Saturday, June 13, 2009



Líbano

AL QUDS AL ARABI


Quienes sigan los medios de comunicación de los países del eje moderado y la situación de alegría del mal ajeno que reina en ellos tras el anuncio de los resultados de las elecciones parlamentarias libanesas, la madrugada del pasado lunes, tendrá la impresión de que los árabes han conseguido una victoria histórica sobre un enemigo terrible que venía ocupado su territorio humillando su dignidad nacional.

Una situación árabe de hambre morbosa sin precedentes y un ataque sin conciencia cuya razón es el odio, mezclado con el rencor hacia Hezbolá, líder del Grupo del 8 de Marzo. Los amos de estas campañas sectarias enfurecidas olvidan que hay cristianos, musulmanes sunníes, drusos y armenios en este Grupo del 8 de Marzo, que quisieron encarnar una alianza nacionalista que acabase con el feudo político responsable de la mayoría de las crisis que atraviesa el país.

En las elecciones libanesas, la competencia no ha sido entre un «eje árabe» y un eje persa, como algunos han querido imaginar en los aparatos mediáticos de los países moderados, sino entre un eje que cree en la cultura de la resistencia, que liberó la gran parte de los territorios libaneses ocupados, y un eje que no acepta esa cultura, a la que combate bajo diferentes denominadores como «pragmatismo» o comprensión de las ecuaciones internacionales.

Cuando EEUU e Israel se sitúan codo con codo junto al eje moderado, más concretamente con Arabia Saudí y Egipto, para hacer frente al Grupo del 8 de Marzo y movilizan a sus partidarios, los importan en aviones y destinan millones de dólares a ese objetivo, están polarizando el miedo que vive la zona y que se ha reflejado en gran medida en las últimas elecciones libanesas.

EEUU e Israel han empleado «el arma del miedo» político para conseguir una victoria frágil en estos comicios; el primero, amenazando con frenar la ayudas económicas y con declarar Líbano un país terrorista desertor; el segundo, apuntando que declararía la guerra y destruiría Líbano en caso de que las elecciones las ganara la oposición olvidando al primero, el autoproclamado líder de mundo libre. El segundo, que se vanagloria de ser la única democracia de la región, ha ignorado que, sea cual sea el bando ganador, es resultado de la elección del pueblo libanés a través de las urnas en un proceso democrático libre y transparente que es el más antiguo de la zona, más aún que el propio establecimiento del Estado de Israel.

Recordemos aquí que el grupo perdedor en estas elecciones fue el que infligió la mayor y más desastrosa derrota al Estado hebreo, le partió la nariz a su ejército invencible y lanzó mil cohetes a la profundidad de Israel. ¿La derrota de este grupo nacionalista merece todos esos festivales de alegría que presenciamos en más de una capital árabe, más concretamente en Riad y El Cairo? Las reacciones de algunos países árabes, de su prensa y sus escritores de tendencia vengativa, es el mejor exponente de la dimensión de la injerencia directa de estos países en los asuntos internos de Líbano, más aún cuando han construido sus posturas hacia este país sobre el discurso de impedir las injerencias externas, más concretamente la siria y la árabe. Cuando nos sale uno de los grandes medios árabes con este titular «Han sido derrotados» como primera reacción a la victoria de sus partidarios en las elecciones, sólo está probando la dimensión de esa injerencia, la alegría del mal ajeno y las tendencias vengativas.

Hay que decir que la reacción de las Fuerzas del 14 de Marzo ha sido más elegante, más razonable y más responsable que la de los países del eje moderado y sus aparatos mediáticos. En cuanto fueron anunciados los resultados, el líder del partido Al Mustaqbal, Saad Hariri, salió para pedir a sus partidarios que no exageraran en la celebración de la victoria. Por su parte, el líder de la otra parte, Hasán Nasralá, estuvo magnífico cuando se apresuró a pronunciar un discurso reconociendo los resultados y confirmando su respeto a la opción libanesa popular democrática. Nabih Berri no dudó en repetir el mismo tono. La armonía entre él y Walid Yumblat fue el primero de los síntomas de una nueva etapa de acuerdo que podría asomar la cabeza en la próxima época.

No podemos sino sentir amargura al ver cómo se usa al «ogro» de Irán para atemorizar al votante libanés, para que retire la vista de Israel, que ocupa la tierra libanesa y los territorios de otros países árabes. Tal vez sea este «logro» la prueba del éxito del plan que pretende formar una alianza árabo- israelí contra Irán en un futuro cercano. Discrepamos con muchos de quienes intentan hacer ver que la división general vivida por Líbano ha sido sectaria ¿Qué hacen entonces en esta situación Michel Aaún, cristiano, Omar Karami, musulmán sunní, y Talal Arslán, druso, en el Grupo de 8 de Marzo? Lo mismo se puede decir de Walid Yumblat, Saad Hariri en el ejército de Samir Geagea y Emile Yemaiel. La variedad sectaria y doctrinal en Líbano debe ser una fuente de riqueza y distinción si se construye sobre un juramento firme de convivencia y cooperación por la reconciliación del país y lejos de las injerencias externas que siempre operan para sembrar las semillas del sectarismo, agravando la situación y empujando en dirección a la guerra civil, tal y como hemos visto en más de un periodo previo.

Queremos ver más candidatos chiíes en la lista del 14 de Marzo y en cargos principales del próximo gobierno. También queremos más candidatos sunníes en las listas de Hezbolá. Líbano, un país en el que las designaciones y los grandes puestos se otorgan en función del sistema de cuotas sectario, debe atender a estas cuestiones y romper con esa tradición que es una marca de atraso y de feudalismo político y sectario.

Saad Hariri puede, al haber obtenido la mayoría de los escaños del Parlamento (71), formar un nuevo gobierno con toda comodidad, pero no puede gobernar el país y llevarlo a la estabilidad sin cooperar y coordinarse con el grupo de la oposición. Podría obtener a la mayoría parlamentaria pero no de forma

irrevocable se haría con la mayoría popular (55 para la oposición y 45 para los partidarios del 14 de Marzo). Con el mismo espíritu decimos que el grupo ganador debe tranquilizar a la oposición y decirle que no puede gobernar aislado de su apoyo y respaldo. La oposición debe al mismo tiempo tranquilizar al vencedor de que, a cambio, sus armas no apuntarán en otra dirección otra vez porque éstas sólo se van a dirigir hacia Israel.

