two conversations within the last number of months related to your question.

Discussion 1 – was with a Hospital Foundation executive director. The individual responded to some very pointed questions that I posed to him. Much research is funded by our federal government and by our provincial government, as well as privately funded within the hospital.

The advantage of the research was the ability to retain the brightest and best in a particular field of medicine. This provided health benefits to all Manitobans. The hospital and the foundation perception was that research benefits the individuals of our country and our province because these people can provide leading edge healthcare that would not otherwise be possible, regardless of the benefits of any intellectual property.

Discussion 2: Was with the head of a technology transfer office at a local university. The funding from their office would help professors at the university to sell their intellectual property rights from their research. The advantage for the professor is the potential to create tremendous personal wealth for him/her self on the slim chance that the portion of intellectual property that they retain could create tremendous wealth for themselves. In this way, when trying to attract a professor to our local university, we can compete against other universities that offered a higher salary, but do not offer the potential for personal profit from intellectual property.

Perhaps these 2 discussions that I convey here will be of help with the question that you pose.

http://www.FinancialServicesIssues.com

In the material, emotional and physical reality of everyday life, people however are still confronted by their physical and cultural need for identity. At work, at school, on the bus …. in situations of conflict, when everything else fails, the ultimate backup psychologically seems to be the belonging to a group (nation, culture, ethnicity). The need for nationalism seems to arise from fear of losing recognised parameters of behaviour, economics, morality, amorality, communication, etc. This is a physical and material need arising from the physical body, matters of the soul and the intellect.

The virtual markets created by multinational companies, virtual learning and virtual development don’t need nationalism since the virtual evnironment they have created is highly seductive and immediate, boundary free, and not at all realistic in terms of the physical and material world. In the material world, we return to our more basic needs for identity …..

As long as we have electricity, fuel and all those tools that allow the virtual world to prosper, nationalism will become an increasingly diluted concept. On theother hand, the constant politico-economic pressure for ‘growth’ in every aspect of the economy and, to a certain extent, in people’s lives, will eventually strangle the planet’s resources …. at that point, I have a feeling nationalism may re-emerge perhaps in other ways, and as soon as our physical body starts screaming then, I have no doubt that the boundaries of what we want or fear will become much more distinct.

Nationalism therefore seems to be dormant at present, for the majority. However, it will never completely be wiped out … I mean, frankly, how would one explain otherwise my lovely English friends’ complaints about foreign rudeness and inefficiency every time they travel abroad on holiday? I think it is more to do with the instrinctive frustration of being unable to have their needs recognised and understood, rather than anything else. Funnily enough, I hear much fewer complaints when they go abroad on business …… then, they seem to appreciate the circumstances. And that could be explained by the fact that their need was understood, business being the common denominator, and they did not feel frustrated.

Despite the widespread understanding that the rating agency model has confilcts of interest, too many investors blindly followed their ratings. Agency ratings should never replace a thorough due diligence process.

Question 2:
I do believe that, in addition to an initial due diligence, Risk Centric Audits should be performed on a regular basis, as global economic conditions change.

Question 3:
I think there are pockets of understanding of global investment risks in the U.S., but it is not widespread. This situation must change.

http://www.FinancialServicesIssues.com

This would be applicable to any country though I live in the USA and will use the U.K. as an example…

There is a definite economies-to-scale going on with the globalization of anything… actually, with anything, never mind globalization… Example: the U.K. has surveillance in London everywhere because of rampant crime and the ease with which most crimes could be commited and go unresolved… was the total cost for such a surveillance system worth the investment? Are the returnes they are getting outside of financial – citizens feeling better about safety, for example – also making this investment worthwhile?

India, China – would the do the same with the large cities subsidizing the smaller cities

Now – zip over to a small town that is experiencing high crime as well… Should they invest in the same surveillance as London? That depends — ae all the residents capable supporting such a system (the median income and tax base) or should cities like London subsidize such a system from the savings London has realized? With this questions we enter the preference of national government involvement…

Not an easy answer…

The better approach: possiblity the education of the citizens to the ways and means of the manipulator focused on the level of the citizen…. from the diplomat to the trade merchant to the border agents to the average citizen…

I also believe that there needs to be additional regulation of hedge funds and the derivatives markets and settlement functions.

