Prospero Posted July 4, 2014 Posted July 4, 2014 Have we hit Peak America? The sources of U.S. power and the path to national renaissance. By Elbridge Colby and Paul Lettow American leadership in the world is imperiled. And at a fundamental level, the American people sense it. A number of recent polls show that more Americans than ever before -- nearly 60 percent, in some cases -- believe U.S. power is waning. In other words, a greater number of Americans are worried about diminishing U.S. influence today than in the face of feared Soviet technological superiority in the late 1950s, the Vietnam quagmire of the late 1960s, the 1973 oil embargo, the apparent resurgence of Soviet power around the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, and the economic concerns that plagued the late 1980s -- the five waves of so-called declinist anxiety that political scientist Samuel Huntington famously identified. Many analysts have attributed Americans' current anxiety to the aftershock of waging two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the polls actually reflect something deeper and more potent -- a legitimate, increasingly tactile uncertainty in the minds of the American people created by changes in the world and in America's competitive position, which they feel far more immediately than do the participants in Washington policy debates. Average Americans do not experience the world through the lens of great-power rivalry or U.S. leadership abroad, but rather through that of an increasingly competitive globalized labor market, stagnating income growth among the middle class, and deep and unresolved worries about their children's future. A recent CNN poll, for instance, found that Americans think by a 2-to-1 margin that their children's lives will be worse than their own. They are questioning the promise of growth and expanding opportunity -- the very substance of the American dream. This anxiety is real and justified, and it lies behind much of the public's support for withdrawing from the world, for retrenchment. Yet American leadership and engagement remain essential. The United States cannot hide from the world. Rather, it must compete. And if it competes well, it can restore not only its economic health, but also its strength for the long haul. That resilience will preserve Americans' ability to determine their fate and the nation's ability to lead in the way its interests require. Unfortunately, absent from current discussions about U.S. foreign policy has been a hardheaded assessment of what it will actually take to rejuvenate and compete. Policymakers and experts have not yet taken a clear-eyed look at the data and objectively analyzed the fundamental shifts under way globally and what they mean for America's competitive position. Nor have they debated the steps necessary to sustain U.S. power over the long term. Many foreign-policy experts seem to believe that retaining American primacy is largely a matter of will -- of how America chooses to exert its power abroad. Even President Obama, more often accused of being a prophet of decline than a booster of America's future, recently asserted that the United States "has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world." The question, he continued, is "not whether America will lead, but how we will lead." But will is unavailing without strength. If the United States wants the international system to continue to reflect its interests and values -- a system, for example, in which the global commons are protected, trade is broad-based and extensive, and armed conflicts among great nations are curtailed -- it needs to sustain not just resolve, but relative power. That, in turn, will require acknowledging the uncomfortable truth that global power and wealth are shifting at an unprecedented pace, with profound implications. Moreover, many of the challenges America faces are exacerbated by vulnerabilities that are largely self-created, chief among them fiscal policy. Much more quickly and comprehensively than is understood, those vulnerabilities are reducing America's freedom of action and its ability to influence others. Preserving America's international position will require it to restore its economic vitality and make policy choices now that pay dividends for decades to come. America has to prioritize and to act. Fortunately, the United States still enjoys greater freedom to determine its future than any other major power, in part because many of its problems are within its ability to address. But this process of renewal must begin with analyzing America's competitive position and understanding the gravity of the situation Americans face. The relative economic decline of the United States is a fact. For the first time in 200 years, most growth is occurring in the developing world,and the speed with which that shift -- a function of globalization -- has occurred is hard to fathom. Whereas in 1990 just 14 percent of cross-border flows of goods, services, and finances originated in emerging economies, today nearly 40 percent do. As recently as 2000, the GDP of China was one-tenth that of the United States; just 14 years later, the two economies are equal (at least in terms of purchasing power parity). This shift reorders what was, in some sense, a historical anomaly: the transatlantic dominance of the past 150 years. As illustrated by the map below, it wasn't until the Industrial Revolution took hold in the 19th century that the world's "economic center of gravity" decisively moved toward Europe and the United States, which have since been the primary engines of growth. Today, however, the economic center of gravity is headed back toward Asia, and it is doing so with unique historical speed. THE WORLD'S ECONOMIC CENTER OF GRAVITY The larger a country's GDP, the greater its pull on the world's economic center of gravity. So when the Industrial Revolution spurred massive growth in the United States, the center moved west, eventually out over the Atlantic Ocean. Today, it is moving back toward Asia. SOURCE: