By Jayati Ghosh

The G-20 summit has not come anywhere near pulling out the world economy from the unprecedented mess it is in now.

THE much-hyped G-20 summit was supposed to save the world economy from imminent collapse and provide much-needed relief to developing countries hit by an economic tsunami that was not of their own making. Even before the summit was held, it was already being hailed as the first sign of a changing global order, since at long last some large and economically significant developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Argentina were admitted to the “high table” of the self-appointed rulers of the world.

Though the G-20 is somewhat larger than the G-8 and accounts for the majority of the world’s population, it is still an illegitimate grouping, in that it completely bypasses the United Nations. Even so, there were those who believed that, given the urgency created by the global economy apparently in near collapse, it could be the harbinger of a new “Bretton Woods” agreement that would reshape the international financial architecture, much in the way that the famous conference held at Bretton Woods in 1944 managed to do.

VAGUE STATEMENTS
Of course, we should have all known that this was not likely. This is because of not only the lack of adequate preparation for the summit and of legitimacy and representation from all nations, but also because there is still too much disagreement on most issues among the members of G-20. Even so, the summit’s communique, released with so much fanfare, is deeply disappointing, particularly for developing countries.

In fact, there were precious few signs of the major players in the global economy acting together to revive it. Instead, there was deafening silence on the fiscal front, with no clear commitment to coordinated fiscal stimulus. The communique just had some vague statements. This reflected the successful resistance of Germany and France to the United States’ attempts to ensure a collective plan for fiscal expansion.

Since there was no commitment to fiscal expansion, there was correspondingly no commitment to direct more resources towards new technologies and changing patterns of demand to ensure more sustainable and equitable use of the world’s resources. Nor was there any evidence of a binding commitment to specific measures to clean up the toxic assets of the world’s banking systems.

Instead, the communique simply stated that the leaders of these countries “are committed to take all necessary actions to restore the normal flow of credit through the financial system and ensure the soundness of systemically important institutions” without making it clear what such measures would be.

Yet, without such measures, the chances of early global recovery are extremely bleak. So exports of developing countries will continue to fall, international capital markets will remain skittish and tend to punish emerging markets out of sheer nervousness and uncertainty, the credit crunch will continue to constrain investment and therefore limit recovery, and many countries will find themselves desperately short of resources for meeting essential needs and development projects.

FUNNY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Despite these evident failures, two great “successes” of the summit were widely trumpeted in the international media: first, the declarations about tax havens, banking secrecy and financial regulation; and second, the announcement of a supposedly new $1.1 trillion “programme of support to restore credit, growth and jobs in the world economy” including $850 billion, which is supposed to be specifically directed towards developing countries.

But the promise of cracking down on tax havens is little more than a damp squib. To begin with, the approach chosen has been to agree to exchange information on companies and individuals suspected of evading taxes only “on request” rather than automatically, thereby reducing the efficacy of such a measure.

Second, the issue of misuse of tax concessions by companies – by far the biggest issue in tax avoidance – received no attention at all. In fact, there was absolutely no attempt to ensure financial reporting or exchange of information on beneficial ownership in all tax jurisdictions, which would have helped governments crack down on corporate tax abuse.

The funniest of them all was the loud announcement of the intention to “name and shame” and then blacklist countries that do not cooperate. When the list was released the following day, it was laughable.

It consisted of only four territories: Uruguay, the Philippines, the Malaysian Federal Territory of Labuan, and Costa Rica. Since none of them is well known as a tax haven, and the more established tax havens in Europe (such as Lichtenstein and Luxembourg) were excluded by virtue of their membership in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, little appears to have been achieved on this front.

The only apparently concrete commitment was apparently the one made to poor countries that have been thrown into crisis by the global turmoil, by way of pledges of $850 billion in new funds. This sounds like a reasonable amount, but how much of it is for real? And how unconditional will such money flows be?

Not much, it turns out. For a start, the proposed new allocation of special drawing rights ($250 billion) is to be a general allocation, based on existing quotas. So the bulk of it will go to the G-20 countries.