Deseamos ver un cambio en el mapa político libanés en la próxima etapa cuyo titular sea el cese de la guerra mediática y de la escalada sectaria entre los elementos de la ecuación política libanesa, desde la cúspide hasta la base. Si el lenguaje de Hariri, Nasralá, Yumblat y Berri es equilibrado, su público y sus medios de comunicación deben reflejar ese equilibrio de forma seria y responsable. La reconciliación política no puede producirse sin la reconciliación mediática y es preferible que la segunda sea preámbulo de la primera.

Esperamos el día en el que desaparezcan esos lamentables nombres del 14 de Marzo y el 8 de Marzo a través de una nueva alianza establecida sobre los principios firmes de Líbano, porque esos nombres hacen referencia a odiosas divisiones, nos recuerdan a otras referencias similares que palestinos y libaneses han comenzado a superar en aras del hermanamiento y la convivencia, como el 17 de septiembre de 1982 (la matanza de Shabra y Shatila) o el 13 de abril de 1975 (el inicio de la guerra civil), entre otras.

Para terminar, decir que la región está abocada a vencimientos de plazos que podrían poner patas arriba las ecuaciones políticas y que giran en torno a los dos polos de la lucha actual, es decir, EEUU e Irán. Deseamos que aquellos que se mofan de la derrota de la alianza de Hezbolá se detengan por un momento,piensen y reflexionen sobre que pasaría si esos dos polos se entendieran sobre el reactor nuclear iraní o si no se entendieran y la región se encaminase a una guerra.

http://www.alquds.co.uk/

Traducido por Al Fanar Tradcutores en www.boletin.org

Foto: EFEBASSETERRE, 12 de junio.— Los 18 países latinoamericanos y caribeños, miembros de Petrocaribe, concluyeron hoy su VI Cumbre con un reforzamiento del mecanismo de integración que ha permitido avanzar en la seguridad energética.

Una declaración dada al término de la reunión reconoce asimismo, la necesidad de unir esfuerzos entre países de la región para combatir los efectos de la crisis económica global.

Aunque Petrocaribe surgió como una iniciativa para entregar petróleo venezolano en condiciones beneficiosas a los países miembros, la VI Cumbre reforzó su enfoque hacia la articulación de programas en el ámbito social y productivo.

El documento ratifica que Petrocaribe, con sus programas de infraestructura en materia de petróleo, gas, electricidad y energías renovables, avanza en el logro de la seguridad energética.

Con excepción de Guyana, que pidió un tiempo para analizar la propuesta, se decidió la creación de un fondo integrado Petrocaribe, alimentado por una fracción de la factura petrolera, a través del Banco de la Alternativa Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA).

La cumbre decidió asimismo seguir adelante con las empresas mixtas creadas al amparo del acuerdo establecido en el 2005, que han permitido adelantar proyectos de infraestructura, suministros directos y proyectos sociales.

El encuentro acogió también una propuesta del presidente dominicano, Leonel Fernández, de presentar a la próxima Asamblea General de la ONU el mecanismo de Petrocaribe como un ejemplo de la cooperación Sur-Sur.

En la reunión, el presidente venezolano, Hugo Chávez, ratificó la determinación de seguir adelante con el mecanismo, que considera un elemento importante para la solución de los problemas actuales de la humanidad.

Al mismo tiempo ratificó que el acuerdo no implica condicionamiento alguno y puntualizó que se trata de un mecanismo más allá del comercio de petróleo, con un espíritu de hermandad, fraternidad y unión.

En tal sentido convocó a poner en marcha la aplicación de un fondo de 50 millones de dólares en 13 proyectos de producción de alimentos y establecer cadenas productivas, teniendo en cuenta los recursos, materias primas y posibilidades de cada país.

Petrocaribe lo integran Antigua y Barbuda, Bahamas, Belice, Cuba, Dominica, Granada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haití, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, República Dominicana, San Cristóbal y Nieves, San Vicente y las Granadinas, Santa Lucía, Surinam y Venezuela.

Durante la apertura de la reunión, el primer ministro de San Cristóbal y Nieves, Denzil Douglas, anfitrión del encuentro, calificó a Petrocaribe como uno de los acuerdos más progresistas del hemisferio para dar respuesta a la necesidad de energía y a los desafíos socioeconómicos. En opinión de Douglas, las pequeñas naciones ven a Petrocaribe como un faro en el Caribe y América Latina. (PL)



CHICAGO.— Como camarera y entrenadora en una cadena nacional de restaurantes, Rebecca Brown ganaba un par de miles de dólares en una buena semana. Ahora, como bailarina en el club desnudista Pink Monkey en Chicago ella gana casi la misma cantidad en una buena noche.

La debilidad del mercado laboral, causada por la crisis económica, está haciendo que muchas mujeres en Estados Unidos busquen empleo en clubes desnudistas, películas pornográficas y como modelos en revistas como Hustler.

Empresarios en el sector dicen que están viendo un gran flujo de solicitudes de mujeres que, como Brown, se sienten atraídas por la promesa de horarios flexibles y dinero fácil. Muchas son graduadas universitarias y tenían empleos en oficinas hasta que la economía se desplomó, dice la agencia AP.

Para algunas, trabajar en esos clubes es algo temporal, una manera de pagar los préstamos de educación y otras cuentas. Otras dicen que han encontrado su carrera.

Hirsch, de Vivid Entertainment, dice que el número de mujeres en su negocio ha aumentado al doble en los últimos dos años, con casi 800 trabajando como actrices pornográficas. "Es lo más competitivo que he visto en 25 años", dijo.




