Wednesday, November 05, 2008
In the 90's & the 2,000's I have been single out to both presidents' that United State would need to built the economy power based on the Knowledge Base economy or rather the e-Economy.
I am a strong believer of Landbased prosperity is gone in the developed country & later the developing countries as well. The recent melt down on economy which have caused the economic Tsunami of our life time is just the prove on these.
In the next few issues, I would give you more on my thought on the way United State of America need to stay as the leader & continue exercising the power & influence of the economy & politics in this world.
Please read the following for now:-
What Obama Needs To Do
Created 11/05/2008 - 10:18am
The election victory of Barack Obama offers a breathtaking hope for economic recovery, indeed a hope of historic proportion for America and the world. Change we can—if we escape from narrow thinking and tinkering around the edges of public policy. More gimmicks such as one-off rebate checks or zero interest rates at the Fed, as some now propose, will not suffice. The government needs a clear medium-term strategy, to reinvigorate private investment spending, and it will need increased budget revenues in the years ahead for urgent public investments and long-term restructuring. Short-term recovery will be promoted by clarity on the long-term direction of economic change.
In short, the U.S. economic crisis requires a new kind of macroeconomics, and it is the most urgent task before President-elect Barack Obama. The Humpty Dumpty of the housing and consumer bubbles cannot be put back together, no matter how many Wall Street bailouts, liquidity injections, or tax rebates are put in place. The end of the consumption boom marks the collapse of an era that began with Ronald Reagan. Some pundits and politicians would like to return to the policies of the Clinton years, but those policies were compromises with Reaganism that will no longer suffice. Twenty-first-century problems cannot be solved by trying to resurrect the policies of the 20th century.
The U.S. economy is spiraling downward into recession and gargantuan budget deficits. The Fed pumped up the economy for years and encouraged the reckless overlending and overborrowing for housing and consumer credit, all in the name of keeping the economy growing. (Remember, after all, how George Bush encouraged us to shop as the patriotic response to 9/11). A country that sustains zero or negative household saving rates for years and borrows heavily from abroad is bound to pay a heavy price and that time has come for the United States. But even worse, while the housing and consumption bubbles were ballooning and the Iraq war was bleeding lives and money, a range of other crucial challenges—environment, energy, infrastructure, inequality, global poverty—were all neglected. Now, the macroeconomic and structural crises are coming to a head simultaneously.
Here is a quick tour of our macroeconomic miseries, with roots that go back 40 years. The 1970s marked the end of two eras, the gold-backed monetary system (which ended between 1971 and 1973) and the era of cheap oil, which ended in 1973. The dual crisis, poorly understood at its inception, ushered in several painful years of stagflation, in which scarce energy was coupled with monetary policy mismanagement, to produce both high inflation and economic contraction. Jimmy Carter was dead right about the long-term energy challenge, but he was mocked for his efforts, which were abandoned after he left office.
Ronald Reagan misdiagnosed the stagflation, and put the United States on a disastrous long-term course. Reagan and his colleagues argued erroneously that the problems lay in government regulation, excessive taxation, and welfare handouts rather than on the need for a redesign of monetary policy (which Paul Volcker painfully accomplished) and a sound long-term energy policy. They proceeded to dismantle much of the social safety net, building an underclass in America that is shocking by the standards of any other advanced economy in the world, for example, leaving America ranked 24th in the world in life expectancy and 25th in infant mortality. The great myth in America is that capitalism demands such brutal neglect of the poor, a point that is disproved daily by the high incomes, low poverty, and social cohesion of other advanced economies. The Reagan tax cuts led to a generation in which we've been unable to invest in basic infrastructure. And the Reagan era began the massive financial deregulation that brought us to today's calamities.
The Clinton era reversed some of the excesses of the Reagan era but was basically a compromise with it. During the 1990s, tax revenues as a share of GNP were kept low, and Washington continued to dismember the social safety net (by "ending welfare as we know it" and abandoning any major efforts in housing, child care, or public education) and to accelerate financial market deregulation. Foreign assistance in the 1990s fell to rock bottom, a miserly 0.1 percent of GNP, allowing the AIDS pandemic and African hunger crisis to build. Then as now, Americans failed to understand that unattended hunger, disease, and deprivation are the breeding grounds of extremism and conflict that threaten our national security and lead to vastly larger costs.
