Sunday, February 28, 2010

Business Ideas Relating To Food Industry

POLICY OF ECONOMIC DISASTER


Gad Lerner On the site I found the translation of this article by Immanuel Wallerstein (pictured him beside his young master Fernand Braudel), about a year ago. I can still interesting, so I propose it here. Good reading.

Every day I read another economist, journalist or public official who opines on how best to achieve recovery of the economy in one country or another. It goes without saying that all contradict each other remedies. It seems to me that almost all these gurus are living in the world of fairies. Really seem to believe that their remedies work relatively quickly.
The fact is that the world is only the beginning of a depression that will last a long time 'and will become much worse now. The immediate problem for governments is how to recover, but how to survive the growing popular anger that all, without exception, are facing.
start with the economic realities of the present. Over the past 10-30 years in more or less everyone - governments, companies, individuals - have been living beyond their means, and they did borrowing. The world is drunk with inflated earnings and inflated consumption. The bubbles have burst. Now it exploded (or actually exploded several bubbles). It is became aware of the impossibility to continue on this road, and suddenly everyone is afraid of being left without real money - governments, businesses, individuals.
When fear takes over, people stop spending, or to provide. And when spending and loans decreased significantly, companies end or slow down production. Could close its doors entirely, or at least lay off employees. This is a vicious circle, since shut down or lay off leads to lower real demand and further due to reluctance to spend or lend. It is called depression and deflation.
For the moment the U.S. government, which is still able to borrow money and to print money, will put into service a bit 'of money again. This might work if the government put an enormous amount in circulation, and wisely. But in all likelihood will not do it wisely. And in all likelihood put into circulation the amount that might work would amount to little more than create a new bubble. And then the dollar could collapse very much faster than other currencies, lowering the final major support of the world economy.
Meanwhile, 90% in the bottom of the pyramid of the world population there are less and less money for the daily consumption of each type (and even 10% of the top things are going so well). People are getting nervous. Only last month we saw people on the streets to protest economic hardship in a growing number of countries - Greece, Russia, Latvia, Great Britain, France, Iceland, China, South Korea, Guadeloupe, Reunion, Madagascar, Mexico - and probably many others that have not been noticed by the world press. However to date have been relatively mild protests, but all governments have the nerves on edge.
what governments do when their primary concern is to address the turmoil inside? In fact they have two choices - shoot the demonstrators, or calm him down. Shoot only works up to a point. To begin with the same agents the police, because they are willing to do so must be paid well enough. And for the schemes is not so easy to succeed when there is a severe economic downturn. So
schemes begin with appeasing their populations. How? First of all, with protectionism. All have begun to complain to the protectionism of other countries. But all those who complain they're their own practice. It will do much more. Liberal economists tell us all again that protectionism worsened the overall economic situation. It is probably true, but politically it is completely irrelevant when there are people on the streets who wants to work - now! The
second way in which governments are willing, when there is something going through measures of social democratic welfare state. But do governments need money. And governments obtained the money from taxes. Liberal economists tell us all that raising taxes (all types) during a contraction of the economy worsens even the overall economic situation. It may be true, but in the short term this is also irrelevant. In fact, a decline in tax revenues collapse. The government can not even meet current expenditure, not to mention increases in expenditure. So in one way or another taxed. Or by printing money.
Finally, the third way in which willing, and with a healthy dose of populism. Over the past thirty years the gap between the real income of 1% on top of the pyramid and the bottom 20% has grown enormously, both within countries and worldwide. The gap is now reduced to the more "normal" that existed in 1970, which is still huge, but a little 'less shockingly large. Then you have governments who now speak of "income ceiling" for the bankers, like the United States and France. Or you can prosecute people for corruption, as in China.
It's a little 'how to be in the path of a tornado. Governments can fall suddenly worse. When this happens, they have only a few minutes to take refuge in the cellar. Then the tornado passes, and if one is still alive out to examine the damage. The damage will prove to be vast. Yes, you can rebuild. But then starts the real debate - how to rebuild, and how fairly they will share the benefits brought by the reconstruction.
How long will prevail this gloomy picture? Nobody knows or can not be sure, but probably will be for quite a few 'years. In the meantime, governments face elections, and voters will not be kind to those who are in charge. Governments protectionism and the welfare state serve as a social democrat cellar during a tornado. The quasi-nationalization of banks is another way to take refuge in the cellar.
What I think we need people and we must prepare ourselves is what we'll do once we emerged from the cellar. The fundamental question is how to rebuild. That will be the real political battle. The view will not be familiar. And all our past rhetoric is suspect. It is crucial to realize that rebuilding can take us in a much better world - but in a much worse. In any case it will be a very different world.