Interesting to see that someone out there is asking questions about the things that I’m working on myself! Nice to read about it here on linkedin.

Let me share some of my thoughts, based on the research that I’ve been conducting so far. First, the question is whether globalization (the economic, social, and political openness of countries) affects welfare states. So far, most of the attention has been paid to the relationship between economic openness and social provision in countries. An overview of the empirical research shows that there is more evidence that the economic openness of countries and the size (and generosity) of the welfare state are positively related. So, rather than a race to the bottom, the compensation argument get support. Secondly, the question is how solidarity should be organized, formally through the state or informally through the community (or the third option: formally through private markets). I also investigated this, and this study shows that solidarity is nog lower in more open countries, but that they have a stronger preference for informal solidarity.

You can read the papers at my site: http://www.ferrykoster.nl

And, in April a book about this subject (with Paul de Beer) will be pusblished by Amsterdam University Press.

Hopefully, this helps a bit.
Ferry

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

Yu have seen that the government is not making science one of its priorities. I agree with you thta science needs to be on the agenda of many governments, but yet the rules are dictated by globalization: for us, which forms part of transition economies, the impact of develoed and developing worlds’ policies is huge. Economics wins the battle, given that we trade very much, the economy is quite unstable, though resilient and jobs requiring economics far exceed those for sciences.

The risks and challenges: Given this lack of job opportunities, we are facing a very huge brain drain in sciences, notably physics and chemistry. We lack a pool of young, dynamic and highly qualified people to cause innovation and change in sciences.
In fact, we need those people in fields such as waste water management, tropical medicines, sanitation and many other fields. But this brain drain means that our vulnerability is on the rise.

In conclusion, we need proper and well-thought government policies to hold this brain drain by offering more jobs.

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.

Talking particularly of India, many have reaped outstandig benefits through investments in stock, real estate and other financial products but at the same time many lost almost everything!!

Current economic meltdown has not only created scare due to reduce in demand, job losses but also raised a serious question on what to believe in and what not to believe in as far as any investment goes.

What Critical changes are required ?

Transparency is the biggest need of hour at every level.

Today , most masses are not able to guage the impact of a political decision that has financial implication. Masses actually are not able to relate directly with such decisions as most of them ar not capable in assessing the impact of such decisions on them.

All institutions / individuals that offer financial products , advice etc… need to be more transparent. Any policy document should be simple enough to understand for the investor and like benefits, risks should also be highlighted through examples.
In most cases, there is always something in fine print that always surfaces when things go wrong. All instutions / individuals that are involved in offering such services should be made accountable and should be rated on annual basis for the accuracy of services they provide by a separate and independant body that would act as regulator to overlook cases of default.

Awareness, not hope or scare should be focus to improve investor’s understanding so as to enable him to take right decision.

Critical barriers here would still be on how can one bring steps into action to achieve transparency and to what extent can one actually overcome “gut” feel of investor, even if right and enough information is made available in simple form.

Investment is always made with the purpose of getting the best return. Investor parks his money based on his understanding about “best return” and his capacity to invest ( which could be extended through loans from banks ). Attracting global investment would largely depend on how a country is viewed in terms of its political climate – that effects safety of funds deployed and return , stability of currency , financial benefits for investor and relative advantage in investing at a particular location from options available. Concessions MUST always be balanced with responsibilities so that profit making does not become the sole objective of investment. There MUST be transparency and political immunity for any foreign investment so that venture can be pursued professionally without fear of red tape or roll back with any political change. If investments are made in a stable atomsphere, financial variables and performance would depend largely on how best things are managed. This would automatically ensure competitivness. Upgrading of workforce skills MUST be made mandatory across the industry so that people learn to do their job BETTER.