MCKINSEY GLOBAL INSTITUTE, WITH DATA FROM ANGUS MADDISON OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN This trend will persist even though emerging economies are hitting roadblocks to growth, such as pervasive corruption in India and demographic challenges and serious distortions in the banking system in China. For instance, according to the asset-management firm BlackRock and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), consumption in emerging markets has already eclipsed that in the United States, and spending by the middle classes in Asia-Pacific nations is on track to exceed middle-class spending in North America by a factor of nearly six by 2030. U.S. wealth is not shrinking in absolute terms -- and it continues to benefit from economic globalization -- but the United States and its allies are losing might compared with potential rivals. Although Europe and Japan have been responsible for much of the developed world's lost relative economic power, the U.S. economy has also slowed from its traditional rates of expansion over the past several decades. Worsening productivity growth has played a particularly large role in the U.S. slowdown, dropping to around 0.5 percent annually, which the Financial Times has referred to as a "productivity crisis." A range of factors are responsible, including a decline in the skill level of the American workforce and a drop in resources allocated to research and development. U.S. REVENUE VS. SPENDING By 2043, federal spending on entitlements and net interest payments will exceed federal revenues, meaning funds for any discretionary programs will be borrowed.SOURCE: CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE Overall, the U.S. economy has become less competitive. The McKinsey Global Institute, for instance, has measured the relative attractiveness of the United States across a range of metrics, such as national spending on research and development and foreign direct investment as a percentage of GDP. It found that U.S. business attractiveness relative to that of competitors fell across 14 of 20 key metrics from 2000 to 2010 -- and improved in none. And according to the Harvard Business Review, U.S. exports' global market share dropped across the board from 1999 to 2009 and suffered particularly sharp falls in cutting-edge fields such as aerospace. This shift in economic growth toward the developing world is going to have strategic consequences. Military power ultimately derives from wealth. It is often noted that the United States spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined. But growth in military spending correlates with GDP growth, so as other economies grow, those countries will likely spend more on defense, reducing the relative military power of the United States. Already, trends in global defense spending show a rapid and marked shift from the United States and its allies toward emerging economies, especially China. In 2011, the United States and its partners accounted for approximately 80 percent of the military spending by the 15 countries with the largest defense budgets. But, according to a McKinsey study, that share could fall significantly over the next eight years -- perhaps to as low as 55 percent. The resulting deterioration in American military superiority has already begun, as the countries benefiting most rapidly from globalization are using their newfound wealth to build military capacity, especially in high-tech weaponry. As Robert Work and Shawn Brimley of the Center for a New American Security wrote this year: "[T]he dominance enjoyed by the United States in the late 1990s/early 2000s in the areas of high-end sensors, guided weaponry, battle networking, space and cyberspace systems, and stealth technology has started to erode. Moreover, this erosion is now occurring at an accelerated rate." (Work has since been confirmed as deputy secretary of defense.) China, in particular, is acquiring higher-end capabilities and working to establish "no-go zones" in its near abroad in the hopes of denying U.S. forces the ability to operate in the Western Pacific. China's declared defense budget grew 12 percent this year -- and has grown at least ninefold since 2000 -- and most experts think its real defense spending is considerably larger. The International Institute for Strategic Studies has judged that Beijing will spend as much on defense as Washington does by the late 2020s or early 2030s. Meanwhile, regional powers like Iran -- and even nonstate actors like Hezbollah -- are becoming more militarily formidable as it becomes easier to obtain precision-guided munitions and thus threaten U.S. power-projection capabilities. Simultaneously, the United States is slashing its defense spending while allocating its remaining funds less strategically. Not only has the Defense Department estimated that it has already cut almost $600 billion from its budget plans for the next decade, but if current trends continue, by 2021 nearly half of the Pentagon's budget will go to personnel-related costs, rather than procurement, training, research and development, or operations. The U.S. National Intelligence Council recently projected the future distribution of global power using two distinct methodologies that incorporated a range of "hard" and "soft" factors. By both estimates, the U.S. share of global power will fall dramatically, from around 25 percent in 2010 to around 15 percent in 2050. The National Intelligence Council predicted that over the same period, the relative power of the European Union and Japan will fall significantly as well. The United States is worsening this problem by refusing to confront its federal debt and deficits. Unsustainable fiscal policy will limit U.S. competitiveness and freedom of action in the world with a severity and alacrity not remotely appreciated in today's U.S. foreign-policy debates. The total federal debt currently held by the public, which includes foreign creditors, is approximately $13 trillion. That is almost three-quarters of U.S. GDP, the