HORDAS RAPACES


Mientras todo el mundo esperaba que lo acribillaran por la espalda en una emboscada, su viuda estaba segura de verlo morir de viejo en su cama, confesado y sin agonía, como un santo moderno. Se equivocó en algunos detalles. José Montiel murió en su hamaca, un miércoles a las dos de la tarde, a consecuencia de la rabieta que el médico le había prohibido. Pero su esposa esperaba también que todo el pueblo asistiera al entierro y que la casa fuera pequeña para recibir tantas flores. Sin embargo, sólo asistieron sus copartidarios y las congregaciones religiosas y no se recibieron más coronas que las de la administración municipal.


Gabriel García Márquez. “La viuda de Montiel”, Los funerales de Mamá Grande, © Gabriel García Márquez, 1962. Pp. 16. Para Leer de boleto en el metro (10). México, D.F.



La incredulidad.


En importantísima misión a la capital michoacana, localizo y abordo a un infortunado taxista, para inquirirle si conoce algún lugar propio para dormir que se sujete a mi estrecho presupuesto.

_ ¿De dónde viene?


_ Ahorita de Cuernavaca.


_ ¡Ah, ´tá chido por allá!


_ Sí, está bonito.


_ ¿Y a qué viene por acá?


_ Vengo a entrevistarme por lo de un posible trabajo.


_ Orales, mi hermano también le batalló para encontrar, dos años se pasó sin chamba, pero no se quedó parado, se metió a estudiar dos maestrías y ahorita ya es director de una prepa.


A este compa todavía no le han implantado el chip nacional del terror a flor de piel, en unos cuantos segundos agarra confianza y me facilita su número de teléfono celular para llevarme a mi cita la mañana siguiente.


_ Así somos las personas aquí, si miramos que la persona es buena, tomamos confianza luego, luego. No como en el DF que uno tiene que andar a las vivas.


_ Sí, ya me di cuenta. Pero no se crea todo lo que dicen, también viví en la capital, ahí aprendí que en las grandes ciudades con no ejecutar conductas riesgosas, se puede vivir relativamente tranquilo. Yo pensé que aquí estaba más peligroso, ya ve lo que dicen en los noticieros.


_ Nel, aquí se está muy bien.


_ Sí eso es lo que veo. Según me dicen unos amigos que viajan mucho, en algunas ciudades la gente se recoge temprano, y por la noche usted ve las calles vacías. En Tampico la gente rumora que tienen a los taxistas a cuota. ¿Aquí no?


_ Nel, ya ve que según aquí andan Los Zetas y los de La Familia, pero a mi no me han pedido nada.


_ ¿Le tocó a usted lo del 15 de Septiembre?


_ Ni Dios lo quiera. Entre nosotros, los taxistas, ya sabíamos que algo iba a pasar. Yo le prohibí a mi esposa que saliera con los chamaquillos. Se enchiló un chingo, pero mejor así. A mi cuñada también le dije lo mismo, porque mi hermano está en el otro lado, pero ella no me hizo caso. Lo bueno fue que no le pasó nada.


El desconocimiento.


_ Los del IMP me contaron que les quieren hacer firmar un nuevo tipo de contratos en los que son despedidos, a la menor provocación por causas nimias – le dice nuestro conductor a la mujer maravilla camino a Morelia.


_ Sí, eso me dijeron también. Pero no te pierdas, PEMEX es la verdadera joya de la corona, manito. Petróleos da cuatro de cada diez pesos de lo que nos gastamos.


_ No, pus sí es un buen.


_ Así es, imagínate si se gastarán inteligentemente, y no para pagar a todos esos funcionarios parásitos. Tendríamos un mejor IMSS por ejemplo, con todo el equipo médico necesario, y a tu esposa la hubieran atendido bien (recién nos había platicado que hospitalizaron a su esposa por una anemia, y que tuvo que pagar los gastos porque su seguro de gastos médicos mayores no contempla ese tipo de enfermedades), ¿no?


El reduccionismo.


_ Mira, yo leí que el problema con los mexicanos son nuestros genes de la parte árabe de cuando estos ocuparon la península ibérica, actuamos como hordas jalando cada quien agua pa´su molino, nos es imposible ponernos de acuerdo en un fin común y actuar en consecuencia –me dice la mujer maravilla.


_ Mucho cuidado con eso. Yo también he leído a ese tipo de intelectuales que con una palabra o frase mágica intentan explicar todos los problemas nacionales. No es que no podamos encontrar respuestas, pero eso de simplificar de más no ayuda a solucionar nuestras broncas. Constantemente me doy de topes con ello, chiquita. Intento racionalizar el comportamiento de nuestra fauna política y no puedo desentrañarlo todo, neta. Que si neoliberalismo, malinchismo, conservadurismo y todos los ismos imaginables, y nomás no doy con la respuesta. Una cosa si te puedo decir con seguridad, actúan como hordas rapaces, ellos sí, a los que solo el billete les motiva. Por eso tenemos un gobierno delincuencial, a todos los niveles: coyotes, ligas con la delincuencia organizada, tráfico de influencias, nepotismo, contratos ilegales, y todos esos etcéteras que ya conoces. Eso es lo que tenemos que abordar sin concesiones.


Algunos de los europeos no están dispuestos a conceder cambio alguno a su “holgado” estilo de vida y han decidido apostar por el status quo en plena recesión económica. Así que, por el momento aquellos que gustamos de las ideologías nos hemos quedado huérfanos de horizontes vanguardistas.


¿Qué habrían de preservar “el 60%” de mexicanos en pobreza? Aún concediendo ignorar la teoría política básica (algo verdaderamente peligroso para el mexica de a pie) pa´entender la realidad actual, ¿ha usted obtenido algo de los gobiernos de la so called izquierda? ¿Han esos extraviados ideológicos mejorado sus condiciones en rubros como los de la Salud, la Educación, la Habitación o el Vestido? Con ese objetivo llegaremos a las urnas el próximo 5 de Julio (considerando que bien podrían repetir el muy ya visto numerito del fraude electoral): tratar de expulsar a esas hordas rapaces que se escudan en todas las siglas partidistas, e imponiendo pacíficamente un gobierno que cambie nuestra desastrosa situación socioeconómica actual. AL TIEMPO.