Investor confidence can be won if there is enough transparency for investor to understand the benefits and risks of investment and if the investor is sure that his investment is governed by systems that offer a very little scope of mis-information and manipulation. Accountability of institutions and individual offering such services would create sense of security against frauds and scams and I believe that is equally important.

The Nations were sustainning the flag of global thinking, global advantages, global prices, global international politics, global etc… and now we have a drastic changing back with individual protectionist thinking.

What will happen to the Arabians that only produces petrol i.e.. They need to exchange their product with the rest of the world in order to survive. Another country needs petrol to move and so on.

When the exchange stops, the needs will generate conflicts and maybe the WW3.

Globalisaton is gone and also is gone the chances of poor contries to get technology and confort. In other hand technology means nothing if no one can buy. The world is playing loose-loose. By the way: even in the global model, technology had been overpriced > that justifies why developed countries are so bad right now. Some Africans groups will not feel this crisis: they dont have TVs, no News, no houses, no stocks, they eat a minimum of the food they can find > they were segregated in the global times and nothing will change for them.

Now we have Nations thinking ahead of how to get an advantage in the future IF the crisis end up. This is silly.

My personal bet is: best chance to get out of the problem is within the countries in development with a social/industrialised model focused in less speculation and more parts produced and mainly being a country with big natural resources, existing agricultural model and minerals diversity. Exemple: Brazil.

I would bet also in a re-construction era maybe initiating another human cilcle since the nation’s currency will be re-alligned in value with the new reallity.

Unfortunately, the Goverments play chess and the lessons learned will be set up 10 actions ahead. I don’t believe in a quick solution.

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…

Any company that buys a struggling company the first thing the executives do? Assess what is working and what is not, assess what will retain value and what won’t…

Foreign car sales now surpass 50% of total car sales – o-b-v-i-o-u-s-l-y the U.S. consumer sees value in the foreign cars. Meanwhile UAW and others see value in the h-i-s-t-o-r-y of the Big 3 US car makers and have offered little in change for the future…

There is a REASON there is a history – it is what was, not what is now…

Bankruptcy of any or all 3 of the US car makers will only be delayed by a bailout – particularly if the global economy does not improve shortly…

The pain we will feel now by allowing them to declare bankruptcy will be nothing compared to the pain we will feel in the future with ANY ONE of the Big 3 collapsing in the future… At that time, not only will there be a loss of jobs falling like dominoes through out the country – you can count on the loss of any consumer faith left in the US car makers altogether…

At that point, EVERY U.S. car will become worthless or totally cheap on the market – and every foreign car maker will be able to ask what ever they wish for their cars…

•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?

governments need not get their money from taxes, but might charge for energy, or might monopolise banking or roads or communication or what not. much of this happens every day in france, somebody even called it a capitalist country with very few capitalists.

i live in amsterdam, and as most of the soil is property of the city, significant income is paid by those who use it.

also, i do not agree that welfare only costs money. because it maintains in good shape a part of the population that for the time being finds no paid work. times may change and misery is morally and also economically costly and some may be better poets than salarymen. and some say that a welfare state is inherently stable because demand is guaranteed.

also, governments can make life cheaper.
i know some of this sounds like orthodox communism, but that is not what i mean.

i think the welfare state is a reasonable proposition and that aggressive neoliberalism has probably led to the rather unstable economical situation that we are in today. everybody has come to expect too much.

so if i had my say, governments would prioritize on peace, justice, a cheap life for everybody.

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

However, based on Bernake and Geithner’s remarks of March 3, I think they are realizing that there were large regulatory gaps:
“If there is a single episode in this entire 18 months that has made me more angry, I can’t think of one other than AIG. There was no oversight in the financial products division. This was a hedge fund basically that was attached to a large and stable insurance company”

-Ben Bernanke, 3 March 2009

“AIG is a huge, complex, global insurance company attached to a very complicated investment bank hedge fund that was allowed to build up without any adult supervision.”

