• Don’t Believe The Pundits On This Being China’s Century

While countries struggle, muddling their way through stimulus packages and bailouts, China is being touted as everything from, “the best current place to invest,” to being, “the engine that will pull the globe out of its recession.” These entreaties and prognostications are sprinkled with reminders of the power it wields over America, given the huge dollar reserves that it holds. If I may quote Tony Soprano, “forget about it.”

China has asked rather politely, that the U.S. maintain its creditworthiness. No kidding? That plea was less a wish that the U.S. not skip town on its debt (devalue the dollar dramatically), than it was a declaration of a deep desire for a return to excessive U.S. borrowing. When the U.S. borrowed, it bought. When it bought, China prospered. This is rather basic, however, what is not so evident, or obvious to many pundits and experts, it seems, is the fact that China became inebriated through the glory days of consumerism. China now suffers the consequences of its acquiescence to a surety that the intoxicating euphoria enjoyed around the globe for a generation, would never end.

China understood that to become America’s principal provider of goods, it had to manufacture less expensively than anyone else. China excelled at squeezing productivity out of its labor force. It rapidly implemented a sweeping expansion of the necessary infrastructure to manufacture products faster, better (sometimes), and cheaper (always). New plants sprouted at an unprecedented rate. China’s expansion of its machine was based on an enormous assumption - the rate of growth it was enjoying through exports would continue unabated. It is now shutting down plants faster than it opened them. The capacity that was preparing for demand twenty years out, is now shutting down, and the Chinese are not about to ramp up their own consumption to energize reopening of the plants. While China has become a major manufacturer, the majority of its manufacturing is for, and on behalf of foreigners, selling established brands. China’s authoritarian “system” has made the creation and recognition of its own brands, all but impossible.

American consumers are not returning to the binge behavior of the past twenty years, although their ambivalence on trade with Asia persists. As for China, it focused on creating trade surpluses, and it adroitly squeezed its workers, but it did not prepare them, or its industries for broad based consumption. It has not created a self-sustaining, stable economic environment. China will dip into its coffers to stimulate internal employment, spending on infrastructure, or investing in what it knows best - export industries. Endeavoring to attract foreign investments, China will claim improvements in efficiencies, forensics, accountability and accounting practices of its indigenous infrastructure. The claims are beyond its ability to deliver. Until such critical elements as property rights, or a welfare breadbasket are implemented through appropriate taxation, Chinese consumers will be more prone to save, as they must individually concern themselves with how to pay for tomorrow’s meals.

Any cash China spends outside will go to acquiring natural resource producers for pennies on the dollar in the present climate, and countries, including Canada will be happy to sell out. This will do absolutely nothing for the long-term health of the North American economy.

There are currently foreign reserves of around $7.5 trillion held around the world with particular concentration of dollars held in East Asia, where since the late 1990s there was perceived need to protect against currency speculations, and a tendency, no, make that urgency, to feed (finance) the American engine driving China’s growth. We should note that the size of China’s reserve accumulations have, in the past couple of years, attracted the very speculation they sought to themselves protect from, which has further accelerated the bloating imbalance. The size of China's dollar reserves forces a tentative, even precarious, equanimity between the U.S. and China, but it is a potent equilibrium nonetheless. It will be a long road traveled before China finds sustainable balance in savings, consumption, exports, and internally stimulated (broad based) investment. It will also be a long wait before we witness demonstrations of international responsibility emerging out of China. Until then, China will continue to flex its new-found influence to push for such things as an independent currency a few degrees removed from the dollar.

The world’s economic history has been fueled by leaps from one bubble to the next, but the current recession may have a long wait for the next bubble of consequence that will yank the world out of the doldrums. Whatever its form, it is not likely to come out of the less than transparent, state owned, and controlled economy of communist China. China has created a massive middle class in a single generation, but it has yet to empower it. China will not soon be supplanting Americans, or Europeans, in the mall line-ups yearning for China-made-American-invented-branded-and-engineered products. American consumers are unconsciously pushing back the clock on that empowerment of the Chinese middle class through their dramatic behavior modification of the past year. Like it or not, global economic stability will for the foreseeable future depend on the West, and very particularly on America.

.... Read more!

• Obama’s Not So Free Money

Government interference has simply never, repeat never, enhanced the efficiencies of markets. While Obama may claim to be a scholar of history, he appears not to heed what he has read, or simply does not believe it. Learning, real learning, is a long process of trial and error. History is full of trials and errors. Why is this not obvious to the current White House resident?