highest it has ever been except for a brief period during and after World War II. Moreover, the drivers of the debt are entitlement programs that will impose enormous costs indefinitely. GDPs OF G-7 AND E-7 COUNTRIES SOURCE: PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS Today, well over 60 percent of federal revenue is consumed by spending on Social Security, the major health-care programs (including Medicare, Medicaid, and subsidies under the Affordable Care Act), and interest payments on the federal debt. By 2043, spending on entitlements and net interest payments will consume all federal revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Every dollar the U.S. government spends on anything else -- defense, intelligence, foreign affairs, the federal justice system, infrastructure, science and technology, education, the space program -- will be borrowed. And by that time, the total federal debt held by the public will far exceed U.S. GDP. Recent attempts to address the problem have only resulted in fiasco. The "sequester" imposed automatic, arbitrary, across-the-board cuts to discretionary spending -- precisely the spending that is not causing the fiscal problem -- with the heaviest burden falling on defense. Most spending for entitlements was untouched. One could hardly imagine an outcome more likely to reduce American power, and quickly. The unwillingness to choose a sustainable fiscal path is forcing the United States to forgo the investments necessary to sustain the domestic sources of its power, and it is already eroding its strength abroad. Among allies, adversaries, and swing states alike, U.S. fiscal policy is increasingly calling into question America's ability to lead globally. For all these challenges to its influence, the United States retains enormous potential strength. Far more so than other great powers, it has the advantages and resources -- political, economic, geographical, geologic, and cultural -- to maintain the greatest freedom of action over the long haul. But it needs to focus on its competitiveness, beginning with a few key priorities. Because America's fiscal policy affects everything else and because the current trajectory is unsustainable, entitlement reform is inevitable. The only question is when it will begin. A number of the fixes that could have the most significant impact are straightforward and could be phased in over time with minimal disruption. For example, increasing the retirement age -- which could be done over a decade or longer -- would substantially improve America's fiscal condition. Investing effectively in infrastructure -- long a U.S. comparative advantage, now increasingly a relative weakness -- would boost productivity and growth over the long term. So would reforming corporate tax laws to encourage companies to bring profits home. (The current system creates perverse incentives for companies to maximize tax advantages by keeping profits out of the United States.) The nation can also focus on enhancing productivity in parts of its economy that would benefit greatly from even modest improvements. As writer Reihan Salam and others have shown, sectors such as health care and education -- which together comprise a quarter of the country's economy -- are inefficient compared with other OECD nations. Government services are laggard. Introducing best business practices and up-to-date information technology to those areas would not only improve Americans' lives, but would also tap underexploited sources of national wealth. With respect to defense policy, the United States must be ruthlessly strategic in its spending and preparations, prioritizing the principal source of its military advantage: technological superiority. This means focusing increasingly scarce defense dollars on next-generation weapons, such as stealthy bombers and quiet submarines, and on the assets that make them smarter than their enemy counterparts -- command, control, communication, and computer systems, as well as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. And it means fielding these capabilities with a better-trained, leaner military that de-emphasizes less lucrative investments, such as personnel strength and systems that cannot survive or prosper in the tougher emerging military-technological environment. The key to preventing relative decline -- and perhaps sparking a renaissance in American power -- lies not simply in remedying problems with fiscal responsibility, economic productivity, and military spending, but in leveraging the country's comparative advantages, which are significant. The United States has an open political system that, historically, has proved able to self-correct and adapt. It has a culture that favors economic growth, accepts and integrates people from all over the world, and enables mobility, creativity, and personal renewal and reinvention. As a result, the nation remains an abiding destination for foreign investment -- a reliable source of growth and safety in uncertain economic and geopolitical times. In particular, America's energy boom and its ability to attract talent from around the world could yield an outsized return on investment. 