-Timothy Geithner, 3 March 2009

What I am concerned with is what, if anything, have shareholders learned from this? It has amazed me for years how overpaid senior managers loot the companies and the shareholders don’t seem to be aware of what’s going on and, worse, don’t seem to care until it’s too late.

I think shareholders need to put more attention to what is going on within their companies, take a more proactive role, and make sure that the people making the big bonuses are really earning them.

How many times does this pillaging of corporate assets have to happen before shareholders wake up and get together to safeguard their mutual interests?

If a company is failing as result of bad management or an obsolete business model, it is very hard to justify trying to save it even with new investor money. The case for saving such a company, or industry, must be completely pragmatic, not ideological.

A pragmatic business case for saving a failing company or industry would have to include a realistic analysis of the greater harm – the harm that comes from rewarding bad management and not letting the market work its magic, vs the harm that comes from the ripple effect on the entire economy.

The decision should be based on truly understanding the total societal exposure (risk times impact) that results from either choice, and the practical possibilities of containing that exposure.

“Practical possibilities” include the ability to leverage the strengths of current (or in the wings) management while neutralizing their weaknesses. They would also include levelling the playing field, such as countering subsidies or other unfair advantages given to foreign, or even other domestic competitors.

What, for example, would be the risk that GM, Ford or Chrysler would be able to emerge from Chapter 11? Historically, only small percentage of firms come out of Chapter 11 as stronger, potentially successful organizations.

What would be the impact? Here the airline analogy does not work. If I buy a ticket from a bankrupt airline, all I care about is whether or not I can get where I am going over the course of a few hours. I am not buying a long-term business relationship.

If I buy a new car, I need assurance that the manufacturer will honor its warranty for several years. Even if I buy a certified used car, I am depending on the warranty. A bankrupt car company cannot assure me that I will have the long-term business relationship I need.

The impact spreads far beyond the immediate health of the car company. By driving me away as a car company’s customer, bankruptcy will fatally damage the businesses that depend on THEIR relationship with the car company.

When I evaluate all the arguments for and against rescuing a failing company or industry, I have to ask if it is too far gone to be saved, with or without its current management. Next, I have to ask how much of the company’s or industry’s current problems result from issues beyond their control that others do NOT face. Finally, I have to ask what would be the net benefit of making a public investment in the company or industry vs letting it die.

The first is key to any nation surviving: sustainability. This also incorporates any green energy, transportation networks, economy. You could branch off in several directions; however, in the eyes of your constituents, you are doing what you set off to do.

The Economy is the second aspect, driven by the first and correlated chain reaction amongst the rest of my list. Any one of those aspects are interrelated and ceteris paribus or Occam’s Razor to a certain extent.

The last one, Balance, is another great aspect that no one seems to remember, but never forgets at the same time. Balance, as part of any of the aforementioned strategic goals will sustain, maintain a nation, as well as the Leader, who lives a thankless job; is subject to media sabotage and paparazzi injustice.

I still would recommend reading Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. I know there are many nations who are unable to even ask for this novel due to censorship, as knowledge is power and power is numbing the masses from the truth…Who would ever have thought in this day in age, a “book” is more deadly than a nuclear attack to some nations.

You asked, “What changes do you believe are critical for your nation?”

“Change” was the one-word slogan of Obama. It reminds me of a transitive verb with no object. The consumers will be forced to think before they continue to consume, like naive animals being fattened for the slaughter. Businessmen will be forced to think and not be consumed by their greed.

India’s new upper middle class has much in common with their American counter-parts. Many single people from the call centers are buying gift items without looking at the prices–causing inflation. They are as far away from the poor India villagers as people in Pittsburg.

NDTV is helping people grow an conscience and breaking down these social walls and making people see as the American G.I.s did when they made the German civilians walk through the concentration camps at the end of WWII.

Poverty is frightening. Fear does not bring out the best in people. Poverty can seem contagious as a plague, causing the very people who can help to scurry away from the victims. Many who are rich still have stories of their older relatives’ poverty ringing in their minds.

You asked, “What critical barriers do you see that need to be overcome?”