Attaching operational strings to government stimulus money is forcing many companies to take actions they would not otherwise implement. Along the longest and biggest by dollar volume trading border in the world, are endless American and Canadian communities, as well as companies that have co-existed successfully for generations through mutually beneficial trade. Obama’s exigent and rigid imposition of trade restrictions such as provisions requiring that only U.S. made steel, iron, and other manufactured products be purchased for state and local projects funded with stimulus funds, are twisting communities into stagnation and onto the unemployment lines. While in contravention to the free trade agreement between the two countries, such sweeping and misinformed restrictions have generated reaction from both Sellers and Buyers on either side of the 49th. parallel.

The impact on the U.S. side is that Americans are losing jobs. Canada continues to represent a sustaining market for many American companies manufacturing products used in the housing industry, for example, while the U.S. housing market has dried up for the foreseeable future. Why annoy your own marketplace, and propel it to react and to stop buying from you? “Buy American” makes sense where communities have decided where and on what such stance is of benefit. Enforcing such protectionist programs wholesale is being blind to realities and needs of business, trade, and life of communities where the rubber meets the proverbial road.

Government has no business dictating methods or practices to companies. Set laws for the land and punish those who break them, but don’t interfere with the functioning of such a critical element in the successful progress of a society. In particular, don’t interfere when you have no concept of what a business requires to effectively and profitably function. Allow companies to decide for themselves where to source products and services, particularly when such products are not available to them other than going North of the border. When businesses complain of the paperwork mountain required along with endless strings attached, someone should realize that the Obama free money has been rendered too onerous to be accepted.

If government is going to even establish suggested guidelines, first understand the nature of the beast. Canada, for example, is America’s biggest trading partner. Unlike almost every other nation the U.S. trades with, Canada’s standard of living, lifestyles and society in general are very similar to its own. England, Germany, and France don’t come close, and China isn’t remotely in the same ballpark.

Contrary to Obama’s representations to Unions, the reality is that Canada and the U.S. benefit from the NAFTA arrangement. Trade with China, on the other hand isn’t trade on equal footing, since China has imposed endless restrictions on imports. It is supremely idiotic to treat these different trading “partners,” with the same broad brush Obama style protectionism. While he pretends that he now does not wish to renegotiate NAFTA, his actions are not only confused, they are affirmatively ambiguous.

We can expect to find Obama once more make like Gretzky and implement a fast skate backwards down the ice on this front, much as we have seen him skate on almost everything else this administration has acted on. He forgot to do his homework and he will be forced to pull a reversal on the strings attached to the money, as will local and state governments involved in the cash distribution chain.

The financial services industry which came to represent an enormous percentage of the Nation’s total considered productivity output enchanted America into complacency and unreasonable personal debt. A self-serving Congress failed in its oversight of major financial service providers, and we are now enjoying the fruits of the deliberate bungling. America needs to return to creating, developing, building, and manufacturing, instead of being the world’s bean counter and dominant consumer.

Free enterprise did not bring us the current economic disaster, although free enterprise has become a favorite whipping post of many left leaning expectants of an uncurbed welfare state, and of the current administration. Businesses across Middle America should be allowed to function without government interference, and shouldn’t be made to feel that the new Administration has launched a war against them.

Dismembering the system that has produced the economic engine fueling America’s way of life will be detrimental to that standard of living. As he rushes headlong into an unfathomable indebting record $1.8 trillion deficit, Obama should stop long enough between Air Force One cross-Nation hops to listen a little more attentively to those businesses that are now saying, “No Thanks,” to the stimulus free money. He should pay special attention to the “why.” He should also establish for himself what might be defined as “free trade,” and what parameters such trade might entail before his next policy imposition.

.... Read more!

• THE ELECTORAL PROCESS - AN URGENT CHANGE IS REQUIRED

American taxpayers are watching their leadership take a stake in the financial engines of their economy, supposedly on their behalf and for their own good. The State is taking equity stakes in banks, healthy banks, solvent banks in need of cash, as well as not so solvent ones. And, as if it matters, Paulson and company are earnestly pointing out that participating companies will have to accept executive compensation limits. Taxpayers have no choice and the compensation limits won’t make the pill go down any more easily. Taxpayers, nevertheless, have front row seats to the biggest show on Earth, and to the historic changes that are shaking the American style of capitalism to its roots.