The rich world alone will get approximately 60 per cent of the new SDR creation. Helping poor countries get more would require a special issue of new SDRs – something that was proposed in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1997 but vetoed by the U.S. and held in abeyance ever since.

REWARD FOR IMF
Much of the rest of the money will be conditional lending from the IMF, which has recently distinguished itself only by its utter failure to prevent or deal with financial crises in emerging markets because of its aggressively pro-cyclical conditionalities. It is amazing that the IMF is being rewarded for multiple failures. This is after all the organisation that failed to predict the collapse of the U.S. sub-prime market, announced that the medium-term financial outlook for Iceland was exceptionally healthy just months before the country was declared effectively bankrupt, and has succeeded in making things much worse in most of the countries where it has forced its austerity measures in return for paltry loans.

So the single greatest beneficiary of this G-20 meeting must be the IMF, which would otherwise have been on life support as a global player. Indeed, the most disappointing – even most alarming – aspect of the G-20 communique is the declared intent to prop up and strengthen the IMF without doing anything about its completely undemocratic structure of decision-making or its unacceptable loan conditions.

What makes this especially troubling is that the IMF continues to impose these disastrous pro-cyclical conditions on countries that are forced to borrow from it at present: Ukraine, Pakistan and Latvia, for example, have all been told to cut government spending and raise interest rates and user charges for government services in the middle of the downswing in return for IMF loans.

Unfortunately, since the IMF has been given this unconditional gift from the G-20 leaders (including those from developing countries who should really know better) there is nothing to stop it from continuing to behave in this ridiculous and unjust way, which is also based on extreme double standards for rich and poor countries.

STIGLITZ REPORT IGNORED
What is particularly unfortunate is the G-20 completely ignoring the recommendations of the Stiglitz Commission on international financial reform set up by the more democratic international body, the United Nations General Assembly. That commission, which came up with its preliminary report just before the G-20 summit, made a number of useful short-term and medium-term recommendations.

For example, it recommended an immediate new special allocation of SDRs, along with a new credit facility for development funds, strengthening regional initiatives and providing 1 per cent of all stimulus packages as Official Development Assistance. These would actually have made a much more positive difference to developing countries than the self-aggrandising posturing of G-20.

Even the G-20’s commitment to avoid protectionism sounds ominous for developing countries, and not only because it is likely to be honoured only in the breach. It was stated with the goal of “reaching an ambitious and balanced conclusion” to the World Trade Organisation trade negotiations – which can only mean forcing more trade liberalisation that has already led to agrarian crisis and deindustrialisation in much of the south.

The basic problem, though, is that the G-20 has not produced anything like the response needed to pull the world economy out of this unprecedented mess. Clearly, the idea is to put back the broken pieces somehow, to produce more of the same pattern of growth as before. That is neither desirable nor sustainable, and will rapidly run into crisis once more, at a tremendous human cost. It is a pity that the would-be leaders of the world have shown so little generosity or imagination.

Read More

By Mark Selden

2008—Annus Horribilis for the world economy—produced successive food, energy and financial crises, initially devastating particularly the global poor, but quickly extending to the commanding heights of the US and core economies and ushering in the sharpest downturn since the 1930s depression.

As all nations strive to respond to the financial gridlock that began in the United States and quickly sent world industrial production and trade plummeting, there has been much discussion of the ability of the high-flying Chinese economy to weather the storm, of the prospects for the intertwined US and Chinese economies, even of the potential for China to rise to a position of regional or global primacy. The present article critically explores these possibilities.

In “China’s Way Forward,” [1] James Fallows offers an astute ground’s eye assessment of that nation’s economic prospects and reflects comparatively on the experience of the United States, Japan and others in the teeth of the storm of 2008-09. Beginning with compelling images of migrant workers in their millions returning to the countryside where they face protracted unemployment while container ships sit idle in port, Fallows explains why China’s industrialization and export-dependent economy will be hard hit by the looming world depression. He believes, however, that China will not only weather the storm, but is likely to emerge stronger from it.