TRUST has been broken. Once the bridge of trust has been broken, little communication and activity can take place between the two people. It’s not the barrier–it is what needs to be built.

Regaining trust is a hard thing. Think of a marriage. Once one partner has cheated on another, sometimes the relationship cannot be repaired. It takes patience and humility. It takes no longer being selfish and self-absorbed but putting oneself in the other’s shoes instead of throwing them.

Hatred is blinding and dehumanizing. When we catch ourselves ready to hate, it is time to take a step back and not let the animal in us win.

You asked, “What should your nation do to attract not only global investment but stay competitive in the global economy?”

India and America have the problem that George Bernard Shaw spoke of–divided by a common language. They both think they speak English, but they both have very different cultural values.

Communication is the biggest factor. Whatever the situation, think about communication. Companies will want to cut back on soft skill training. This will be a mistake.

” What actions should your nation take to bring back that investor confidence?”

Telling the truth is the change we need globally.

Please specify which Nation you are addressing.

Links:
http://lesdossey.com

My thoughts: International consumerism and the new global capitalistic hegemony are not the future but the present – save for a few hold out nations. Many in the United States are hopeful our new administration will be better able to both keep dialogue and encourage positive action toward understanding/accepting ideological differences while effecting globally beneficial alterations to existing business practices. To this end, species and conservation of natural resources must be on the forefront while the bottom line is drawn in black rather than red. Without securitization and growth of assets there will be little interest in the protection of the environment regardless of the understood global impact to the collective biology.

Pathways paved between nations must be cleared and navigated by the collective legal minds in conjunction with global insurers to manage the multiple risks, perceived, real and unconsidered. If anyone is to make it through to the 22 century, we have some hard times ahead. Many are willing to roll up sleeves and do the hard work, but others, and many, are only out for gold and whatever other loot they can secure in the mad dash through the fallen ranks. We must not lose focus! And fight fire with good international contract law and creative insurance solutions. Only then will our environmental business solutions for an acceptable global economy be realized among those with no real interest in or for the future.

That’s just my two cents on your topic. I always welcome thoughtfully constructive criticism.

Sincerely,
David E. Levit
International Insurance Broker (New York)
Dlevit@frenkel.com

A very interesting and challenging question, especially today. We are in the midst of a sea change in the global economy and the relations between states; between governments and their people; and between classes within states.

First, the global economy has evolved as the Post WWII planners of the United Nations hoped when they created the World Bank Group,and the GATT (replaced by the WTO). Economic integration creates mutual dependency and mutual dependency decreases the chances of major wars. It also increases the use of non-military methods of influence such as economic aid and diplomatic outreach (albeit – the USA has not been a good example of late).

In this context, government programs aimed at stabilizing class conflict within the developing and under developed state serves more of a national and international security purpose than as a humanitarian one. This is a lesson I learned years ago.

So to your question, .”Do you think Social Welfare should be a role of government in your nation?”

In the United States, in the current recession, yes! It is a matter of stabilization and restructuring that requires leadership and only the government has the resources and reach to provide that.

Second, between Governments and their people. the People live longer than their governments. Government is people. Your people or my people, or other people. When government supports institutions that enable the people to pursue their personal agendas in a secure environment, social welfare becomes the responsibility of everyone. When the government can not or will not provide the security — then even the best of intentions of NGO’s and charities will be less effective. Take Iraq as an example.

Third, class against class. Government can side with one class against another such that social welfare goes to one and is taken from the other. In this case it is a question of why? What is the policy purpose — political power (most often) or social equity (less likely). Government has proven very successful where the goal is political power. It often fails when it comes to social equity. NGO’s and charities can be more effective because they are focused and mission driven.Take Dafur relief efforts as an example.

So bottom line: As long as we have a global system of sovereign states competing with one another, government’s role and responsibility in social welfare will be paramount. How it choses to implement its responsibilities will be the question.this generation will have to answer. We must not forget that government is simply one tool human beings use to achieve personal and collective goals and desires.