Showing posts with label In the news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label In the news. Show all posts

Sunday, 13 November 2016

The USA and the world, now and tomorrow...


To watch the TED talk by Ian Bremmer "How the US should use its superpower status...", click HERE!

Ian Bremmer, global research professor at New York University, teaches classes in the field of political risk. "G-Zero" (i.e. no G20 or G7) is a term used by Bremmer, and widely accepted by policymakers, for a global power vacuum in which no country is willing and able to set the international agenda...


Summary of the TED talk by Ian Bremmer:

Is the USA, “large and in charge”, still in fact the world’s “n°1”? We are increasingly in a “driverless world” (i.e. the USA no longer “drives” the world). Americanization and globalization were, up to now, the same thing (WTO, IMF, World Bank, Bretton Woods Accord, etc., were “American” institutions).

US view: President Obama (USA) in charge of the world. The reality: US now has little impact on G20; Putin, Xi Jinping, Angela Merkel, etc. are now “calling the shots”. The problem is it's a G-Zero world that we now live in, i.e. a world order where there is no single country or alliance that can meet the challenges of global leadership.

Globalization is continuing. Goods and services and people and capital are moving across borders faster and faster than ever before, but Americanisation is not.

What are the implications of the end of Americanisation for the whole world, and what do we think about it in the United States?

Why are we in this situation? It’s because:

> the USA spent two trillion dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that failed and we don't want to get involved in (expensive) wars anymore;

> large numbers of middle and working class Americans feel they've not benefited from globalization, so they are rejecting it;

> we don't need OPEC or the Middle East because we now produce most of our oil in the United States.

Americans don't want to be the global sheriff for security or the architect of global trade any more. They don't even want to be the cheerleader of global values.

Europe:  transatlantic relationship is now weaker than it has ever been (crises: Brexit, French vs Russians, Germans vs Turks, Brits vs Chinese, etc.).

China: wants leadership only in economic sphere, hence competition with US.
Russia: wants more leadership (cf. Ukraine, Baltic States, Middle East), hence competition with USA.

Middle East: now very unstable because US and allies no longer provide military security, oil revenue has gone down, and populations are rebelling against corrupt despots (hence failed states, terrorism, refugees, etc.). Will entire Middle East fall apart? No, Kurds, Iraq, Israel, Iran will do well.

Russia: antagonized by US and Europe expanding NATO right up to its borders; also threat from China which is going to dominate (economically) every country around Russia.

Asia: political stability in most important economies (Modi in India, Abe in Japan, Xi Jinping in China). Problems: South China Sea, Kim Jong Un. But most leaders want to avoid xenophobia and escalation of geopolitical and cross-border tensions because they want long-term economic stability and growth.

Europe: suffering from refugee crisis (> Brexit, populism across all of European states). In G-Zero world, Europe will get smaller (because Eastern Europe and Turkey are too different from “core Europe” and NATO will be weaker without US dominance). Germany and France and others will still function, but peripheral countries (Greece, Turkey, others) will not.

Latin America: populism and opposition to USA > economic downturn. Hope for Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil? Not for Mexico (cf. Trump)…

Africa: in G-Zero world  > extreme segregation between winners and losers across Africa: the few countries that are well-governed, urbanized, with entrepreneurship and women in workforce vs other countries (with extreme climate, radicalism, poor governance, border wars, forced migration, etc.).

United States: elections have highlighted loathing of Washington (the “establishment”), the media and globalization. Americans now have to compete with the rest of the world (it can easily). Protectionism and isolationism are not good options. NAFTA is a good thing for USA. Terrorism and refugees are not as big a problem for USA as for Europe or Middle East.

USA no longer wants to be global cop, architect of global trade, cheerleader of global values. But, in G-Zero world, USA should lead by example. Clinton wants to go back to the '90s (i.e. US dominating the world), Trump back to the '30s (i.e. US rejecting the world). But, in G-Zero world, though the US will not be in economic decline, America will no longer be able or willing to control the world.

Are we prepared to be a model country, one which the world will emulate? We need to change first! Another crisis (global financial crisis or economic depression or terrorist attack) could force us to change... We, individually, need to force our leaders to deal with the inequality in our country; this is urgent.

(Click HERE to watch a September 2018 interview of Prof. Bremmer!)