For taxpayers to be provided the kind of government that will be effective in its supervision and oversight of corporate investments, or general corporate behavior, as well as continued tendencies toward free trade that have built the country and its economy, they will need to demand change in the electoral process. Honest dissection of root problems that enabled the economic turmoil currently being endured by most taxpayers, should lead to an elimination of the organizational, corporate, and special interest funding of elected officials.

How, for example, could Congress, the house Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, conduct themselves in a manner befitting the public’s interest when all of them received millions from the financial services industry, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Independence of thought and deed becomes difficult if not impossible when powerful, almost unlimited forces oil the machine that keeps you elected.

Labor unions, political action committees, corporations, associations and other such bodies, should be prevented from providing dollar contributions, or gifts, to political parties, their representatives running for office or those already in office. Along with changes in corporate governance, there is a need for change in electoral governance.

If this is a government By The People and FOR The People, then the people should demand that the financial clout of special interests be taken out of the equation. It is NOT time to look to Europe for a better form of governance of very much, particularly the economy, as some would suggest. Europe was only remained an envious bystander to America’s technological and entrepreneurial advances achieved over the past thirty years. Don’t turn the clock back a century. Allow as much freedom for innovation as possible, but give teeth to oversight. Get meddling interests out of the electoral process, and allow creativity of get the country out of its current difficulties. Legislators will resist such changes. Don’t let them.

.... Read more!

• EVOLUTION OF ECONOMIC DEPENDENCIES

Over roads and waterways of the world’s geopolitical landscape travels the force of economic development moving goods, services and capital that provide sustenance, standards of living, and wealth. Through rapid advances in transportation and communications, a majority of the world’s population has reached an unprecedented level of interdependence. Today’s level of trade and its impact on populations is such that the unease, or discomfort, with such reliance on other countries, will continue to be a hard-to-swallow pill, that will go down nonetheless.

There are imbalances between large economies and those at the periphery, as distribution of participation in the world economic system accelerates. On the whole, all states benefit. Over-concentration with any individual partnership, or over-dependence of one country on another, can give rise to overwhelming sense of vulnerability, destabilization and conflict. Over the longer term, there are challenges to global trade engagements when nationalist passions are stimulated by inevitable impact on particular trade sectors. Whole industrial segments can recede or disappear altogether. While ingenuity and initiative can provide balance through the development of alternatives, the desire should be for broad distribution of international trade relationships injected with a diversification of products, goods, services and materials. The greater the range and multiplicity of trading channels between countries, the greater the interdependence.

Today globalization and its complex relationships, coupled with effective and tempered bilateral diplomacy can provide countries and their leaders with expectations of improved conditions. The diversity of relationships we are witnessing is giving rise to new political alliances across the globe. Although each state will continue to concern itself with security, and access to resources and goods for its long term health, the new complexities in the globalization of trade and political relationships should bring about long term peace and stability between the major powers. Such would be a welcome divergence from historical precedence for response on dependence.

.... Read more!

• AMERICA FOR SALE?

The New York times recently asked “Does the America for Sale sign require a warning label?” The implication being, should the U.S. warn the global financial community that there are certain conditions to buying American companies? In this writer’s opinion, the New York Times has it wrong. These days it is not America that should have a warning label… the financial opportunists should get their Brioni designed lapels branded “HOSTILE”. Here’s why...

With weakness in the dollar, the world is coming to purchase everything, attached or not. It appears there are almost no limits… everything is for sale, our companies, our financial institutions and our real estate. Who’s buying? Well now, there’s the rub.

First let’s put the size of this new wealth in perspective. The average person going about the daily business of earning a living and attempting to build a life is familiar with the meaning of “wealth” as it might pertain to certain names who regularly appear in the media as being amongst the wealthy or wealthiest. Most of us can probably quote Warren Buffet’s stated fortune. By any measure the aggregate of his assets are substantial. They pale, however, when compared to the size of the foreign funds that have been accumulating through this past decade of oil price runaway inflation and global economic boom. Whether from trade, as China has done, or from the sale of a critical resource like oil, foreign governments have accumulated colossal amounts of cash. Some of this bullion has been parked in so called sovereign wealth funds. To this potent wealth, add the existing large pools of capital in off-shore trusts and funds also controlled by foreign governments, desert princes, dictators, and inheritors, and you have potential for irrepressible influence and leverage. Little is revealed of these enormous stores of wealth. They are not internationally accountable and there are no visible audit trails. They provide no structural evidence or transparency and their influence in the North American economy and markets is substantial.