2013 CHANGES IN ENERGY SUPPLY In 2013, while the United States enjoyed a surge of over a million barrels per day in its liquid-fuels supply -- including crude oil and biofuels -- supply from OPEC countries dropped sharply. The United States is on its way to being a net exporter of energy. SOURCE: U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION Less than a decade ago, energy loomed as an enormous challenge for the United States. Not anymore. The combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," technologies has generated a surge in U.S. oil and natural gas production. Between 2007 and 2012, U.S. production of shale gas increased from roughly 3.5 billion cubic feet per day to over 28 billion, a jump of over 700 percent. In the same period, shale gas's share of U.S. gas production grew from 5 percent to 45 percent. With each year, the efficiency of fracking has improved, and estimates of recoverable reserves of shale gas have nearly doubled. Driven by the production of tight oil made possible by fracking, U.S. crude oil production has also soared in the last five years, following four decades of decline. In 2013, the United States overtook Russia as the world's leading producer of oil and gas. Within two years it is likely to surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's largest crude oil producer. U.S. imports of oil and gas have fallen steeply in the last five years, reducing the trade deficit. The United States will soon be a net exporter of energy. The economic boost from the so-called "North American energy revolution" has already been profound. Natural gas prices in the United States have plummeted, both in absolute terms and relative to other markets around the world. Consequently, the United States is now uniquely advantaged in industries, such as petrochemical production, that require massive amounts of energy. Billions of dollars of investment capital have flowed into the United States, thereby helping to revitalize the manufacturing sector. Energy analyst Daniel Yergin has linked the creation of 2 million jobs to the development of shale energy, and other reports suggest that the renewal of the energy industry (and associated manufacturing and support services) is pumping hundreds of billions of additional dollars into the U.S. economy every year. The energy boom has also significantly reduced carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, even as the emissions from other, more traditionally "green" states, like Germany, have increased. A large part of this shift has been driven by the rapid transition from coal to less expensive and less emissions-intensive gas-powered electricity. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2012 alone, a year in which U.S. GDP grew nearly 3 percent, the country's energy-related carbon emissions fell almost 4 percent, to their lowest level since 1994 and 12 percent below their 2007 peak. Admittedly, some enthusiasts have overhyped the strategic implications of this revolution. True energy "independence" -- defined as isolation from shocks to global energy markets -- is impossible. And the United States has not gained newfound leverage over energy producers such as Russia. Nonetheless, the energy revolution has given the United States an important strategic capability. In 2011, the growth in U.S. and Canadian production helped moderate global oil prices when supplies from Libya were interrupted during that country's revolution. Going forward, the United States will be better able to help allies by diversifying their energy options and, in some cases, offering them more secure supply lines. To Japan, for example, energy flowing from North America is vastly preferable to Middle Eastern supplies that must transit the South China Sea. Preserving and furthering the energy revolution and its boost to U.S. competitiveness is crucial. But it first requires a Hippocratic oath mindset: Do no harm. The North American energy revolution has been made possible in part by supportive property rights and state laws and regulations. But fracking does have risks. A prudent, predictable regulatory regime, one that provides rigorous monitoring and reduces potential environmental risks, benefits both industry and the public. By contrast, efforts under way in some states to ban the transport of fracking wastewater on state roads -- or even ban fracking entirely -- could curtail one of the country's greatest comparative advantages. Looking outward, Washington must change its mindset toward its place in the global energy market. The United States is the world's leading energy superpower. It is time to reverse prohibitions on the export of oil and other hydrocarbons, many of which date from the OPEC embargoes of the 1970s. The government should continue to grant licenses to export liquefied natural gas to countries with which it does not have free trade agreements, and reverse the ban on crude oil exports. Another strength of the United States is its edge in human capital -- the productivity, innovation, and entrepreneurship of its workers. The United States remains an attractive destination for smart, skilled, and creative individuals, even as the global competition for such workers intensifies. In 2010, for instance, Gallup reported that over 165 million of the approximately 700 million adults worldwide looking to emigrate would like to move to the United States, well ahead of second-place Canada. The United States did particularly well among younger respondents. According to a 2010 study, about 24 percent of the world's adults hoping to emigrate listed the United States as their ideal destination -- more than three times the number wanting to head to second-place Canada. SOURCE: GALLUP U.S. advantages in the global "war for talent" include the perception of meritocracy and mobility in the American system, exceptional centers of economic activity in places like New York and Silicon Valley, and the allure of American higher education. Shanghai Jiao Tong University's influential annual review of the world's top universities, for instance, lists 17 American universities among its top 20. Major U.S. universities also have much larger endowments than potential rivals abroad, helping them lure the best and the brightest, which in turn enables them to serve as incubators for innovation. These assets have made the United States the leading destination for high-skilled immigrants, who provide an essential engine for economic growth. William Kerr of Harvard Business School, for instance, found that American immigrants of Chinese and Indian extraction accounted for 15 percent of U.S. domestic patents in 2004, up from just 2 percent in 1975. And the Brookings Institution has estimated that a quarter of technology and engineering businesses started in the United States between 1995 and 2005 had a foreign-born founder. 