TONY;


Cuernabaches, MOR(ritas);


13/06/09.




... sorry, comp@s. Malito a pancita.



P.D.Con las pilas bien puestas.


El Correo Ilustrado


Consejero del IFE se puso la soga al cuello, opina


Según una nota de prensa del 9 de junio, el consejero presidente del Instituto Federal Electoral (IFE) declaró que “si la cantidad de votos nulos es superior a la diferencia entre el primero y segundo lugares, en el cómputo distrital será necesario abrir los paquetes electorales y contar voto por voto, a fin de corroborar que no se trata de un error de los funcionarios de casilla”.


Quizá olvidó que la cantidad de votos nulos (904 mil 604) fue muy superior (3.7 veces) a la diferencia entre el primero y el segundo lugares (243 mil 934) en el cómputo nacional de 2006 y, sin embargo, en una interpretación estrecha de la legislación entonces vigente no se consideró necesario abrir los paquetes electorales y contar voto por voto, a fin de corroborar que no se trató de errores de los funcionarios de casilla.


De este grosor es la soga que, con sus propias palabras, el titular del IFE se ha echado al cuello: reconocer que el recuento era necesario y, sin él, el resultado proclamado careció de certeza y validez.


Jorge Eduardo Navarrete




TIMELESS ENCORE:










• No compulsory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions
• Move brings prospect of deal at Copenhagen closer
David Adam in Bonn and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
guardian.co.uk,
Friday 12 June 2009 19.27 BST
Pollution from a factory in Yutian, 100km east of Beijing in China's north-west Hebei province. Photograph: Peter Parks/AFP/Getty Images

The US said today it would not demand that China commits to binding cuts in its greenhouse gas emissions, marking an important step towards agreement on a global treaty to fight climate change.

The move came at the end of the latest round of UN climate change talks ­involving 183 countries, which aim to produce a deal in Copenhagen in December.

Jonathan Pershing, head of the US ­delegation in Bonn, said developing countries – seeking to grow their economies and alleviate poverty – would instead be asked to commit to other actions. These include increasing energy efficiency standards and improving the take-up of renewable energy, but would not deliver specific reductions.

He said: "We're saying that the actions of developing countries should be binding, not the outcomes of those actions."

Only developed countries, including the US, would be expected to guarantee cuts. The pledge was included in a US blueprint for a climate change deal submitted to the Bonn meeting, which Pershing said was based on the need for rich countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. The American plan, if approved, could replace the existing Kyoto protocol. The lack of any carbon targets for ­developing countries in the protocol was the reason the US never ratified it.

While such cuts were believed to be unrealistic in the new treaty, the first clear acceptance of that at the UN talks by the US is being seen as significant. EU officials said they were studying the US proposal.China and the US are the two biggest polluters in the world, making their positions on the deal critical.

In a separate submission to the meeting, China was among a group of developing countries that called on rich countries to cut emissions by 40% by 2020 on 1990 levels. According to the environmental group WWF, commitments made by developing countries so far add up only to about a 10% cut. Japan this week proposed an effective 8% cut in its emissions.

Observers see the 40% demand as unrealistic, suggesting the US move amounts to blinking first in the negotiations. But back-channel negotiations, revealed by the Guardian last month, showed the two countries are searching for a deal.

John Ashe, who chaired discussions at Bonn on how Kyoto targets could be extended, said many of the targets put forward could be revised as the Copenhagen deadline looms. "There is always an initial move and then a final move. I don't believe we're in the final stage yet," he said.

He said China should agree to take actions to control emissions that were measured and reported to the international community.

In Washington, Todd Stern, the state department's climate change envoy, said the US still expected China to move towards a cleaner economy. "We are expecting China to reduce their emissions very considerably compared to where they would otherwise be [with] a business as usual trajectory," he said.

At the end of the talks, the UN's top climate official said progress had been made. Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN framework convention on climate change, said: "A big achievement of this meeting is that governments have made it clearer what they want to see in the Copenhagen agreed outcome."

But green campaigners criticised the failure to resolve issues such as an overall target for 2020 emission reductions or concrete proposals on funding for poor countries to deal with global warming.Antonio Hill of Oxfam said: "The countries that created the nightmare are refusing to lift a finger to prevent it becoming a reality. Rich country delegates have spent two weeks talking but have done nothing on the issues that really matter. They may be kidding themselves they are working towards a deal but they are not kidding anyone else."

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Analysts: The recession has ended

Economy has stopped shrinking, says leading group of analysts

By Sean O'Grady, Economics Editor

Thursday, 11 June 2009


The recession is over, according to one of the nation's most respected economic think-tanks.

The UK's surprising resilience is confirmed by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), an independent body with an enviable record for accuracy. It says that the economy hit rock bottom in as early as March and returned to growth, albeit modestly, in April and May.

The institute says that the economy grew by about 0.2 per cent in April and by 0.1 per cent last month. Although hardly a return to the boom conditions that prevailed before the credit crunch, these figures mark the end of more than a year of stagnation and recession, and stand in stark contrast to the grimmest predictions of a 1930s-style slump. Ray Barrell, director of forecasting at the institute, said that "the evidence from the last few months is that we may well have reached the bottom of the depression".

The Bank of England's radical cuts in interest rates and its programme of "quantitative easing" – injecting cash directly into the economy – were singled out by the NIESR as major reasons for the turnaround. According to the institute, if the recovery is sustained then the current downturn will have been less severe than those of the 1930s and the 1980s, although still more grievous than the one the economy went through in the early 1990s.

If the economy has indeed returned to growth when the official figures for the second quarter of this year are announced next month, then the Chancellor's forecast in his Budget in April that the UK would return to growth by the end of the year will have been delivered spectacularly early. What is more, the UK will also be one of the first major European economies to emerge from the downturn. It will be a much-needed boost to a Government that has seen its reputation for economic competence shredded during the credit crunch. A Downing Street spokesman said: "There are signs that the Government's actions to support the economy through this difficult downturn are having an effect but there are absolutely no grounds for complacency."