Thursday, 1 September 2016

How to boost employment, productivity and growth, and make globalization enter a new era...

Click HERE!

Summary of the TED talk by Olivier Scalabre:

Our global economy has stopped growing. This creates tensions (more people, less to go around).

Manufacturing revolutions (mid-19th century steam engine, beginning 20th century mass-production model, 1970s first automation wave) lead to big growth thanks to improved productivity (i.e. the efficiency of a person, machine, factory, system, etc., in converting inputs into useful outputs).

Offshoring factories has not worked because cheap labor didn't stay cheap for long.

We've made our factories larger, making a lot of one product, stockpiling it to be sold on demand. This helped productivity for a while, but it introduced a lot of rigidities in our supply chain. 

Innovation in the tech sector hasn't done much for productivity either.

A fourth manufacturing revolution is underway: major technologies are entering the manufacturing space; it will boost industrial productivity by more than a third and create growth. It will change globalization.

By 2025, advanced manufacturing robots, programmed to perform complex, non-repetitive tasks, will result, compared to today, in an increase in productivity, output and growth of 20%.  Plastic and metal manufacturing (25% of global manufacturing production) is being improved by 3D printing (e.g. aerospace companies are now using 3D printing, resulting in 40% more productivity, output and growth).

Imagine a world where you can buy the exact products you want with the functionalities you need, with the design you want, with the same cost and lead time as a product that's been mass produced, like your car, or your clothes or your cell phone. The new manufacturing revolution makes it possible.

Not only will manufacturing become more productive, it will also become more flexible. Our factories will be smaller, operating on a multi-product, made-to-order basis. It will create a macroeconomic shift: our factories will be relocated into our home markets. In the world of scale customization, consumer proximity is the new norm.

Globalization will enter a new era. The East-to-West trade flows will be replaced by regional trade flows: East for East, West for West. The old model was insane: piling up stocks, making products travel the whole world to reach consumers.

The new model, producing just next to the consumer market, will be much better for our environment.

In mature economies, manufacturing will be back home, creating more employment, more productivity and more growth.

We'll have to massively re-train our workforce. We need to teach manufacturing again at university. Only the countries that will boldly transform will be able to seize this growth.

China and other emerging economies won't be the factory of the world anymore. It was not a sustainable model; it is already as expensive to produce in Brazil as to produce in France. By 2018, manufacturing costs in China will be on par with the US. The new manufacturing revolution will accelerate the transition of those emerging economies towards a model driven by domestic consumption, creating growth there.

The fourth manufacturing revolution means more wealth distributed to all of us and a better future for our children.

For further reading, click on the "comments" below!

Friday, 17 April 2015

Brexit... Will the UK choose "the open sea"?

Article from theguardian: click HERE!
What would happen if UK left the EU?
Do we need a new vision of Europe?



If a referendum were held on the UK’s membership of the EU with the options being to remain a member or withdraw, how do you think you would vote?
Would definitely vote to leave the EU = 28%
Would probably vote to leave the EU = 18%
Would probably vote to remain in the EU = 20%
Would definitely vote to remain in the EU = 18%
Don’t know = 17%

To what extent do you consider yourself to be European?
It is a large part of who I am = 13%
It is a small part of who I am = 26%
It doesn’t really describe who I am = 27%
It does not describe who I am at all = 34%

Do you speak any European languages fluently (other than the one/s you class as your mother-tongue)?
Yes 19%
No 81%

76% of Britons believe there should be a referendum on whether the UK remains a member of the EU (47% “definitely”, 29% “probably”). There are predictable splits along party lines; 84% of Ukip supporters say there should “definitely” be a referendum while 11% believe there should “probably” be one. The motivations of the remaining 5% are unclear. Age also has an influence on outlook; only 11% of 18-24s believe there should “definitely” be a referendum, compared with 55% of those aged 55+.

As things stand, Britain would vote to leave the EU if a referendum were held; 46% would either “definitely” (28%) or “probably” (18%) vote to leave, while 38% would “definitely” (20%) or “probably” (18%) vote to remain. Again, there is a clear division on the basis of age; 68% of 18-24s would vote to stay in the EU, while only 9% would vote to leave. Among those aged 55+ the pattern is reversed and 57% would vote to leave while 35% would vote to stay. Londoners are the least likely to vote to leave the EU (36%), while those in the north-east would be the most likely to vote to leave (60%).