17 OF THE TOP 20 UNIVERSITIES ARE IN THE UNITED STATES. SOURCE: ACADEMIC RANKING OF WORLD UNIVERSITIES, SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY, 2013 Preserving the U.S. edge in human capital is essential. But the United States is not exploiting this advantage as much as it should. Its current approach to H-1B visas, for instance, is overly restrictive and ultimately harmful. The United States regularly educates and trains hyperskilled Ph.D. students in the sciences, for example, and then makes it difficult for them to stay in the country. America should welcome and try to keep skilled and talented workers and entrepreneurs. The payoffs are clear: Every H-1B visa granted for an employee to join a high-tech company adds another five jobs to the economy. Other countries, such as Canada and Australia, already understand this dynamic. They are attracting talent through incentives and criteria, such as educational attainment and work history, that suggest great economic potential. The United States ought to learn from their example. More broadly, improving America's world-class universities and research centers is essential to building and attracting the world's best talent and to fostering the innovation that will fuel economic growth in the 21st century. The U.S. experience in the last century demonstrated the multiplier effect of public investments in basic research. Failure to prioritize funding for such bodies as the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is penny-wise and pound-foolish. It was technological innovation that produced the startling boom in oil and gas production, and the country's ability to generate and exploit alternative energy sources will be driven by scientific breakthroughs -- as with graphene, a nanomaterial that has the potential to revolutionize batteries. The United States also needs to tap fully its existing reservoirs of domestic talent. Extending the careers of the country's 76 million baby boomers -- perhaps through encouraging flexible working hours and changing how Social Security retirement benefits are calculated -- would not only help alleviate the strains on entitlement spending and increase retirement savings, but it would also help the economy grow as more mature workers continue to contribute the lifetime of expertise they have developed. Building such skills among the coming generation of workers is critical as well. Even during the recent recession, employers could not fill certain high-skilled positions -- a supply-demand imbalance projected to continue through the decade. One way to address this gap may be through education tailored to specific careers. The Automotive Manufacturing Technical Education Collaborative, for example, partners auto companies and community colleges in 12 states to train students for high-skilled careers in the auto industry. Perhaps the single most important thing Americans can do, however, is to be honest with themselves about the challenges the country faces and the seriousness with which it needs to treat them. America needs to talk less about its exceptionalism and focus more on demonstrating it. If America chooses the path of economic adaptation, reform, and restored productivity -- that is, if it resolves to make tough choices -- it will be able to remain prosperous and strong and therefore retain extraordinary influence over its future and in the world. If it does not, it will see the domestic sources of its power erode far more quickly and with far more damaging consequences than is currently appreciated. Within the United States, there is an ongoing debate about the appropriate uses of American power abroad. But whatever one's views on how U.S. power should be used, there is little reason to support its erosion. If one favors extensive American engagement, a resilient America will be better able to lead and intervene effectively. If one favors retrenchment and restraint, a more powerful America will be better insulated from outside threats. If one favors measured engagement, strength provides options and the firmest basis for sustained success. And, irrespective of foreign policy, an economically dynamic, growing America will benefit all its citizens, particularly the generations to come. Otto von Bismarck is often quoted as having said that God takes special care of drunks, children, and the United States of America. But as another saying goes, God takes care of those who take care of themselves. Although the former may still be true, the latter certainly is. While believing that America is doomed to decline is a fallacy, refusing to confront the problems that imperil its economic vitality would be no less a failing. American strength and freedom of action are not rights to be inherited but outcomes to be earned. Preserving U.S. influence abroad requires that Americans focus on renewing the sources of their nation's power and mitigating its weaknesses. It is time to play the long game. Elbridge Colby is the Robert M. Gates fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Paul Lettow was senior director for strategic planning on the U.S. National Security Council staff from 2007 to 2009. The views expressed here are theirs alone. Infographics by MGMT. design.
