Author: admin

  • Bush bankrupts USA

    China has indicated that it will continue to accumulate dollars, but at a slower rate by trading some of the dollars for other currencies.

    On December 18 Iran announced that it will cease to use the US dollar as reserve currency.

    On December 28 United Arab Emirates, a close US ally, announced that the weakening US dollar has caused its central bank to move some of its foreign exchange reserves from dollars to Euros.

    The decisions of foreign central banks to reduce the rate at which they acquire dollars implies higher US interest rates at a time when the US economy is slowing, making it difficult for the Federal Reserve to ease monetary policy and more expensive for the US to borrow.

    If foreigners take the next step and begin dumping their dollar holdings, there is nothing the US government can do to avert the catastrophe. Washington must take steps before it is too late.

    The only timely solution is to reduce the US budget deficit. This requires Congress to cut spending or raise taxes or both. Raising taxes on a weakening economy is not a good idea. As entitlements
    (Social Security and Medicare) comprise most of nondefense spending, the easiest step for Congress to take is to stop funding Bush’s pointless war. With less red ink to be financed, there would be less pressure on the dollar.

    It is possible that Washington has waited too long to address the dollar problem. If 2007 brings recession to the US, the rise in the budget deficit from the loss of tax revenues could offset deficit reduction achieved by ending the war.

    Many economists offer false solutions. We hear, for example, that a weaker dollar will lead to more exports and a reduction in the US trade deficit. This “solution” overlooks the impact of offshoring. With so many US brand name manufactures now produced offshore, there is less for the US to export. Some economists still believe that the gap can be filled by the export of services, but offshoring has also taken its toll on professional services. The US cannot simultaneously offshore the production of goods and services and reduce its trade deficit.

    Other economists still think that the Federal Reserve can rescue the dollar by raising interest rates, thus making US Treasuries more attractive to foreigners. However, the US economy shows many signs of weakening. By stifling growth or provoking recession, higher interest rates can simply generate more red ink that must be financed by foreign borrowing, thus increasing the pressure on the dollar.

    The US cannot afford the Iraq war, and it cannot afford the distraction from the serious economic problems that a war-obsessed government has permitted to accumulate. Offshoring is destroying the ladders of upward mobility that made America an opportunity society.

    Economists, in their commitment to offshoring, offer “solutions” that conceal offshoring’s real impact on Americans. For example, we are told that education is the solution to “America’s competitiveness problem.”

    People who advance the education solution are obviously unfamiliar with the character of US job growth in the 21st century and with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ predictions of the areas of job growth over the next decade.

    The problem America faces is not a lack of educated people, but a lack of jobs for educated people. In the 21st century, the US economy has been able to create net new jobs only in domestic services, such as waitresses, bartenders and health and social services. The vast majority of these jobs do not require a college education, and they do not produce tradable goods and services that could be exported or substituted for imports. Income inequality is worsening as CEO pay soars while median income stagnates.

    This new year will be the fifth year that the American people will have let President Bush commit their country to an illegitimate war that cannot be won. Will the US extract itself from Bush’s misadventure and address its real problems, or will the dollar’s decline bring new economic hardships?

  • $100 laptop project launches 2007

    Wireless networking

    Mr Negroponte told the Associated Press news agency that three more African countries might sign on in the next two weeks.

    The laptop is powered by a 366-megahertz processor from Advanced Micro Devices and has built-in wireless networking.

    It has no hard disk drive and instead uses 512 MB of flash memory, and has two USB ports to which more storage could be attached.

    "I have to laugh when people refer to XO as a weak or crippled machine and how kids should get a "real’ one"," Mr Negroponte told AP.

    "Trust me, I will give up my real one very soon and use only XO. It will be far better, in many new and important ways."

    The computer runs on a cut-down version of the open source Linux operating system and has been designed to work differently to a Microsoft Windows or Apple machine from a usability perspective.

    Instead of information being stored along the organising principle of folders and a desktop, users of the XO machine are encouraged to work on an electronic journal, a log of everything the user has done on the laptop.

    The machine comes with a web browser, word processor and RSS reader, for accessing the web feeds that so many sites now offer.

    "In fact, one of the saddest but most common conditions in elementary school computer labs (when they exist in the developing world), is the children are being trained to use Word, Excel and PowerPoint," Mr Negroponte said.

    "I consider that criminal, because children should be making things, communicating, exploring, sharing, not running office automation tools."

    The new user interface, known as Sugar, has been praised by some of the observers of the One Laptop Per Child project.

    It doesn’t feel like Linux. It doesn’t feel like Windows. It doesn’t feel like Apple," said Wayan Vota, who launched the OLPCNews.com blog and is also director of Geekcorps, an organisation that facilitates technology volunteers in developing countries.

    "I’m just impressed they built a new (user interface) that is different and hopefully better than anything we have today," he said.

    But he added: "Granted, I’m not a child. I don’t know if it’s going to be intuitive to children."

    Trial versions of the operating system in development can be downloaded to be tested out by technically-minded computer users around the world.

  • It’s Important to Remember the Lies

    Click here for a stark remider of the lies Bush, Blair and Howard told us to justify their slaughter of Iraqis. 

     

     

     


  • Razing Farms for Car Factory Creates Battleground in India

    On one side of the conflict there is, improbably enough, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and its leader, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, chief minister of West Bengal State, for whom the auto plant at Singur, 22 miles west of Calcutta, represents the beachhead of industrial resurgence.