Historically, corporate America has viewed these large baskets of cash as usually non-interfering deep pockets. Until now, it has been considered discourteous, indelicate, irritable and absolutely ungentlemanly to ask probing questions. The “depth and breadth” of this new-found power will engender audacious influence on whatever elements might fit the policy interests of its “owners” in the moment. Trade secrets will only be a line item in their “influence and pressure” list of priorities. They will have bigger fish to fry. The disturbing challenge to both the U.S. and Canada is that in the majority, these funds represent foreign entities antipathetic to North America’s way of life, its social structures and mores, its political structures, its culture and most importantly, its freedoms. This new financial clout is in fact new-found political authority for foreign geopolitical forces. This should energize all North Americans to sit up and take sober notice.

Heads of North American corporations, regardless of the wealth they have been able to privately accumulate, are pawns in the larger scheme of the global movement of capital and influence. It is unfortunate that senior executives managing these companies too often demonstrate a dearth of common sense, and default to “self-service” instead of considering the greater national perspective. Only very occasionally an acquisition emits blinding optics that politicians cannot ignore. Out of Congressional or Parliamentary pockets come the admonishing waving fingers incarnating “national security” or “national interests” and investigations are launched. Rarely is an acquisition, even one jeopardizing national security, ever stopped in its tracks. For such occurrence, a glaringly abusive corporate capture would have to have received an overdose of public attention.

Let us not ever assume foreign powers can be implored to act in our best interest. We can barely influence our neighbors to act conscientiously. Ask the Ukraine if getting oil cut off in winter by Russia was for financial reasons, or was for offensive political coercion. To date any attempts to bring reason to the table, clarify motives, or establish parameters for investments (acquisitions), have been all but dismissed out of hand and rebuffs have come with subtle warnings from individuals representing foreign interests. The IMF and the World Bank cannot be expected to provide surveillance or even negotiate on our behalf.

Is the current methodology satisfactory? 3Com’s recent presence in the headlines is a perfect reminder of the too present proclivity for careless and self-indulgent influence affecting decisions by both sides of the equation - the executives as well as the acquisitors. Only slightly further back in memory reside the shadows of Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) and its six major U.S. ports. There were at least two sources of bewilderment for Americans. One was that the company’s sale to the UAE (a foreign government) was being touted by the U.S. President, and the second was learning that the biggest “port” authority in the world was Dubai Ports World. “What? Who? How was this possible?” When it was finally slapped down following very loud public objection, did the threats from the UAE about damaging relations etc. ever come to pass? Not a chance. We should file that for future reference.

Now let’s go to the other side of the globe and consider the enlightening attitude of the Chairman of the China Investment Corporation, Lou Jiwei, speaking of the U.S., “if any country receiving investments has misgivings, China may choose to leave or look elsewhere.” We must heed this feigned indifference, while emulating the dispassionate “who cares.” Let’s not be so quick to further lubricate the already slippery out-of-balance free trade system. Prudence and sound judgment absolutely have to prevail, and balanced rules applied and followed.

Only a vigorous and impervious stance can be effective. It is a rare negotiation that is effectively concluded from a position of weakness. Since all acquisitions cannot be reviewed, foreign governments aren’t about to restrain themselves and executives will push boundaries whenever possible, what policy will protect the home front interests?

Answer: RULES. Congressional rules, not negotiated rules. The rules should include transparency of structure and control. The U.S.’s Committee on Foreign Investments should be dragged out of its closet and a more public vehicle installed for oversight.

This is at odds with the current approach of placating out of fear or out of misguided spirit of gentlemanly co-operation or perhaps ulterior motives or even backdoor inducements. Endless objections would surface, “we fear retribution” and “don’t we want their money?” and “our economy is in a downturn” and even “we can’t afford to right now, we need foreign investment” and “we can’t annoy these foreign governments” etc. Where else would they place their vast pools of capital? Will Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Norway and Singapore switch a few trillion dollars to China's corporate sector? Or will Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE pull out of U.S. treasuries and markets, and perhaps invest in Russia’s unrecognizable version of democracy? Is there even another continent that the world’s largest pools of cash will move to? For the crumbs (risk capital) maybe. Not for the large cash. Owners of this new-found wealth and power may resent America, but they are not fools.