Read More

By John Cook, 3:25 PM on Mon Apr 20 2009

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman didn’t have a column in yesterday’s paper. Was it because the company that his wife’s fortune is invested in went bankrupt last week, and he’s too sad to type?

General Growth Properties filed for bankruptcy on Thursday, which is notable because it’s one of the nation’s largest mall operators, with 200 malls in 44 states—the Times called the company’s failure “one of the biggest commercial real estate collapses in United States history.”
It’s also notable because Friedman’s wife, Ann Bucksbaum Friedman, is an heir to the family that founded GGP, and her family still owns about a quarter of the company. Two years ago, a quarter of GGP was worth more than $4 billion. Today it’s worth less than an olive tree.

Friedman does OK—incomprehensibly so—with his books and speaking gigs, so he’s got a little breathing room. Still, it’s got to hurt when your spouse’s family loses $4 billion.

Here’s what Friedman had to say about his family’s business back in 2000:
My relatives are in the mall business, where everyone is worried about all the stories of the high-tech age, just around the corner, when you will be able to do all your shopping online from your Palm Pilot, and your refrigerator will automatically order more milk via the Web when its high-tech sensors indicate you’re low. I jokingly suggested to the shopping center folks that they run an ad that would say: “Imagine a world in which you will be able to go to just one place, walk from shop to shop, and see, touch, feel or try on anything you like, and then buy it right there and take it home with you — without worrying about your credit card number being stolen, or how U.P.S. will deliver it, or how you will ship it back if it doesn’t fit. Imagine such a world! It’s also just around the corner — right now. It’s called a mall.”

Man that guy’s a genius. GGP should have hired him as a marketing consultant. We were kind of excited to see what Friedman might have to say about his relatives’ business latest challenge, but the Times’ said he was “off” yesterday.

The Times catalogued GGP’s woes last week, but they didn’t mention Friedman’s connection.
Read More
(Submitted by reader)
[Friedman was back the next day. Ed.]

The DeCaros’ grand duet began with dancing lessons.

By Kathy Boccella

Bill DeCaro remembers his wife as a stunning young woman who could tap like Ginger Rogers. Marie DeCaro recalls her husband as a handsome hoofer who was going to make it big in show business.
It was the start of a beautiful – and enduring – romance.

Wed in a Roman Catholic church in South Philadelphia in 1929, the DeCaros will mark their 80th wedding anniversary on June 20. That’s not the only milestone the dancing duo is celebrating this year.
On March 31, Bill DeCaro turned 100. Marie becomes a centenarian on Oct. 20. Their oldest surviving “kid” is 70.

While they are not the world’s longest-married couple – that feat belongs to a man and wife from India who were married almost 85 years – they sure seem to be among the happiest.
“They’ve been beautiful, beautiful years. Who could ask for anything more?” said Bill DeCaro, fingers laced with the woman he still calls “his bride,” in their room at Harlee Manor, a senior community in Springfield, Delaware County.

The 99-and-100-year-old couple from South Philadelphia met at Madam Duvall’s Dance School when they were just 15 and 16. He knew right away that the perky blonde with the crimped hair and bow lips was for him.

She played the field a bit.
“They were fly-by-nights, but not boyfriends, if you know what I mean. He was the real deal, he was a great guy,” Marie said about her husband.

Read More
(Submitted by a reader)

From Studying Chimps, a Theory on Cooking

By CLAUDIA DREIFUS

Richard Wrangham, a primatologist and anthropologist, has spent four decades observing wild chimpanzees in Africa to see what their behavior might tell us about prehistoric humans. Dr. Wrangham, 60, was born in Britain and since 1989 has been at Harvard, where he is a professor of biological anthropology. His book, “Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human,” will be published in late May. He was interviewed over a vegetarian lunch at last winter’s American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago and again later by telephone. An edited version of the two conversations follows.