Surveys of business confidence also suggest that the economy will soon return to modest growth. "The... figures generally bode well for a recovery and it's feasible that GDP will have posted a gain over the second quarter," said Philip Shaw, UK economist at Investec.

Alan Clarke, an analyst with BNP Paribas, agreed. "We are accumulating more and more evidence that the recession is over. To be clear, we are not heading for a boom. The economy is still likely to grow much slower than potential, in turn meaning that unemployment will continue to rise. But the point is that the economy is no longer shrinking."

Having endured a year where output fell by a fifth – and by up to a half in particularly hard-hit sectors such as car-making – it is manufacturing that seems to be securing a period of stability.

The Office for National Statistics said yesterday that manufacturing output rose last month for the second time, a much better result than economists had been expecting. The monthly rise in each of March and April was 0.2 per cent, above forecasts. Car production is up 8.5 per cent, and pharmaceuticals up 5.5 per cent. An increase in North Sea oil production pushed overall industrial production higher still. The latest trade figures showed deterioration but even there the trend is encouraging, with exports improving faster than imports, a reflection of the stabilisation of world trade and the weakness of the pound.

Much of the improvement, says the NIESR, is simply due to the fact that retailers and other businesses have stopped "destocking", where they sell or produce from existing inventories rather than ordering in new supplies. But the NIESR also suggests that the cost of borrowing money has been falling sharply in recent weeks. This, says Mr Barrell, is a direct result of the Bank of England's successful programme of "quantitative easing" – designed to boost demand and, eventually, push inflation back up to the official target of 2 per cent (prices are due to fall later this year).

Some £125bn has been or will be soon spent by the Bank on buying government securities and pushing cash into the financial system. Mr Barrell suggested that the policy had worked so well that the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee might wish to put the policy on hold. The Government's public spending increases and tax cuts had had a less dramatic effect, he added.

There has also been evidence in recent weeks that some stabilisation in the housing market may be seen over the next few months, with both the Nationwide and Halifax reporting a jump of about 2 per cent in property values last month. While such figures are usually erratic, a gradual return of buyer confidence can be glimpsed in improving figures for new buyer enquiries at estate agents and a small upturn in the number of new mortgage approvals, although these remain far below normal levels, and first-time buyers are typically being asked to find a 25 per cent deposit. The credit crisis seems to have moderated more for companies than it has for individuals.

Doubts remain in some official quarters as to the strength and sustainability of the recovery. In remarks to the Leicester Mercury during a visit to the Midlands, Kate Barker, a Bank of England policy-maker, commented that "manufacturing orders are starting to come back, but whether that's a stocking issue or a turn-up in final demand isn't so clear... The really important question is whether there's a pick-up in the economy and if people can sustain that so it continues on to autumn."

Hers are the latest in a series of cautious remarks from Bank figures over the past few weeks. "Our present view is that we think [interest] rates could stay low for quite some time," she added.

So is the recession over? View from the frontline

Theo Paphitis, owner of Ryman and star of the Dragons' Den series: "I don't think we are anywhere near the end of the recession. We have probably had a bit of growth but this will definitely be a W-shaped recession. We have got a lame duck Government."

Sir Martin Sorrell, founder of the advertising agency WPP: "We hadn't noticed. The second half looks a little better than last year but that's because the comparative period was so weak. If you're asking have we seen a significant change in economic conditions, [then] no, we haven't."

Sir Philip Green, retail billionaire: "Businesses are not being funded properly. Unless the banking sector starts doing business we are going to continue bumping along where we are."

Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs: "I think it's going to be a long protracted [global] recession. There is no reason to think this is it... So many things have to be sorted out. Why would this be the recovery? The chances are it's not."



Jeremy Warner: Recession may be over but not the pain

Thursday, 11 June 2009


Outlook All of a sudden, the green shoots of economic spring seem all around us. Some of them may even be turning into smallish shrubs, if not quite yet fully grown bushes. According to estimates published last night by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which is second to none in the accuracy of its forecasts for the UK economy, March marked the trough of the recession, with the economy actually growing in April and May.

If these estimates are right, then the second quarter will have been one of positive growth, albeit not by much and following one of the most violent contractions ever recorded for the preceding three quarters. Only the Great Depression has witnessed a more precipitous lurch into the abyss.

Still, let's not be churlish. If this is indeed the trough, the scale of the contraction will have been smaller than that of the recession of the early 1980s. Somewhat unbelievably, given the near death experience of the banking system, this won't have been the worst economic contraction since the Second World War.

In any case, the recession seems to be over for now and Alistair Darling's Budget forecast that the economy would be growing by the end of the year, widely condemned as delusional at the time it was made, looks as if it will turn out to be correct.

Incumbent governments will always attempt to harmonise the economic cycle with the electoral one in the belief, possibly misguided, that if voters think things are getting better, then they are more likely to opt for the status quo.

The evidence for this is actually fairly patchy, and certainly the correlation works much better in the US than it does here. John Major managed to win an election in the depths of a recession but then lost the next one even though the economic recovery was by then well established.

Yet famously in the US, James Carville, Bill Clinton's campaign strategist in the run up to the 1992 presidential election, hung a sign in the presidential hopeful's Little Rock campaign headquarters that read "it's the economy stupid". This was meant as a reminder to his candidate that despite the achievements of the incumbent, President George Bush senior, in presiding over the end of the Cold War and apparent victory in the Gulf, the economy was a clear Achilles heal.

Bush senior later roundly blamed Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the US Federal Reserve, for scuppering his chances of a second term by not cutting interest rates sharply enough ahead of the election.

It was a mistake that his son, George W, did not intend to repeat. The US economy was shamelessly pump primed ahead of the 2004 election and George W staggered back into power despite the by then already manifest mistake of the Iraq invasion.

So is it remotely possible that Gordon Brown, universally declared electorally dead and buried as recently as a few days ago, has pulled off the trick of fine-tuning the economic recovery to coincide with going to the polls? Politics is an unpredictable old business, and certainly our beleaguered PM must be feeling a bit happier with life this morning than he was in the immediate aftermath of the European elections.