Big money further infected the political system as well. Both Democrats and Republicans made peace with vast wealth by linking up with the high-flying innovators on Wall Street, the ones who have now crashed to earth. Yet the supplication to the bond market was taken to mean the end of ambitions to solve great challenges of energy, climate, poverty, or infrastructure. Universal health care remained essentially the only area of remaining progressive commitment, and that, of course, went unfulfilled.
Marx famously said that history comes first as tragedy and then as farce. Yet under Bush we've had both tragedy and farce. The Bush administration made shopping and tax cuts the official macroeconomic policy of the United States. Households were to borrow against their housing wealth to keep the consumption machine going. Financial deregulation, building on the precedents of the 1980s and 1990s (and the savings-and-loan and dot-com bubbles they helped to stoke), would keep the housing market in fine fettle.
We have, as a result of all of these changes, a U.S. economy that has been brought to its knees despite the incredible underlying strength of American innovation, the ultimate engine of prosperity. Here's the list of particulars. Consumer spending is in free fall, toppling housing, autos, and other consumer industries. Unemployment will rise by several percentage points. The budget deficit is ballooning, at around $460 billion this past year, and set to expand by several hundred billion dollars in fiscal year 2009. Some are forecasting a cool trillion dollars in the fiscal 2009 deficit.
America's dependence on foreign borrowing has also reached staggering and unsustainable proportions of more than $700 billion per year. Foreign central banks, mainly in Asia, have accumulated trillions of dollars of claims on the United States. And, of course, the banks remain deeply decapitalized and unable or unwilling to lend. Unconscionable Wall Street bonuses, exceeding $30 billion per year in 2006 and 2007 played their role, both by creating a climate of reckless short-termism and, more directly, by depleting the companies' net worths.
The energy sector is in a shambles. There is no national strategy to address the three-sided challenge of energy security, energy availability, and climate change. We've been reduced to a nearly insane call to drill, baby, drill. Hapless and woefully misinformed Americans are led to believe that there is a quick and lasting remedy in an environmentally dubious "solution" that would take years to produce the first drop of oil and that might produce a total of 25 billion barrels of oil, less than one year's global consumption.
Serious longer-term alternatives—such as carbon capture and sequestration, properly regulated nuclear power, and large-scale wind and solar power—are caught up in incredible confusion and lack of political leadership. Dishonesty and shortsightedness abound. Under Bush, the federal government has been spending less per year on energy research and development than in two days on the Pentagon. And industry is rightly paralyzed in building new power plants, not seeing any clear direction on national policies.
Indeed, just about the only thing the Bush administration found money for was military invasions and occupations, surely the one investment that is yielding us a nearly solid negative-100 percent return. The money has gone right down the drain, into Blackwater and Halliburton bank accounts, or the destruction of villages in the mountains of Afghanistan, where cruise missiles and bombs continue to blow up whole families, often dozens of members at a time.
The Obama economic strategy unveiled during the campaign has the right pieces, but he will need to be bold to make real change. He is right that we should spend vastly more on the research, development, demonstration, and deployment of clean, sustainable energy. His R&D proposal of $15 billion a year is a great advance over today, but it's quite likely that even twice that amount will be needed. We should remember that even $30 billion is merely 0.2 percent of our annual GNP, and we should put all fiscal choices in the context of a $14 trillion economy, a $700 billion military budget, and about $1 trillion, if not more, in bank bailouts and guarantees.
Obama is absolutely correct that America will be much safer if we invest more in foreign development than in foreign wars. He has proposed to boost development aid to $50 billion by 2012, an important move in the right direction but one that would still leave the assistance budget at a mere 0.3 percent of GNP, still far too low to address the multiple crises of water, hunger, disease, population, and climate in Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia that fuel much of the global unrest today—and far below the internationally agreed—upon target of 0.7 percent (of which the United States has been a signatory since 2002).
America will sooner or later have to overcome its extreme allergy to taxation at a time when the government is hemorrhaging in deficits and when urgent public needs go unfulfilled. Obama's economic advisers have emphasized that their proposed tax package would leave federal fiscal revenues at around 18 percent of GNP, noting that this would be around the average of the Reagan years. Reaganism would live on, as it did through the Clinton years, by keeping the United States on a small-government path guaranteed to leave unsolved the problems of energy, infrastructure, poverty at home and abroad, and an aging population. Some off-budget revenues such as new income from auctioning carbon permits could raise some more funds, but the basic point should be clear: Our problems will need a robust fiscal program, with a gradual rise in tax revenues as a share of GNP during the next decade, or they won't be solved at all. We should avoid raising taxes on the middle class during a steep downturn, but we should also not lock in chronically deficient tax revenues for years to come.