Q. In your new book, you suggest that cooking was what facilitated our evolution from ape to human. Until now scientists have theorized that tool making and meat eating set the conditions for the ascent of man. Why do you argue that cooking was the main factor?

A. All that you mention were drivers of the evolution of our species. However, our large brain and the shape of our bodies are the product of a rich diet that was only available to us after we began cooking our foods. It was cooking that provided our bodies with more energy than we’d previously obtained as foraging animals eating raw food.
I have followed wild chimpanzees and studied what, and how, they eat. Modern chimps are likely to take the same kinds of foods as our early ancestors. In the wild, they’ll be lucky to find a fruit as delicious as a raspberry. More often they locate a patch of fruits as dry and strong-tasting as rose hips, which they’ll masticate for a full hour. Chimps spend most of their day finding and chewing extremely fibrous foods. Their diet is very unsatisfying to humans. But once our ancestors began eating cooked foods — approximately 1.8 million years ago — their diet became softer, safer and far more nutritious.

Read More

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, right, hands President Barack Obama the book titled “The Open Veins of Latin America” by Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano, during an UNASUR countries meeting at the Summit of the Americas on Saturday, April 18, 2009 in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

by Mario A. Murillo

Of all the memorable statements coming out of the Fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad this weekend, the one that stood out the most for me was President Barack Obama’s public expression of how he intended to approach his first major meeting with his hemispheric counterparts.

“I have a lot to learn and I’m very much looking forward to listening,” the president said in his opening address.

With those few words, Obama demonstrated, at least rhetorically, an openness that has never existed in Washington’s many dealings with the countries of the southern part of the hemisphere. Perhaps they were just words, a clever way for the smooth-talking Obama to warm up to his audience of skeptics, not only those Presidents and Prime Ministers present in Port of Spain, but their hundreds of millions of constituents back home – from the shanty towns of Rio, to the jungles of Chiapas, the highlands of Bolivia, to the dusty streets of Haiti – most of whom continue to cast a wary eye on the many decades of U.S. interventions and misdeeds, always in the name of “democracy,” “human rights,” and economic justice.

Although it is still too early to tell if his words were genuine, or if this is a true sign that U.S. policy vis a vis Latin America will undergo some necessary transformations, it is not a stretch to say that this weekend’s event was a step forward, not the usual several steps back.

In his 17-minute speech to the 34-nation gathering on Friday, President Obama promised a new agenda for the Americas, and emphasized what he described as a different way to approach the many problems facing the region.

“We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms,” Obama told an enthusiastic audience. “But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations.”

His careful, almost apologetic words, and his general demeanor – did you catch that friendly, over-the-top handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez? – reflected the comfort of someone who has traveled the world with an open mind for many years, not looking for simple, textbook answers, but searching for nuance, complexity, and perspective.

Understanding that his choice of words would most likely be converted into more political fodder for right-wing talk radio hosts in the U.S. to attack the Administration’s latest “un-American” foreign policy endeavors, Obama embraced the Summit in its diversity, and seemed to welcome it as a unique opportunity for expanding his knowledge and understanding.

Furthermore, as a student of (recent) history, Obama is not unaware of the role the Bush Administration played in supporting the ill-fated coup in 2002 that temporarily pushed the democratically-elected Chavez out of office. Undoubtedly he has been briefed on the U.S. government’s ongoing financial and political support of the Venezuelan opposition, something that does not sit well with Chavez, and would be unacceptable for people in Washington if the roles were reversed. So his public greeting to Chavez was a welcome step forward, however superficial or symbolic.

Yes, the White House was forced to downplay this temporary easing of tensions later, with Obama saying the Venezuelan leader’s inflammatory rhetoric has been “a source of concern.” And evidently, Obama looked a little uncomfortable on Saturday when Chavez walked over to him and handed him a copy of the book “The Open Veins of Latin America,” by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano, a classic text celebrated by several generations throughout the continent as the clearest denunciation of U.S. imperialism. One could only hope that Obama actually reads the book, and in the process of learning, takes into consideration some of Galeano’s incisive critique.
…
Read More

By John Roach

From not-so-humble beginnings in 1970, when 20 million participated across the U.S., Earth Day has grown into a global tradition, with a billion expected to take part in 2009. Find out when it is, how it started, how it’s evolved, and what you can do.