Zaz_pi Posted July 4, 2014 Posted July 4, 2014 he apparent resurgence of Soviet power around the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan Salim se malo, tekst ima dobre strane ali i lose. Lepo je sto shvataju da ekonomski nece moci dominirati, u stvari, nece biti vodeca ekonomija sveta, sto ce odraziti i na vojnu moc, kao nekada ali sa druge strane imaju lazu nadu u neke stvari koje se nece desiti-Energy boom. U stvari, SAD danas trose vise na uvoznu naftu nego 2005, kada je bio vrhunac kolicinksog uvoza u barelima. Tacno je da uvoz smanjen za nekih milijardu barela na godisnjem nivou ali je cena skocila sa $50 na $100 dolara, te sada Amerika trosi skoro $100 milijardi dolara vise na uvoz nego 2005. A, da niej tako visoka cena nikada ne bi tako skocila domaca proizvodnja. Drugo, EIA(americka drzavna agencija za energetiku) kaze da ce pik ovog talasa rasta lake nafte(sto je posebna prica) biti negde oko 2020, a rast sa dananjseg nivoa ce biti za nekih 1.5 m/d, u narednih 6 godina, sto je duplo slabije nego u prethodnih 6 godina. Odatle sledi pad. Simultaneously, the United States is slashing its defense spending while allocating its remaining funds less strategically. Not only has the Defense Department estimated that it has already cut almost $600 billion from its budget plans for the next decade, but if current trends continue, by 2021 nearly half of the Pentagon's budget will go to personnel-related costs, rather than procurement, training, research and development, or operations. The U.S. National Intelligence Council recently projected the future distribution of global power using two distinct methodologies that incorporated a range of "hard" and "soft" factors. By both estimates, the U.S. share of global power will fall dramatically, from around 25 percent in 2010 to around 15 percent in 2050. The National Intelligence Council predicted that over the same period, the relative power of the European Union and Japan will fall significantly as well. Lepo receno. Kompetitivnost, preduzetnistvo itd. dolaze dobrim delom iz jeftinog novca koji dolazi sa $ kao svetskom valutom. Kako Kina bude ekonomski preuzimala primat, $ ce padati, i sve to preduzetnistvo ce se naci u malim problemima. E, sada, Amerikanci dok jos imaju moc trebaju da naprave kompromise sa onima koji dolaze i da ih saslusaju i uvaze njihove stavove. SAD i dalje mogu biti dominatna sila na Severnom Atlantiku(dobar deo EU) i Amerikama. Ako udju u sukob umesto u kompromis, nece imati to sto mogu. To znaci, reforma MMF, SB za pocetak. :)
Filipenko Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 France lashes out against US dollar, calls for ‘rebalancing’ of world currencies The French government wants to break the monopoly the dollar has on international transactions after the country’s largest bank, BNP Paribas, was slapped with a record $9 billion fine and a 1-year dollar trading ban. Michel Sapin, the French finance minister, called for a “rebalancing” of the currencies used for global payments, saying the BNP Paribas case should “make us realize the necessity of using a variety of currencies” the Financial Times reports. “We [Europeans] are selling to ourselves in dollars, for instance when we sell planes. Is that necessary? I don’t think so. I think a rebalancing is possible and necessary, not just regarding the euro, but also for the big currencies of the emerging countries, which account for more and more of global trade,” the finance minister told the FT at a conference over the weekend. Fala kurcu da se još neko dosetio osim istočne sirotinje.
расејан Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 Fala kurcu da se još neko dosetio osim istočne sirotinje. Ма мисле о овом још одавно, него је више питање шта они то знају што јуче нису знали. Тј зашто су досад ћутали са овим, и што су сад ланули. Не верујем да је ово избачено на површину без темељне процене ризика, релативних јачина итд... тј мора да знају наредних пет потеза унапред. Биће занимљиво...
Eraserhead Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) Pa ko evropljane sprecava da trguju u nekoj drugoj valuti? EDIT: Evo zanimljivog teksta o BNP CAMBRIDGE – To Europeans with whom I speak, the $8.9 billion fine imposed on the French financial-services company BNP Paribas for violating American sanctions against Cuba, Iran, and Sudan seems excessive. Yes, BNP did something seriously wrong. But $8.9 billion? Isn’t that extremely disproportionate for an otherwise highly responsible bank? French President François Hollande asked US President Barack Obama to intervene to have the fine reduced, as did the European Union’s commissioner for the internal market and services, Michel Barnier. The fine is indeed much higher than those levied before. Hefty fines for currency-trading violations are not new (HSBC, for example, was hit with a $1.9 billion fine in 2012); but a fine close to $10 billion is. Three factors, not all of which are being discussed, seem to explain the size of the penalty. First, BNP’s infraction was part of a pattern of deliberate and repeated behavior. Second, the settlement came at a time when the American authorities faced heavy criticism for being soft on big banks during and after the 2008 financial crisis. Finally, and more speculatively, the United States’ effort to make finance a more efficacious foreign-policy tool could have affected its treatment of BNP. On the first issue, European businesspeople and media organizations need to appreciate fully how US prosecutors of financial crimes think. Once an investigation shows clearly that wrongdoing has occurred, the authorities expect the target to come clean, cooperate, and restructure the firm to ensure that the infractions do not recur. But BNP continued the banned transactions and knowingly sought to cover its tracks. The transfer documentation reportedly was regularly stripped of key details such as the destination of wire transfers, so that the transaction would be harder to investigate and less likely to provide evidence of malfeasance. In American corporate criminal actions, the targeted US firm often brings in a prominent figure – a former prosecutor or a former judge – to investigate the behavior and people involved and report to the target’s board of directors. The latest example of this practice now in the news is that of General Motors, which hired Anton Valukas, a prominent former prosecutor who examined and reported on the dealings of the failed investment bank Lehman Brothers to the bankruptcy court. Valukas’s task for GM was to investigate and report on the company’s faulty ignition switches, which have been linked to 13 deaths. The targeted firm then typically fires the most egregious wrongdoers and puts management-control systems in place to reduce the chance that similar problems will arise in the future. Perhaps the investigation interprets ambiguity in a way most favorable to the