This in any case wasn't as bad a result for Labour as generally thought, as it failed to give the Opposition the overwhelming vote needed to be sure of a big majority in a general election. Rather, support frittered away to the fringe parties. The attempted putsch has been seen off and now the economy is improving. This must give the PM renewed hope that he can still win a general election, however unrealistic it might be.

No wonder that senior Tories sometimes refer to him as "Terminator". It seems impossible entirely to kill him off. Battered and bruised, minus a couple of limbs and stripped down to his metallic innards, the red eyes still stare out, even as he is lowered on a chain into a vat of boiling lead.

Yet even one as willing to clutch at straws as Mr Brown cannot be counting on the economy to bail him out. People's memory of a downturn is long, and voters don't quickly forgive. Nobody believes Mr Brown's insistence that this was an economic calamity which sprung entirely from the excesses of the American housing market, with the UK caught up in it all as some kind of innocent bystander. Still less are they inclined to give him credit for the policy response, which rightly or wrongly is quite widely regarded as chaotic, dithering and inept. In any case, it is the crisis, not the crisis management that people tend to remember.

But the more serious fly in the ointment is that to the extent that there is an economic recovery going on, it rests on extremely shaky foundations and may not last very long. Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of the advertising giant WPP, says bluntly that he's observed no recovery at all. It's not hard to see why to many recovery looks like a mirage.

The main reason why the economy has stopped contracting is that business has stopped de-stocking. In the first quarter alone, British businesses cut their stocks by some £6bn. Such a fierce inventory adjustment cannot go on indefinitely.

If the destocking sinks to zero, as it might have done for the second quarter, then that in itself will cause production and activity to rebound quite sharply as a more normal pattern of orders and supply re-establishes itself. The pickup in industrial production reported yesterday seems to confirm this analysis.

Yet if consumption and investment continue to decline, the inventory effect may turn out to be no more than a one-off boost. Unless business starts actively to restore stocks to pre-bust levels, as opposed to simply not cutting stocks any further, eventually these more negative forces will reassert themselves and the economy will begin contracting again.

That's why everyone is still so cautious about calling the end of the downturn. Any recovery that is taking place is still a long way from being self sustaining.

A number of City economists reckon that consumption is about to pick up too. Certainly the rise in disposable incomes caused by rock bottom mortgage rates gives good reason to think it might do. Unfortunately, any such revival is the very reverse of what's necessary to deal with the structural problem at the heart of the UK economy.

Over the last 20 years, the UK has had the lowest savings rate of any OECD nation, knocking even the US into second place. In this "spend now, worry about the consequences later" world, Britain's economy prosperity has come to rely disproportionately on consumption and the boom in house prices. Investment in the future has gone by the wayside, which for an ageing society creates a potentially devastating deficit for the future.

The savings deficit is one thing; alongside it runs a now burgeoning fiscal deficit which also has to be addressed urgently. The renewed row that broke out in Parliament yesterday about who is going to cut how much out of which departmental budget is all so much political noise.

The only thing we know for sure is that whoever occupies Number 10 after the next election is going to have to make deep cuts across the board. Even the marginal increases pencilled in by Labour in nominal terms will mean real cuts once inflation is taken into account. That too is hardly conducive to a robust, long term economic recovery. Neither of the two main political parties yet seem prepared to admit the scale of the challenge faced.

Green shoots or none, it's an austere future that beckons.




Absence of Monsoon Forecast Throws Off Retailers, Marketers

By Jane Han
Staff Reporter

For the past near 50 years, the weather agency gave a good lead to retailers on when to ramp up their seasonal monsoon marketing to promote all sorts of rain-related goods. But now that the guidance is no longer available, they're on their own.

The Korea Metrological Administration said Wednesday that it will discontinue offering rainy season forecasts starting this year as predicting downpours amid the global climate change is becoming more difficult.

This means retailers and marketers, many of whom capitalize on the annual rainy months, can't concentrate their ad blitz on specific weeks as they used to. Then what?

Extend promotions all summer long, they say.

``We're obviously not going to be sitting around guessing when the monsoon will hit,'' said Lee Ho-cheol, a merchandiser at Lotte Mart, who stressed that the rainy season is too big of an opportunity to miss.

He explained that Lotte Mart is increasing its rain-related goods inventory by 15 percent in case the downpour goes super heavy.

Based on the weather agency's statistics, the average precipitation during the monsoon season hasn't changed significantly in recent years, but the occurrence of sudden torrential rain has risen throughout the entire summer months.

Lotte Mart and Shinsegae E-Mart are rushing products including dehumidifying and deodorizing agents to their store shelves at least one week earlier than previous years to acquaint shoppers with new products before rain hits.

They're planning to offer special discounts and free giveaways for the early birds to get ahead.

The end of June to mid-July used to be the best-selling season for these items, but retailers are expecting that sales will be more evenly spread out starting this year.

E-Mart data shows that sales of umbrellas and household deodorizers have jumped 39.4 percent and 13.3 percent, respectively, in May compared to last year. Online shopping mall Auction also said that its sales of dehumidification goods hiked 150 percent year-on-year in May.

``In some ways, it's good that many of these products are selling over a longer period of time,'' said Hong Sung-jin, a merchandiser at E-Mart, ``but the fact that there is not one concentrated period weakens our marketing campaign.''

He explained that the absence of the monsoon forecast is going to put retailers on their toes until autumn.

``Since this is the first year we'll be without the forecast, we'll see how things pan out,'' said Hong.

jhan@koreatimes.co.kr




The dual downturn of China’s CPI and PPI in May has aroused a lot of speculation on the prospect of the world’s third largest economy for 2009.


Will China get out of the bottom this year? What influence will possible scenarios in China have on the whole picture of the world economy which is struggling in the global financial crisis?


More figures of economic indicators will be announced these days. And we will hear different voices following that.


Forecast for 2009


China's economy is expected to hit bottom and recover within this year However, the eight percent growth rate target is still an arduous task to achieve.



With the economic conditions of major trading partners such as the US showing signs of stability, the external uncertainties facing China's economy are decreasing



Soros said in Shanghai that China's influence is set to grow faster than before, as its banking system is kept healthy and kicking, and a prompt and strong government intervention to rev up a slowing economy late last year.