When Is Earth Day?
Every day, the saying goes, is Earth Day. But it’s popularly celebrated on April 22. Why?

One persistent rumor holds that April 22 was chosen because it’s the birthday of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union.

“Lenin’s goal was to destroy private property and this goal is obviously shared by environmentalists,” the Capitalism Magazine Web site noted in a 2004 article perpetuating the theory.

Kathleen Rogers, president of Washington, D.C.-based Earth Day Network, which was founded by the original organizers of Earth Day, scoffs at the rumored communist connection.

She said April 22, 1970, was chosen for the first Earth Day in part because it fell on a Wednesday, the best part of the week to encourage a large turnout for the environmental rallies held across the country.

“It worked out perfectly, because everybody was at work and they all left,” she said.

In fact, more than 20 million people across the U.S. are estimated to have participated in that first Earth Day.

(PICTURES: The First Earth Day–Bell-Bottoms and Gas Masks.)

Earth Day is now celebrated every year by more than a billion people in 180 nations around the world, according to Rogers.

Mad People and a Frustrated Politician
Earth Day’s history is rooted in 1960s activism. The environment was in visible ruins and people were mad, according to Rogers.

“It wasn’t uncommon in some cities during rush hour to be standing on a street corner and not be able to see across the street” because of pollution, she said.

Despite the anger, green issues were absent from the U.S. political agenda, which frustrated U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, whose campaigns for the environment through much of the 1960s had fallen flat.

First Earth Day “Took off Like Gangbusters”
In 1969 Nelson hit on the idea of an environmental protest modeled after anti-Vietnam War demonstrations called teach-ins.

“It took off like gangbusters. Telegrams, letters, and telephone inquiries poured in from all across the country,” Nelson recounted in an essay shortly before he died in July 2005 at 89.

“The American people finally had a forum to express its concern about what was happening to the land, rivers, lakes, and air—and they did so with spectacular exuberance.”

Nelson recruited activist Denis Hayes to organize the April 22, 1970, teach-in, which today is sometimes credited for launching the modern environmental movement.

By the end of 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had been born, and efforts to improve air and water quality were gaining political traction.
“It was truly amazing what happened,” Rogers said. “Blocks just tumbled.”

Earth Day Evolves
Amy Cassara is a senior associate at the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C., who analyzes global environmental trends.

She noted that, since Earth Day started, environmentalism has moved from a fringe issue to a mainstream concern. “As many as 80 percent of Americans describe themselves as environmentalists,” Cassara said.

Environmental issues today, however, are less immediate than dirty air, toxic water, and a hole in the ozone layer, she added.

For example, the impacts of global climate change are largely abstract and difficult to explain “without coming off as a doomsday prognosticator,” Cassara said.

“As we become more industrialized and our supply chains become less transparent, it can be more difficult to understand the environmental consequences of our actions,” she noted.

Earth Day Network is pushing the Earth Day movement from single-day actions—such as park cleanups and tree-planting parties—to long-term commitments.

“Planting a tree, morally and poetically, requires taking care of it for a really long time, not just sticking it in the ground,” Earth Day Network’s Rogers said.

To help make the transition, the organization is aligned with a hundred thousand schools around the world, integrating projects with an environmental component into the year-round curriculum.

“They announce the results on Earth Day, so Earth Day becomes a moment in time,” Rogers said.

Cassara, of the World Resources Institute, said her organization uses Earth Day to convene with leaders in the movement and assess progress in their campaigns.

“[Earth Day] doesn’t raise awareness among the general public in the same way that it used to. But it still provides a benchmark for reflection among those of us in the environmental community,” she said.