organization and its senior management, but it is understood that the investigation will indeed uncover the core facts and lead to effective reforms. Some might view this way of proceeding as moralism, though some of it results from under-staffed, under-funded prosecutors economizing on resources. The target pays for its own investigation. BNP did not seem to do any of this with gusto; its investigation did not match the effort made, for example, by GM. It did not prevent subsequent violations by implementing effective controls to detect problems. The second factor is that BNP’s case came to a head at a time when US prosecutors were being accused of treating banks as “too big to jail,” for fear that pressing charges against them would weaken them too much and thus undermine the real economy. BNP just happened to be one of the next banks in line for prosecution and thus found itself in the crosshairs. BNP did lobby European authorities to make a too-big-to-jail plea to the US authorities. The European authorities made the plea, claiming that the large fine would cripple BNP; it did not work. Finally, bear in mind that the case coincided with the crises in Ukraine and elsewhere, with the major US enforcement action being financial and economic sanctions on Russia, the largest of which are still being threatened. Recall BNP’s transgressions: the US barred financial transactions with Sudan, Iran, and Cuba through banks that touched US soil (or the US dollar) in their dealings. Most banks complied. BNP did not, engineering secret transactions involving all three countries. At a time when the US is reluctant or unable to project military might to back up its foreign-policy goals, it is seeking to use financial might as a surrogate. The effort might induce a financial backlash in the future, but BNP’s problems emerged when effective sanctions were at the forefront of policymakers’ minds – and, one suspects, not absent from prosecutors’ minds. If the US is to make its financial weaponry an effective foreign-policy tool, big banks cannot blithely proceed to do what US authorities have prohibited. It would take only a few noncompliant banks to render financial sanctions ineffective. And it is difficult to detect which banks are not complying and to what extent. So when one miscreant is discovered, the enforcement authorities hit it hard, to signal to others that, while they might not get caught, the financial penalties will far exceed the limited benefits of disobeying the government’s foreign-policy edicts. This general move for criminal enforcement – greater penalties to account for the difficulties of detection – is a standard prosecutorial move in the US and around the world. Thus, European critics of the fine imposed on BNP Paribas are right to emphasize its disproportionate nature. What they overlook is that this was precisely the point. Edited July 7, 2014 by Eraserhead
Prospero Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 ovo je jedino bitno: At a time when the US is reluctant or unable to project military might to back up its foreign-policy goals, it is seeking to use financial might as a surrogate. The effort might induce a financial backlash in the future, but BNP’s problems emerged when effective sanctions were at the forefront of policymakers’ minds – and, one suspects, not absent from prosecutors’ minds. If the US is to make its financial weaponry an effective foreign-policy tool, big banks cannot blithely proceed to do what US authorities have prohibited. It would take only a few noncompliant banks to render financial sanctions ineffective. And it is difficult to detect which banks are not complying and to what extent.
Anduril Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 Jos bitniji detalj opisuje Ekonomist pri kraju ovog clanka: BNP Paribas in the dock No way to treat a criminal The French bank deserved a clobbering, but America’s legal system looks like an extortion racket Jul 5th 2014 | From the print edition Timekeeper WHAT is the appropriate penalty for a firm that abets genocide? Roughly a year’s profit and the sacking of a dozen employees, the American authorities concluded this week. At any rate, that is the punishment meted out to BNP Paribas, a French bank that pleaded guilty to helping the Sudanese government sell oil, clearing proceeds through New York in violation of American sanctions. At the time government-backed militias in the region of Darfur were massacring civilians by the tens of thousands. In spite of French politicians’ predictable squeals, it is hard to feel any sympathy for BNP. The bank played a pivotal role in fostering a monstrous regime. Most of the money it helped channel to Sudan went to the army, which in turn used the cash to finance rape and pillage. In the immediate aftermath of the crisis in Darfur, in 2006, BNP’s Swiss branch held around half of Sudan’s foreign-currency assets. Sudan’s president later became the first sitting national leader to be charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court. In this section BNP argues that it broke no European laws while serving as the groom to the horsemen of Darfur’s apocalypse. That is true enough, to Europe’s shame: it should have done more to discourage the horrors in Sudan. It is also true that the underlying transactions had nothing to do with America, but because they were denominated in dollars they had to be cleared in New York, which provided America’s lawmen with a toehold. BNP’s bosses were given ample warning—by internal auditors, external lawyers and the American authorities—that its actions were illegal in America. Its managers first concealed its law-breaking and then, when they belatedly decided to stop dealing with Sudan in 2007, failed to ensure that their underlings complied with sanctions on other countries. But the guilt of a suspect and the justice of a cause do not make a tribunal fair. And America’s system for pursuing errant banks, especially foreign ones, is anything but fair. This case, like most, did not go to court. BNP negotiated