The U.S. remains the most stable and safe place for the world’s capital. PERIOD. No need to be arrogant – just confident.

.... Read more!

• AMERICA’S CHINA QUANDARY

While America’s attention, and too many dollars are directed at the Middle East, a looming giant in the Far East is evolving into a potentially more formidable antagonist on the world stage. The average American should be more preoccupied with current and future events in China than with any present or future embrace of democracy in Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East for that matter.

North America’s lifestyle has become dependent, even addicted to cheap imported goods from Asia. Practically every product we purchase at our local mall is manufactured in China, with only a few manufactured by its neighbors. The telephone call you make for service on those products goes to a bank of service reps in the Philippines who can instantly call up your private information. Manufacturers are providing us goods we might otherwise have to do without, or wait longer before acquiring. How much more would we pay for those goods? No one knows. That depends on too many variables, including existence of monopolies, company market presence, competition etc. Meanwhile, WalMart has become the standard bearer for free trade.

In the almost 166 years since the Treaty of Nanking when trade was opened up across the wider Chinese landscape, the West’s relationship with China has rested delicately on uncomfortable trade and not much else in acquiescence to the political and cultural divide. In the nineteenth century Britain positively counter-balanced its purchase of silk, tea, gold, silver and porcelain from China by becoming its principal opium supplier. The Treaty of Nanking obligated China to accept more opium grown on plantations Britain controlled in India. Some accounts of this period suggest that up to one quarter of the Chinese population became addicted. In the context of such history including the contemptible Opium Wars, it is not surprising that even after much time passed, attempts to admonish China for human rights violations are falling on deaf ears. Meanwhile, over a century later, the tide of goods leaving China for U.S. ports in 2007 was $321 billion. Only $65 billion worth floated in the other direction. Strangely, that inequality in movement is in and of itself, not an insurmountable problem, yet its optics cause unease on this continent.

Forecasts suggesting China will emerge as the world’s largest economy within one generation are likely accurate given China's propensity to remain pragmatic and maintain the status quo. It will do deals with anyone and any country that will serve its needs. It makes deals with oppressive dictators in Africa for natural resources and doesn’t meddle with local politics. It evidently does not see itself as an international policeman.

Congress is unlikely to take dramatic action other than uphold the concept of “free trade” although there is really no possibility of mutually beneficial free trade if there is not broad based balance between the partners. Trade sanctions would do little to repatriate jobs. Multi million dollar bonuses are too much incentive for heads of corporations to ignore . . . product manufacturing and the provision of services will continue to move off-shore. China has shown that it will move at its chosen speed in all affairs, including the devaluation of the yuan. It’s almost as if the corridors of power in Beijing are resonating with whispers saying “Global instability? What instability? We’re good. So what if we have mountains of foreign exchange? Did you manipulate the currency? … Nope. Did you?”

We all witnessed Matel apologize to China for shipping defective toys. Corporate America apologizing? By any other term, this is Fear. Fear that they won’t manufacture your toys for you if you don’t pull a mea culpa. Matel suggested that they hadn’t been careful enough with their quality control. That’s called confusion. Confusion because is shows lack of confidence. Such confusion was also present when Yahoo turned over names of dissidents to the Chinese government. Confusion and fear… that’s when stupidity sets in, and it did.

Tightening the belt on this side of the Pacific and internationally promoting the rule of law might have some influence on America’s long term peace of mind. That should include promoting full disclosure and transparency for Chinese companies that American firms take public. Can we expect that to happen? Not really. Wall Street has set up camp in China to raise capital for Chinese firms. Will they turn a blind eye to the lack of internationally accepted reporting procedures we have come to expect here? Will Wall Street firms defy common sense to make hundreds of millions in fees anyway? Will they attempt to rectify concerns pertaining to such trade apprehensions as subsidies, piracy and protected intellectual property violations? Past behavior suggests not. Anything goes, under the rationalization “We want to be in position to tap this burgeoning market. If we don’t, somebody else will. Why should we take a position on such elements, we’re not in the politics business.” Those are rationalizations, of course, for not doing the right thing.