What to Do on Earth Day?
For those whose inner environmentalist speaks loudest on April 22, Earth Day Network’s Rogers encourages them to make a public commitment to take an environmental action.
“We are headed for a billion commitments to do something green,” Rogers said. “And that doesn’t mean think about it—it means do something.”
Commitment ideas promoted by the Earth Day Network include pledging to educate friends and family on global warming or buy green products such as energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).
The commitments are part of a yearlong initiative called the Green Generation, which leads up to the 40th anniversary of Earth Day in 2010.

(See pictures of quirky Earth Day stunts.)

According to Rogers, everyone is part of this generation, which marks the transition from the industrial revolution to the green revolution.
“It is also about the green generation of energy and the generation of green jobs. … The name [Green Generation], whenever I say it to people, they have their own idea of what it means, which is exactly what we want.”

Read More

Nete Araujo Photo by: Marcella Haddad

Nete Araujo is no conventional grandma. At just 34 years old, she wears sweetheart purple nail varnish and bright white trainers. And instead of spending her days making tea and handing out cake, this nana chooses to pass the time occupying abandoned buildings in São Paulo. For the last four years, Nete has been helping to establish squats for the destitute, rallying exploited tenants to take political action and campaigning for the right to secure, dignified shelter for all.
‘As citizens, we have a responsibility to guarantee that homeless families have dignity – a house, water, education and electricity,’ she explains. ‘Change has to come from the people, because when it comes from the politicians, corruption gets in the way.’

Born in rural Guariba, Nete grew up cutting sugar cane before joining the tides of people moving to São Paulo in search of a better life. She married early, giving birth to her first child when she was just 14. Then one day, when her husband asked for a pay rise, he was sacked. Nete and her children were evicted from their home and forced to live under a motorway bridge for several months, relying on hand-outs to eat.

‘Living on the streets means losing your dignity. People would look down on me, but I used to have a house just like them,’ she recalls. ‘I lost my privacy completely. There were no doors to shut or windows to close. I was cold and I couldn’t wash myself or my children. The conditions were beneath anything worthy of humanity.’
It was only when she found the charity APOIO that her life began to turn around. APOIO, which means ‘support’ in Portuguese, works with homeless communities to help them secure their right to decent housing. Once Nete found her strength, she decided to work full time for APOIO, in order to help those going through similar circumstances to her own.

Nete’s task is not a small one. Over a third of Brazil’s 180 millon citizens live in slums, the numbers fuelled largely by rural-to-urban migration. In São Paulo alone, 25 new people join the ranks of the city’s population every hour. The inadequate housing and increased homelessness that result breed social problems. Alcoholism, domestic violence and drug trafficking are rife.

Perhaps the saddest thing about this situation is that it doesn’t have to be this way. It is estimated that 17 per cent of residential units in São Paulo’s city centre are lying empty. These buildings could provide some 45,600 badly needed homes for local people, but conditions in the property market mean that it is not profitable to sell them. ‘In these spaces there are rats, insects and mice living better than human beings,’ Nete complains. ‘Animals occupy the buildings whilst the people sleep on the streets.’

This is where Nete’s work comes in. Working illegally, she breaks into São Paulo’s abandoned buildings and helps turn them into functioning homes for local people. The result is Supergran meets Robin Hood. ‘Some nights we do six or seven occupations, so you have to be really organized. Many of the houses are precarious and dangerous, and we have to work hard to get them set up,’ she explains. By moving into these buildings, the poorest people in São Paulo are literally ‘living their protest’. Their approach seems to be working. Since 1999, APOIO has helped over 1,700 families to improve their living conditions.
When you ask Nete about her proudest achievement, she answers with two words: ‘Prestes Maia.’ A 22-storey disused building in the heart of São Paulo, Prestes Maia was the site of the largest squatted high-rise building in the whole of Latin America. Between 2002 and 2007, 466 families turned this building into their own residential community, which included a school, a communal area and a library with over 7,000 books. ‘In the beginning it was just a skeleton of a building. It didn’t have any walls or lifts. But it soon came to be a home for all of us,’ Nete smiles.
Read more