Source: ChinaDaily



Chinese economy has bottomed out and is stabilizing against the global economic downturn, but it would go through a U-turn recovery as a quick recovery could hardly be sustained



"The viewpoint is groundless," the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) said in an interview posted on its website yesterday. "It made a mistake to oversimplify the correlation between economic growth and energy use."


Data & Analysis of May

Foreign trade



Urban fixed-asset investment



PMI


A reading of above 50 suggests expansion, while one below 50 indicates contraction.


CPI





PPI




Auto market





Capital market


Its vigorous performance proved from another aspect that China's economy is bottoming out and has gradually regained its confidence.


Port throughput



Real estate market




By People's Daily Online

The crisis of British Labour

11 June 2009

Factional infighting within the Labour government reached stalemate Monday after a group of rebels, whose challenge had been encouraged by the media, failed in their attempts to force Prime Minister Gordon Brown to stand down as party leader.

Brown was able to defy his opponents at a specially convened meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party on Monday evening. He did so primarily by threatening MPs (members of Parliament) with the prospect of an early election having to be called if he was deposed.

Though this is not required constitutionally, Brown’s replacement would find it extremely difficult to avoid a general election. Brown became an unelected prime minister when Tony Blair gave up the post, and having a second consecutive unelected Labour prime minister is considered politically untenable.

With the party in a state of despair, having just recorded its lowest vote since 1910 in Sunday’s European elections, efforts to secure the backing of 70-plus MPs for a leadership contest failed miserably. Nevertheless, factional conflicts still rage and Brown is fatally wounded. Most commentators predict a resumption of hostilities at the party conference in October.

Whatever follows, the events of recent weeks have revealed the full extent of the internal rot of the Labour Party and its complete transformation into a political creature of the financial oligarchy.

The in-fighting within Labour’s apparatus centred almost entirely on members of the cabinet and former ministers. Whether supporters of Brown or more closely associated with ex-Prime Minister Blair, they have all played a key role in implementing Labour’s right-wing, pro-business agenda for more than a decade. Not one of those in the forefront of this factional bickering opposed the Iraq war, the invasion of Afghanistan, or the raft of anti-democratic measures associated with the “war on terror.”

Labour faces electoral oblivion precisely because millions of working people have turned their backs on the party in disgust after years of political betrayals. They did not vote Labour because they have concluded that it is no less a party of the financial elite than the Conservatives.

None of those who came forward to denounce Brown have even hinted at principled political concerns. Instead, their fire was levelled solely against his personal failings as a leader, while they urged a renewal of everything associated with “New Labour” in the “golden years” under Blair. Behind their reticence in detailing their own policy prescriptions is the fact that their agenda is dictated entirely by the right-wing media, such as the Daily Telegraph and, above all, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

Though Brown was initially praised by big business for his readiness to provide billions in taxpayer monies to rescue Britain’s bankers, the economy has continued to slide further into recession and the pound has declined sharply on world currency markets. This has evoked increasingly strident demands for the imposition of austerity measures and savage cuts in public spending—measures which require the preparation of a major confrontation with the working class.

With Labour lacking any popular support and Brown seen as indecisive, the Conservatives under David Cameron have been praised for their commitment to the imposition of an “age of austerity.” Led by the Telegraph, a series of revelations of improper expenses claims by MPs have been utilised in an effort to discredit the government and force a general election. But this is a blunt weapon that also threatens to discredit the Tories and Parliament itself.

There was seen to be little alternative, however, given that Labour still commands a significant parliamentary majority. Brown is not required to call an election until March 2010. To overcome this problem, measures were taken behind the scenes to recruit some within Labour’s leadership to the drive to oust Brown.

Faced with losing Murdoch’s backing, a section of the party was more than ready to respond. A campaign was launched, beginning with denunciations of Brown for his decision to raise the highest tax rate to 50 percent and continuing with a series of high-profile and carefully timed ministerial resignations that were meant to destabilise his premiership in the run-up to the local authority and European elections. Nearly every minister who resigned attributed sole responsibility for Labour’s massive unpopularity to Brown.

The degree of collusion with Murdoch was underscored by the departure of Works and Pensions Secretary James Purnell, whose resignation letter was leaked to the Murdoch newspapers, the Times and the Sun.

The problem for the conspirators was the dawning recognition within the Parliamentary Labour Party that they were being asked to commit political hara-kiri. This realisation ensured that no one, including the favoured replacement for Brown, Alan Johnson, was prepared to mount an immediate challenge. Johnson instead accepted the position of home secretary in Brown’s cabinet reshuffle, while telling the media that he would consider becoming party leader at a future date.

The most significant role in rescuing Brown was played by former Business Secretary Peter Mandelson. More than any other individual, Mandelson can claim to be the intellectual architect of the New Labour project. He understood that, whatever the illusions of the anti-Brown plotters, more was at stake than Brown’s premiership.

“New Labour is not about faces, it’s about policies,” he stated. Mandelson calculated that if Brown went under current conditions, the party itself would rapidly break up. Moreover, outside the narrow circles of Westminster and the media, no one believed that Brown was the sole architect of Labour’s ongoing crisis, and the party would have no real hope of recovering support under a new leader.

To prevent an immediate implosion and buy time in the hope of renewing Labour’s alliance with Murdoch and his ilk, Mandelson has stitched together a lose alliance of all those fearing a political shipwreck. His greatest success was to provide the necessary justification for the party’s supposed left wing to come to Brown’s aid.

All that was required was a vague pledge to delay the planned privatisation of Royal Mail, and only if bids fall short of expectations. The next day, the Communication Workers Union offered the government a three-month moratorium on industrial action, overturning the results of a nine-to-one ballot in London in favour of a strike.

Mandelson has been proclaimed first secretary of state. Although only an honorific title, it implies that he stands above all other members of the government, outside of the prime minister. Nothing more completely gives the lie to the claims that Brown is somehow to the left of his opponents than the elevation of Mandelson—the man who declared that New Labour was “intensely relaxed” about people becoming “filthy rich.”