Our macroeconomic problems require major public investments in new technologies, infrastructure, public education, and poverty reduction. At some point soon, Americans will have to start paying for these investments themselves, rather than borrowing heavily from abroad. We are experiencing the structural shift from an economy relying on easy money and seemingly endless international borrowing to an economy that is gradually realizing that ultimately we will have to pay our way, especially if the United States wants to be a leading power. There are pressing domestic and global investment needs, and the money has to come from somewhere. The only place it can come from is an increased tax base, which requires abandoning the Reagan-Bush mythology.
In sum, the recipes since 1981 of small government and small-bore solutions are passé and dangerous for our very survival in the United States and on this planet. While Reagan was crudely ideological, Clinton mildly reformist, and Bush simply crude in the application of these small-government doctrines, none of the recent approaches will do. It's time to stop talking about who can give away more to the public in rebates and start talking about investing in our future in a way that can save the poor, sustain the rest, and build a decent world for our children. Those are the real family values.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
WAR And PEACE To WALL STREET
The ECONOMY AMERICAN Is DANGER, BUSH CONVENES An EXTRAORDINARY SUMMIT To the WHITE HOUSE....
Good evening. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration. We've seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending, credit markets have frozen, and families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money. We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action. We boosted confidence in money market mutual funds and acted to prevent major investors from intentionally driving down stocks for their own personal gain. Most importantly, my administration is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets. Financial assets related to home mortgages have lost value during the house decline, and the banks holding these assets have restricted credit. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I propose that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets and supply urgently needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending. This rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry. It is aimed at preserving America's overall economy. It will help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs. And it will help send a signal to markets around the world that America's financial system is back on track. I know many Americans have questions tonight: How did we reach this point in our economy? How will the solution I propose work? And what does this mean for your financial future? These are good questions, and they deserve clear answers. First, how did our economy reach this point? Well, most economists agree that the problems we're witnessing today developed over a long period of time. For more than a decade, a massive amount of money flowed into the United States from investors abroad because our country is an attractive and secure place to do business. This large influx of money to U.S. banks and financial institutions, along with low interest rates, made it easier for Americans to get credit. These developments allowed more families to borrow money for cars, and homes, and college tuition, some for the first time. They allowed more entrepreneurs to get loans to start new businesses and create jobs. Unfortunately, there were also some serious negative consequences, particularly in the housing market. Easy credit, combined with the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise, led to excesses and bad decisions. Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on. Optimism about housing values also led to a boom in home construction. Eventually, the number of new houses exceeded the number of people willing to buy them. And with supply exceeding demand, housing prices fell, and this created a problem. BUSH: Borrowers with adjustable-rate mortgages, who had been planning to sell or refinance their homes at a higher price, were stuck with homes worth less than expected, along with mortgage payments they could not afford. As a result, many mortgage-holders began to default. These widespread defaults had effects far beyond the housing market. See, in today's mortgage industry, home loans are often packaged together and converted into financial products called mortgage-backed securities. These securities were sold to investors around the world. Many investors assumed these securities were trustworthy and asked few questions about their actual value. Two of the leading purchasers of mortgage-backed securities were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk. The decline in the housing market set off a domino effect across our economy. When home values declined, borrowers defaulted on their mortgages, and investors holding mortgage-backed securities began to incur serious losses. Before long, these securities became so unreliable that they were not being bought or sold. Investment banks, such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, found themselves saddled with large amounts of assets they could not sell. They ran out of money needed to meet their immediate obligations, and they faced imminent collapse. Other banks found themselves in severe financial trouble. These banks began holding on to their money, and lending dried up, and the gears of the American financial system began grinding to a halt. With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice, to step in with dramatic government action or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all. I'm a strong believer in free enterprise, so my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There has been a widespread loss of confidence, and major sectors of America's financial system are at risk of shutting down. The government's top economic experts warn that, without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold. More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And, ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession. Fellow citizens, we must not let this happen. I appreciate the work of leaders from both parties in both houses of Congress to address this problem and to make improvements to the proposal my administration sent to them. There is a spirit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans and between Congress and this administration. In that spirit, I've invited Senators McCain and Obama to join congressional leaders of both