a settlement with regulators and prosecutors rather than risk a trial. No doubt the ugliness of its crimes played a role. But even if it had had a better case, BNP would have had little choice but to settle. Defeat in court might have led to the loss of its American banking licence—a death sentence for a big international bank. America’s prosecutors can also wield the threat of criminal charges against individual bankers. Bank against the wall Not only were BNP’s tormentors, such as Benjamin Lawsky, New York’s politically ambitious banking regulator, able more or less to dictate their terms, they also had an incentive to make the fine as big as possible because the agencies involved divvied up much of it among themselves. Mr Lawsky’s outfit gets $2 billion, four times its annual budget, which it will triumphantly deposit in New York state’s depleted coffers. There are no meaningful checks on this process, let alone a plausible procedure for BNP to appeal. Bank bosses cannot even publicly criticise deals they agree to under extreme duress. No precedent is set and no guidance provided as to the limits of the law and the proportionality of the punishment. So even if BNP fully deserves its punishment, the legal system that meted it out is closer to an extortion racket than justice. France’s economy minister, Arnaud Montebourg, has compared America’s pursuit of BNP to “economic warfare”. In other words, a bank that catered to mass murderers has had some success in portraying itself as a victim. Any process that can make BNP’s dealings with Sudan look anything less than shameful must be very flawed indeed.
расејан Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Овде је посебно занимљиво како се америчка јурисдикција простире.
Roger Sanchez Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Bite this, church. A program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate over five years, according to state officials. The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.""This initiative has saved Colorado millions of dollars""The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates.Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate during the same time period. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013."This initiative has saved Colorado millions of dollars," Governor John Hickenlooper said in a statement. "But more importantly, it has helped thousands of young Colorado women continue their education, pursue their professional goals and postpone pregnancy until they are ready to start a family."
Zaz_pi Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Zvanicno spajanje americke obavestajne zajednice i najjacih privatnih kompranija sa Vol Strita: Banks Dreading Computer Hacks Call for Cyber War Council Wall Street’s biggest trade group has proposed a government-industry cyber war council to stave off terrorist attacks that could trigger financial panic by temporarily wiping out account balances, according to an internal document. The proposal by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, known as Sifma, calls for a committee of executives and deputy-level representatives from at least eight U.S. agencies including the Treasury Department, the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, all led by a senior White House official. The trade association also reveals in the document that Sifma has retained former NSA director Keith Alexander to “facilitate” the joint effort with the government. Alexander, in turn, has brought in Michael Chertoff, the former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, and his firm, Chertoff Group. ... Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat, said today he was concerned that industry members in such a joint group could improperly get involved in pre-emptive strikes against a person or state planning an assault on the U.S. Or they could get involved in strikes against U.S. citizens they find undesirable or problematic. “This could in effect make the banks part of what would begin to look like a war council,” Grayson said in an e-mail. “Congress needs to keep an eye on what something like this could mean.”
Filipenko Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Ali ima logike, treba neko da se okoristi onolikim prikupljenim informacijama...
Prospero Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Ouch! Ili veliki zajeb ili se neko igra otuđenog centra moći: Spying Case Left Obama in Dark, U.S. Officials Say By MARK MAZZETTI and MARK LANDLERJULY 8, 2014 WASHINGTON — When President Obama placed a call to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany last Thursday, he had a busy agenda: to consult with a close ally and to mobilize wavering Europeans to put more pressure on Russia to end its covert incursions in Ukraine.What Mr. Obama did not know was that a day earlier, a young German intelligence operative had been arrested and had admitted that he had been passing secrets to the Central Intelligence Agency.While Ms. Merkel chose not to raise the issue during the call, the fact that the president was kept in the dark about the blown spying operation at a particularly delicate moment in American relations with Germany has led frustrated White House officials to question who in the C.I.A.’s chain of command was aware of the case — and why that information did not make it to the Oval Office before the call.....
Filipenko Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Ma kakvi, opšte je poznato da je SŠA demokratska zemlja, dakle neće se otrgnuti cije i bije, poštuju oni civilnu kontrolu itd.
расејан Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Ma kakvi, opšte je poznato da je SŠA demokratska zemlja, dakle neće se otrgnuti cije i bije, poštuju oni civilnu kontrolu itd. Па и то је знак поштовања, неће да га узрујавају незгодном вешћу у таквом тренутку, који је оно, "није сад тренутак". Него нека одлежи то мало, док смисле како да му то саопште постепено, као Лала што је кратио мачки реп, сваки дан по сантиметар да мање боли.
Recommended Posts