Immanuel Wallerstein

translation of Luke Tombolesi

[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606.
Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or sent via e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein @ yale.edu

Monday, February 22, 2010

Breville Compact Bread Maker Br6 Manual

Ethnicity and people and nation: a discussion from Fabio Fazio


My friend Alex Bellini was outraged at the use the good while conductor Fabio Fazio makes the concept of "ethnic "in place of the concept of" nationality "Fazio speaking ethnic Moroccan, Albanian, Romanian ethnicity, etc.. Alessio, I urged to better motivate his perplexity, he argued thus:

"the term ethnic group, as reported Annamaria Rivera warned by anthropologists as well as being the end that lends itself to more of an explanation (which will affect the scientific claims), is a euphemism for "race", a term taboo by the genocide of the Jewish people then. The problem is that it conveys the same meaning. Ethnic groups are always the others you've never heard of the Italians as a race? E 'therefore implies a negative opinion. The Albanians, Moroccans, Romanians, are not people or nationality, but ethnic groups are located so to a lower level of civilization. "
I
I have expressed my point of view:


understand, and partly I agree. but only in part, because it is not not true that the term race has no scientific basis, at least as it may exist in the social sciences. Ethnos in greek means "people", but not in the spiritual sense and nineteenth-century Romantic (Mazzini) is used in sociology in the sense of lived common practices that give meaning to everyday life: language, first of all, written, oral (dialects) but also the body. In addition, the set of what is called material culture: artifacts, crafts, techniques, arts, cooking, etc.. Ethnography was established as a practice of "writing on peoples' others who were making the first European travelers when traveling to new worlds. Tocqueville among others, was the father of those in anthropology (and now also in sociology) today called ethnographic methods. So the ethnic groups, as a set of relatively homogeneous daily lived worlds do exist. There are buildings like all of the social sciences: a pact never to be "substantial" fixed, immutable, always conscious of being a point of view of the inevitable burden of prejudices and assumptions. The science of the social sciences is to constantly test the same social science concepts that it uses. It is certainly "politically correct" and to call the Albanians and Moroccans "nationality", where this means recognition of reciprocal rights and duties: their are citizens and political parties as we are. But from a sociological point of view-describing the concept of nationality is almost nil, if not misleading. Indeed, it is a case in which the fear of racism threatens to topple the racist fear of "the nation" is the most European and ethnocentric exists. What do we do when we go to try to understand something of the social and political structures in Africa (where nations have been designed with the team and the ruler of the European colonies) or other non-European cultures?
Sure, "etnometodi" should also apply to us. That's why I do not really angry when I find the Barilla pasta in the department of food dell'ethnic American supermarkets. Provided di mettere il burro di noccioline, il sushi e il cous cous nello stesso settore della Coop.
O mi sbaglio?

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Can My Credit History Follow Me To Australia

nuclearists Obama? Discuss



The Obama administration has approved a $8 billion loan guarantee to support the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia. If the project goes forward, the plants would be the first built in the United States since the 1970s.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act authorized $18.5 billion in loan guarantees, but none have been issued until now. President Obama has proposed tripling that amount to expand nuclear power as a way to control greenhouse gas emissions and bolster domestic energy production.

Does the need for new sources of low-carbon energy now outweigh the costs and risks associated with nuclear power?


Samuel Thernstrom, American Enterprise Institute
Robert Hahn and Peter Passell, regulation2point0.org
Ellen Vancko, Union of Concerned Scientists
Peter van Doren and Jerry Taylor, Cato Institute
Christopher Paine, Natural Resources Defense Council
Denis Du Bois, Energy Priorities Magazine


http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/a-comeback-for-nuclear-power/?scp=4&sq=nuclear%20energy&st=cse