parties at the White House tomorrow to help speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill. I know that an economic rescue package will present a tough vote for many members of Congress. It is difficult to pass a bill that commits so much of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. I also understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgages on time, file their tax returns every April 15th, and are reluctant to pay the cost of excesses on Wall Street. But given the situation we are facing, not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later. Many Americans are asking, how would a rescue plan work? After much discussion, there's now widespread agreement on the principles such a plan would include. It would remove the risk posed by the troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities, now clogging the financial system. This would free banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. Any rescue plan should also be designed to ensure that taxpayers are protected. It should welcome the participation of financial institutions, large and small. It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars. BUSH: It should establish a bipartisan board to oversee the plan's implementation, and it should be enacted as soon as possible. In close consultation with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and SEC Chairman Chris Cox, I announced a plan on Friday. First, the plan is big enough to solve a serious problem. Under our proposal, the federal government would put up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line to purchase troubled assets that are clogging the financial system. In the short term, this will free up banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses, and this will help our economy grow. Second, as markets have lost confidence in mortgage-backed securities, their prices have dropped sharply, yet the value of many of these assets will likely be higher than their current price, because the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay off their mortgages. The government is the one institution with the patience and resources to buy these assets at their current low prices and hold them until markets return to normal. And when that happens, money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold, and we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back. The final question is, what does this mean for your economic future? Well, the primary steps -- purpose of the steps I've outlined tonight is to safeguard the financial security of American workers, and families, and small businesses. The federal government also continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money. The Treasury Department recently offered government insurance for money market mutual funds. And through the FDIC, every savings account, checking account, and certificate of deposit is insured by the federal government for up to $100,000. The FDIC has been in existence for 75 years, and no one has ever lost a penny on an insured deposit, and this will not change. Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st-century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th-century laws. Recently, we've seen how one company can grow so large that its failure jeopardizes the entire financial system. Earlier this year, Secretary Paulson proposed a blueprint that would modernize our financial regulations. For example, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum and ensure that their practices do not threaten overall financial stability. There are other good ideas, and members of Congress should consider them. As they do, they must ensure that efforts to regulate Wall Street do not end up hampering our economy's ability to grow. In the long run, Americans have good reason to be confident in our economic strength. Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised. It has unleashed the talents and the productivity and entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. It has made this country the best place in the world to invest and do business. And it gives our economy the flexibility and resilience to absorb shocks, adjust, and bounce back. Our economy is facing a moment of great challenge, but we've overcome tough challenges before, and we will overcome this one. I know that Americans sometimes get discouraged by the tone in Washington and the seemingly endless partisan struggles, yet history has shown that, in times of real trial, elected officials rise to the occasion. And together we will show the world once again what kind of country America is: a nation that tackles problems head on, where leaders come together to meet great tests, and where people of every background can work hard, develop their talents, and realize their dreams. Thank you for listening. May God bless you.
Uploaded by massimiliano on 25 Sep 08, 9.26AM PDT.
Massimiliano is a great artist & member on www.flickr.com
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
TAO TEH CHING
The Classic Words of TAO & TEH
THE WAY OF THE HEART
Translated by John L. A. Trottier
Tao (la manière de l'univers)
a donné naissance à une, (le unifié)
Tao ( the Way of the Universe )
gave birth to One,
(The unified field)
On a donné naissance à deux,
(énergie et matière, E=MC2)
One gave birth to Two,
(Energy and Matter, E=MC2)
Deux ont donné naissance à trois,
(les forces de pesanteur, nucléaires et électromagnétiques)
trois ont donné naissance à toutes les choses.
Two gave birth to Three,
(Gravity, Nuclear and Electro-Magnetic Forces)
Three gave birth to all things.
Toutes les choses portent le Yin (physique
(matière)) sur leurs dos et tiennent
le Yang (spirituel (énergie)) sur leur coffre,
All the things carry the
Yin (physical(matter)) on their backs and
hold the Yang (spiritual(energy)) to their chest,
Obtenant leur équilibre essentiel
de se mélanger approprié
des deux souffles essentiels énergie
(d'examen médical (matière) et de Spiritual)
vital balance from the
proper blending of the
two vital Breaths.
(Physical(matter) and Spiritual(energy))
Ce qui davantage est détesté
par des personnes que pour être
"délaissé (nécessitant l'aide),
" peu (aucun désir d'être supérieur),
"et" sans valeur (aucun désir d'être riche)"?
Ce sont les noms mêmes que les chefs s'appellent.
What is more hated by people than to be
“helpless(in need of help),"
"little(no desire to be superior),” and
“worthless(no desire to be rich)”?
These are the
very names the
leaders call themselves.
Vous pouvez gagner en perdant
(se mettant à une place au gain),
You can gain by losing (putting ourselves in a
position to gain),
Et vous pouvez perdre en gagnant (recevant notre
désir de coeurs et se sentant perdu).