It is left to the U.S. government to exert pressure. Unfortunately, threatening protectionism is no leverage at all when you’re admonishing a country holding over one and two third trillion dollars in U.S. government securities. Holding so much of America’s debt impels some moderation on China's part and we can be grateful that it requires economic stability as much as we do. At least for now. Let’s not create an even bigger power than the one we now face. Balance of power nurtures constraint and moderation.

America, cut back … way back, and save. Lousy time to be suggesting this, but is there a choice? It's time for America's middle class to become selfish.

.... Read more!

• FREE TRADE AND THE AMERICAN CONSUMER

With the economy’s decade long exuberance becoming sedated and its fuel’s energy becoming forced to reconsider spending habits, the Free Trade forces, pro and con, have become seriously conflicted. Neither side knows what is right or wrong because no-one can really predict the long term outcome of either stance. Effective crystal balls in this domain are hard to find when it comes to free trade and our global economy. Undeniably free trade is the ultimate economic equalizer . . . at least globally.

For all of us staunch capitalists it is difficult to deny that there are signs the pro free trade argument may not be all we had hoped for.

Between countries of approximately equal standards of living, the impact on the participants is tempered and there is no overwhelming and imbalanced loss or gain. One example is the U.S. Canada trade relationship which is the world’s largest. Although there is no such thing as absolute Free trade, the current arrangement has contributed positively to both countries. There are many factors that affect the impact, but overall the outcome is positive.

When there is serious imbalance such as has existed between the U.S. and China or the U.S. and Mexico the long term impact on the respective societies can be extreme. Furthermore the current “arrangement” with China hardly resembles anyone’s definition of free trade since China has made it difficult for anything American to be brought in. Meanwhile, the American consumer has fuelled the creation of a vast Chinese middle class almost equal in size to the population of the U.S.

As long as there are new clusters of people on Earth whose life styles aren’t on par with that of the U.S., there will be someone willing to work for “lower” wages. With six and a half billion of us, there is a long way to go before there is anything resembling standard of living parity. If the world’s population continues to grow at present rates, it will never happen. Millions of service jobs currently performed by U.S. workers are vulnerable and potentially up for grabs by countries developing their own skilled work forces such as India, China and the Philippines. The lower the barriers to trade, the more opportunity for our corporations to find alternative sources for goods and services. While this has historically enabled the U.S. consumers to enjoy products they might not have otherwise been able to afford, it has also “spread the cash” far and wide.

Unfortunately, too much of the cash spent by U.S. consumers was borrowed, and too much of that borrowing was extracted from leveraged escalating real estate values. Now we stall for a while. By “we”, I mean everyone from here to New Delhi. Everyone has depended on the U.S. consumer, including Russia and Saudi Arabia, not just China and India.

This “stall” is an American consumer forced into restricting the “buy” urge. There is hope that this “stall” period will stimulate savings .

So what do you do?

Do you support free trade and watch incomes of the middle class continue to stall? Free trade works really well when you are the one doing the “selling”. Free trade has absolutely nothing to do with this new beloved term that has forced its way into our lexicon – outsourcing. Hiring foreign workers isn’t “trading”, it’s simply availing oneself of “cheaper labor”. All countries would wish to see it’s population employed. Or do you support protectionism to protect jobs? Protectionism would simply mean more expensive goods. Can you visualize almost every product in your local WalMart increased in price by a multiple of 10? Your 5 year old’s runners would be $200.00 instead of $20.00. Life would change. Reality - globalization is unstoppable. Our population is growing but the global community is shrinking.

No politician currently running for the office of president is presenting any answers to this dilemma, principally because there are none, . . . just opinions on differing sides of the argument. If you are your brother’s keeper, globalization is good and you await a note of gratitude from the recipients of your ‘debted’ benevolence. If you’re not your brother’s keeper, you’ll look for someone to set some onerous tariffs before your company out-sources your job. The odds are not good that your CEO will feel benevolent with your bank account, and history suggest he won’t suddenly discover altruism or wisdom. Just be grateful he’s not moving to Dubai.

Lack of moderation has brought us to the current economic slump. Moderation should absolutely prevail on both sides of the free trade argument and in the implementation of any corrective measures for us to weather the next few years. Another reality is that real average income has not only been stagnant for a whole generation, it has dropped. When you add this to spreading income inequality and wealth concentration, you get pressure for the implementation of balancing measures.

This is where creative minds get pushed.

.... Read more!