Mandelson is needed as a semi-Bonapartist figure in order to prevent the Parliamentary Labour Party being torn apart by its warring factions. But this is a conflict waged by uniformly right-wing elements, competing for the political favours of the super-rich. This alone ensures that Labour’s meltdown will continue to gather pace.

As far as the working class is concerned, Labour is already dead. A new socialist leadership is urgently required for working people. Without this, the right wing will continue to exploit the vacuum created by the wholesale exclusion of working people and their interests from political life.

Chris Marsden



Obama administration rejects limits on bankers’ pay

While workers’ wages fall

By Patrick Martin
11 June 2009

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it opposed any government-imposed limits on the salary and bonuses of the CEOs and other top officials of major banks that have received trillions of dollars in federal handouts and guarantees over the past eight months.

Coming only nine days after the White House forced bankruptcy on General Motors and major cuts in auto workers’ pay and benefits, the green light for CEOs to continue to award themselves eight-digit compensation packages is further evidence of the grotesque double standard of American capitalism. Workers, retirees, young people and small businessmen will all see their living standards and future prospects devastated, but nothing can be allowed to interfere with the pursuit of personal wealth by the financial aristocracy.

“We do not believe it’s appropriate for the government to set caps in compensation,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in announcing the administration’s policy for companies which have received federal bailouts through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). “We’re not going to prescribe detailed prescriptive rules for compensation,” he continued. “All those things would be ineffective, could be counterproductive in some ways.”

Neither Geithner nor any other Obama administration official has explained why it is wrong and “counterproductive” to limit the multi-million-dollar salary and bonus packages awarded to bank executives, but absolutely necessary to slash the wages, pensions and health benefits of workers at General Motors, Chrysler and their supplier plants.

Well aware of the popular resentment against stratospheric salaries and bonuses for the financiers whose speculative practices precipitated a worldwide economic crisis, the Obama administration has offered a fig leaf of restraint on compensation. Geithner said the administration would ask Congress to give shareholders a consultative voice on executive pay and authorize the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require corporate compensation committees to be more independent of company management. (Most CEOs have their pay and bonuses set by their cronies on the board of directors, often appointed by the CEOs themselves).

To call these measures toothless would be to exaggerate their significance. The shareholder votes would be non-binding. The compensation committees would still be selected by the corporate board and the CEO. There would be no outside regulatory supervision or control. And, of course, the workers would have no say whatsoever in the decision to award their bosses compensation packages hundreds if not thousands of times their own pay.

In his statement, Geithner made a pro forma acknowledgment that CEO pay played a role in the crisis. “This financial crisis had many significant causes,” he said, “but executive compensation practices were a contributing factor. Incentives for short-term gains overwhelmed the checks and balances meant to mitigate against the risk of excess leverage.”

Geithner declared that the first principle of his “reform” was that “compensation plans should properly measure and reward performance.” This is a sham. The CEOs of the major banks and investment houses do not create any real wealth. Their “labor” consists of the manipulation of financial assets. This activity is entirely parasitic, and in the recent period catastrophically destructive. To “properly measure and reward” the performance of these gentlemen would require criminal investigations and public trials, not multi-million-dollar payoffs.

There are some differences between the measures proposed by Geithner Wednesday and those originally proposed by the Obama administration on February 4, as part of its initial reformulation of the TARP program. Other limited restraints were introduced into the stimulus package enacted by Congress in February, in an amendment drafted by Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. But no version provides any serious obstacle to the bankers and CEOs resuming their mania for self-enrichment.

The only semblance of pay restraint will be applied to the seven companies that have borrowed more than once under the TARP program: Bank of America, Citibank, American International Group, General Motors, Chrysler, GMAC and Chrysler Financial. These seven companies must have the pay and bonuses of their top 25 executives approved by a “special master” appointed by Geithner, who named prominent Washington lawyer Kenneth Feinberg to the post. Feinberg will also review compensation practices at the other 80 firms that have drawn TARP money, but will not have any decision-making authority over them.

While Feinberg was immediately dubbed the “czar” of executive pay by the press, there is a revealing contrast between his background and record and that of the individual who functions as the Treasury’s automobile “czar,” hedge fund billionaire Steven Rattner.

Feinberg was most recently the head of the fund established to compensate the families of those killed and maimed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington DC. His task was to distribute several billion dollars to the families with a display of fairness and sensitivity. A critical purpose of these charitable payments was to forestall any lawsuits that could bring to light facts about the events leading up to September 11, 2001, above all the role of US intelligence agencies, which the government would prefer to keep hidden.

Rattner is a capitalist speculator. He has a great deal of experience in dismembering troubled companies and disposing of their assets, extracting the maximum profit from a process that involves the destruction of jobs, pensions and working class communities, a task which he is undertaking with great zeal against the auto workers.

The class divisions in American society are thus demonstrated even in the contrasting personal styles of the two “czars.” The CEOs of giant companies are to be treated with tact and discretion. The auto workers, on the other hand, are getting the treatment dished out by a corporate raider.

The pretense of restraint on executive pay comes only a week after a report, by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, that more than half of American companies are cutting or freezing pay for their employees in response to the financial crisis. Some 52.4 percent of human resource executives surveyed in May said their companies had cut compensation, up from 27.2 percent in a similar survey in January.

The proportion of companies taking cost-cutting measures of all kinds declined slightly from January (92 percent) to May (86 percent), with most companies enacting a combination of job cuts, hiring freezes, furloughs, pay cuts and benefit cuts. It is undoubtedly the case that those CEOs who proceed most aggressively to cut workers’ pay, benefits and jobs will reap the reward personally, in the form of large bonuses. And according to Geithner and the Obama administration, they will have earned it by their superior “performance.”

The Obama administration is a right-wing capitalist government pursuing a deliberate and sweeping attack on the American working class. Its social program finds its clearest class expression in this dichotomy: foreswearing any limits on CEO and executive compensation, while demanding sacrifices by workers and an across-the-board cut in “consumption”—i.e., in the living standards of working people.