Given this hostility to the EU, it is unsurprising that only a minority of Britons think of themselves as European; 13% say it is “a large part of who I am”, while a further 26% say it is “a small part of who I am”. The term “European” is not important to the self-identity of 61% of Britons.

The lack of association with all things European is reflected by the large proportion of Britons (81%) who do not speak another European language fluently. The 19% who do speak another European language are significantly more likely than the average to say that being European is a “large part” of their identity (39% versus 13%) and much more likely to vote to remain part of the EU in any future referendum (49% versus 38%).

Friday, 7 November 2014

November 9th, 1989: the fall of the Berlin Wall

Building the "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart" in August 1961

On the 9th of November 1989, the Berlin Wall, that terrible symbol of the Cold War, finally fell after having divided the city for 28 years. Family members and friends who hadn’t seen each other in decades were finally reunited.

It was a momentous and joyous event, marking the beginning of the end of a divided Germany and of a divided Europe. The Soviet Union collapsed two years later...

After Germany’s unconditional surrender at the end of the Second World War, control of the country was divided between the Allies: Britain, America and France took over the west of Germany and the Soviet Union controlled the east of Germany. By 1949 Germany had become two separate countries. 

Berlin was also divided between the former Allies (into four Sectors, cf. the map below) and it quickly became the focal point of the Cold War.

Hostilities between the ideologically-opposed superpowers, the USA and the USSR, grew.


Map of 1961 showing the wall around West Berlin

Life in the Soviet-controlled East was bleak. Many became disillusioned with communism and the increasingly oppressive social and economic conditions. Large numbers of people began defecting to the West.

The Berlin "Wall of shame", 1960s

In 1961, the East German authorities erected the Wall ("die Mauer") around West Berlin, soon fortified with huge slabs of concrete and 300 control points, mostly to prevent the young, well-educated citizens of East Germany from fleeing to the “Free world” (via West Berlin’s airport).

By the end of the 1980s, demands for freedom were growing across the ‘Eastern Bloc’. There was a series of largely peaceful revolutions in Eastern Europe. Within months of the Wall’s checkpoints being opened, German reunification was complete.

The end of Communism in Europe cannot of course be explained by or reduced to just one event; the fall of the Wall remains however very important in many people’s lives because it symbolised the liberation of millions and an end to the constant threat of world-wide nuclear war.

The fall of the Wall showed too that change can happen quickly and involve the people directly (i.e. through "people power"); it has inspired people across the world, like the pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong recently.

It is important, however, to keep the significance of that event in perspective... China and Russia, among other countries, still run authoritarian regimes, so to think that more freedom and more democracy can be won through a peaceful and joyous resolution like in Berlin 25 years ago seems somewhat naïve…


"Die Mauer", November 1989


Question: 

The fall of the Berlin Wall is often seen as proof of the "power of the powerless" (i.e. of the people) to bring about important social and political change... Do you think it is up to the people themselves to determine what is best for them (think of the separatist mouvements in Scotland, Catalonia, or Ukraine, and the pro-democracy mouvement in Hong-Kong)?

Tuesday, 20 November 2012

Here's a current affairs blog YOU can contribute to!

DAZE!

It's on this blog that you will find useful links for
the monthly THBT ("This House Believes That") debates
and the minutes of those debates (for example on gay marriage).
Check it out!

Saturday, 28 July 2012

Chinese maker of U.S. Olympic uniforms baffled by backlash

Read the Los Angeles Times article!

Bénédicte ROCHE writes:

What are the consequences of outsourcing?

It’s a well-known fact it makes people lose their jobs in the countries the enterprises have left behind. Offshoring only benefits the shareholders... It should also be advantageous for the customers, giving them cheaper goods, but it is not; the cost of goods and services does not go down.

Offshoring of course gives Asian countries the chance to develop and improve people’s lives, which can’t be considered as a bad thing; everybody has the right to work, surely? Nonetheless, for a company to aim at bigger profits when it does not need the extra money is unhealthy for the economy at large…

Also, outsourcing shouldn’t be used as a means to make profits when labor is underpaid in poor countries and working conditions squalid.

I think in this particular case, it undermines the USA’s credibility; are they not able to make their own uniforms? Where is their national pride?!