And you can lose by gaining ( receiving our
hearts desire and feeling lost ).
Ce qui d'autres m'ont enseigné répétez :
What others have taught I repeat:
"une personne qui vit pour la destruction
attirera la destruction à eux . "
(La construction attire la construction.
La destruction attire la destruction.
La faiblesse attire la destruction.
La vertu (coeur (puissance)) attire la construction)
“A person who lives for destruction will attract
destruction to themself.”
(Construction attracts construction.
Destruction attracts destruction.
Weakness attracts destruction.
Virtue (heart(power)) attracts construction)
Je ferai à ce chapitre
mon enseignement plus important.
I will make this chapter
my most important teaching.
Uploaded by ensyn39 on 28 Feb 08, 5.32PM PDT.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Friday, April 04, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
For this incident, I am calling our diplomat & EPA activists to serve notice to the President of China, for his attention & resolutions into this case.
I am also calling our President George W. Bush to have a word with President Hu JinDao on this issue immediately!!
DongShan Island - Soon These Only Found On flickr!!
I am very surprise on the respond on the issue of PX plant in Ku Riu which is 7KM away from DongShan.
Where is the men of Novell prize winners' for EPA??
Having doing lots of foot works & empty my pocket!! I am still a lone ranger in the Global Warming & EPA things.
I can only find a link on Times News. The news posted on the Chinese sites are all taken off!!
DongShan & Ku Riu is about 100km away from Taiwan, I wonder why the Taiwan & international EPA activists have not mounted any moment in supporting the Ku Riu & DongShan people who are suffering the suppression & oppression & those people that are wounded & jail by their government..etc.
As I have to go now.
I would continue the translation tomorrow.
You see even the locals who provide info to me are unable to contact.
I urge all the international EPA activists do something in support to the poor people there!!
The polluted sea & air would hit the whole world soon.
Remember, there is only one world!!
The Ku Riu island PX project is not a straight & simple after all. If the project is allow to goes on. the after maths effects would be far & deep!!
云霄 ：31公里，诏安：45公里，东山：23公里，龙海：66公里， 漳州：70公里
平和：65公里 南靖：73公里，华安：119公里 海沧：77公里 厦门：81公里。
The following is the datas of Dongshan Incidents:
Ku Riu locality ( Distance in KM):
Yen Xiao 云霄 ：31公里，
I believed FuZhou (the Provincial Gov) would like to see the stability of the society. However because of stability, now gov have censor all the public medias. If you call up the press, the reporters heard that is DongShan, then no one would stand up to visit & report about the incident!!
There were public using Digital Cameras to snap the scene; once found by the police or the security protocols, it would be confiscated immediately.
It seem that DongShan people have no avenue to bring up their request to. Some Dongshan using the news paper to clean up their tears & some even donate money for the demo convoys.
Wherever they marching to, there are people offering drinks; food to the convoys.
Within the demo convoys, there are all works of life old & young. Primary to High school students. There is a image showing that, one policeman was stopping the demo people, a old lady knee down to beg the police by saying:
Young man ; I am would not be living for long in my old age; what I am doing is for our Dongshan future generations!!
Another image shown that a young student about 7-8 years old pick up a damage PX news poster; patiently pasted on the wall!!
Because the PX project; Now the simple & honors DongShan people angry; upset ; hopeless as their home for over 2K years would be destroy by the PX pollutions. Their lifeline on fisheries; tourism would totally gone!! All the beauties of the Sunshine; Blue sky; Green mountains would be gone forever.
No one can guaranty that PX plant would not polluted the area; but the gov just said, managing PX plant is just like managing LPG tank at home!! Can you believe that??
Students stop going to school; business & commercial people stop operations. DongShan people & DongShan Island have not been so mess up & so united!!
Fujian province committee secretary general Mr Lu Chan Gong said during the Xiamen PX event that:
PX is a gigantic project; good for the Xiamen people , However, now the people against it, we respect peoples' decision therefore GOV would not do it in Xieman.
The above have proved that Xieman people are highly aware the danger of PX plant & the environment issues arises. That is a good thing. Why is that a good project which Xiamen peoples' don't want it & then the GOV is forcing Ku Riu & DongShan people to accept it??
The incidents is very critical conditions; what I am asking or requesting is the various level of GOV officials; medias; Green & Sustainability activists have to come to the front & help the DongShan People.
We don't want the high handed police & reserve units using guns & weapon to point at the DongShan people!!