    To that end, the state government has recently fenced off the land, deployed hundreds of state police officers and private guards on its perimeter, and, to stave off protests, banned assemblies of five or more people in villages nearby.

    The stakes for Mr. Bhattacharjee, 62, a Communist Party stalwart who has of late aggressively courted private investment, could not be higher. And that shows in his zeal.

    “All leading investors are closely watching whether the government will fail to start this project,” he said in an interview. “For us, there is no space. We just cannot roll back. It will send a bad message all over the country and the world.”

    His message is stark and simple: West Bengal, a symbol of strife and ruin for more than 30 years whose capital, Calcutta, was once called “a dying city” by Rajiv Gandhi, the former prime minister, is once again open for business.

    It is for this reason, not to mention his party’s iron hold on this state since 1977, that Mr. Bhattacharjee is sometimes regarded as the Chinese-style leader among Indian Communists. He has staked his reputation on promoting industrial growth. He has embraced privatization of state-run enterprises. He has scolded trade unions. He has criticized the general strikes that shutter this city for at least a couple of days each year. He has welcomed foreign multinationals. Money, he declared this year, has no color.

    “We committed some mistakes in the past,” he said of the Communist tenets of yesterday. “Now I can humbly say our policy has changed.”

    If Mr. Bhattacharjee’s government sees the car plant as “the flagship project” of a rising West Bengal — more hammer, less sickle, one might say — his critics, who range from the political opposition to advocates of peasants’ rights, are equally confident that the industrial project will bring ruin. They accuse him of railroading people into selling their farmland, and of neglecting those who survive on it, chiefly laborers and sharecroppers.

    That the land here is particularly rich, at times producing three or four crops a year, has made the fight more intense. In recent weeks, protests against the project have spilled into Calcutta, further snarling traffic in the city center and, in December alone, prompting three general strikes.

    Tensions flared in mid-December, when the body of a teenage girl who had protested the project was found inside the fenced perimeter of the factory site, strangled and burned.

    In Singur, a village pressed against that fence, resignation is mixed with rage. Graffiti on the side of one building screams: “Look around. Identify the stooges of Tata.”

    Singur is sharply divided between those who said they agreed to sell their land, and those who held out. The happiest are those like Nimai Chandra Mukherji, 71, a retired civil servant, who long ago gave up tilling his land and rented it to sharecroppers. For page 2 of article, go to New York Times

     

    Also posted at IHT. The story is receiving much coverage, including: an online documentary and an editorial in the Hindustan Times.

  • US Buries the Truth

    Iraq’s deposed president, whom Osama bin Laden called "the worst Arab despot" should have faced real justice at an international legal tribunal like the UN Hague Court. That would have served warning to other despots who violated human rights and committed aggression.

    The United States did right to hand over Serb tyrant Slobodan Milosevic to the Hague. But Saddam had to be silenced before he told the world about his long collusion with the United States. Dead men tell no tales.

    Saddam’s biggest crime was not killing rebellious Kurds or Shia. As ruler of the unnatural, British-created Frankenstein state Iraq, Saddam was forced to keep putting down rebellions.

    Saintly Winston Churchill authorized the RAF to bomb Iraq’s rebellious Kurdish tribesmen with poison gas — exactly as Saddam later did. Saddam’s most brutal repression of Kurds and Shia occurred when they revolted during Iraq’s wars with Iran and the U.S.

    Saddam should have faced trial for his unprovoked 1980 aggression against Iran that ended up causing one million dead and wounded.

    But in this crime, Saddam was covertly backed by his principal accomplices, the U.S. and Britain. Donald Rumsfeld even went to Baghdad to offer Saddam arms, finance and intelligence. Hanging Saddam eliminated the main witness.

    Saddam was helped into power by the CIA, which stood by while he slaughtered Iraqi communists and Nasserites.

    The U.S. and Britain, as I discovered in Baghdad in 1990, supplied Saddam with poison gas and germs to make battlefield weapons (these were not "weapons of mass destruction." The germs were never successfully weaponized).

    So long as Saddam was killing and torturing people America and Britain did not like, he was "our SOB."

    But when Saddam grew too big for his britches and invaded Kuwait, he went from being the West’s regional bullyboy to devil No. 1.

    Once he touched the West’s oil in Kuwait, he was marked for death.

    Some of the tame U.S. media have been spinning Saddam’s execution as a justification for the Bush/Cheney administration’s unprovoked invasion of Iraq, without ever asking why Saddam was an ally in 1988 yet a devil in 1991 and again in 2003.

    Nor has there been much reporting that under Saddam, Iraq became the Arab world’s most industrialized nation, a leader in women’s rights, medical care, education, and public projects.

    Back in 2003, I predicted that once the U.S. got rid of old pal Saddam, it would look for another Saddam-clone to replace him. The mutant state of Iraq and its feuding peoples can only be ruled by an iron fist. Saddam’s greatest error was believing he had frightened Iraqis into a national unity that would support invasions of his neighbours. He was dead wrong.

    There are plenty of other brutal regimes that rival Saddam’s Iraq for nastiness. Most are close U.S. allies. As Henry Kissinger once quipped, being America’s ally is far more dangerous than being its enemy.

    After jubilation among Shia and Kurds over Saddam’s execution subsides, Iraq will return to its daily bloody chaos. Saddam called himself a martyr. In years to come, many Arabs will forget his many crimes and remember him as a flawed hero and martyr who dared challenge the United States and Israel, and paid the price for his audacity.

    © 2006 Toronto Sun