Los nuevos Tratados Comerciales Internacionales, una gran oportunidad para el COMERCIO JUSTO

The corporate takeover Secret

 

NEW YORK - The United States and the world are engaged in a great debate about new trade agreements. Such agreements used to be called "free trade agreements" ; in fact, they managed trade agreements, tailored to corporate interests, mostly in the US and the European Union. Today, these agreements more often referred to as "associations" as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But partnerships are not equal: US effectively dictates the terms . Fortunately, "partners" of the United States are becoming increasingly resistant.

It is not hard to see why. These agreements go far beyond trade, governing investment and intellectual property and impose fundamental to the legal, judicial and regulatory frameworks of the countries changes without input or accountability through democratic institutions.

Perhaps the most hated - and most dishonest - part of these agreements relates to investor protection. Of course, investors must be protected against the seizure of their assets rogue governments. But that's not what these provisions are about. There have been very few expropriations in recent decades, and investors seeking protection can buy insurance from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, a subsidiary of the World Bank, and the US and other governments provide similar insurance. However, US They are demanding such provisions in the TPP, even though many of their "partners" have protection of property and judicial systems that are as good as their own.

The real intent of these provisions is to prevent health, environment, safety, and, yes, even the financial regulations protecting own economy and citizens of the United States . Companies can sue governments for full compensation for any reduction in future expected benefits resulting from regulatory changes.

This is not just a theoretical possibility. Philip Morris has sued Uruguay and Australia to require warning labels on cigarettes. It is true that both countries were slightly beyond the US, the compulsory inclusion of graphic images depicting the consequences of smoking.

The labeling is working. It is discouraging smoking. So now Philip Morris is demanding to be compensated for lost profits.

In the future, if it is discovered that some other product cause health problems (think asbestos), rather than face lawsuits by the costs imposed on us, the manufacturer may sue governments to restrict them to kill more people . The same could happen if our governments impose stricter to protect us from the effects of emissions of greenhouse gases regulations.

When I chaired the Council of Economic Advisers to President Bill Clinton, anti-environmentalists tried to enact a similar provision, called "regulatory takings." They knew that once enacted, regulations would be brought to a halt simply because the government could not afford to pay the compensation. Fortunately, we succeeded in beating back the initiative, both in the courts and in Congress.

But now these groups are trying an end run around the democratic process by inserting such provisions in trade bills, the contents of which remain largely secret from the public (but not corporations that are pushing for them). It is only from leaks, and to talk with government officials seem more committed to democratic processes, we know what's going on.

Is central to the system of government of the United States is an impartial civil judiciary , with legal regulations built up over the decades, based on the principles of transparency, precedents, and the opportunity to appeal unfavorable decisions . All this is being set aside, and the new agreements require private arbitration, not transparent, and very expensive . Moreover, this arrangement is often riddled with conflicts of interest ; for example, the arbitrators may be a "judge" in one case and a defense in a related case.

The procedures are so expensive that Uruguay has had to resort to Michael Bloomberg and other wealthy Americans committed to the health of defense against Philip Morris. And while corporations can sue, others can not. If there is a violation of other commitments - in labor and environmental standards, for example - citizens, trade unions and civil society groups have no recourse.

If ever there was a unilateral dispute settlement mechanism that violates basic principles , that's all. So I joined leading US legal experts, including Harvard, Yale and Berkeley, writing a letter to President Barack Obama explaining how harmful to our justice system these agreements.

American supporters of such agreements state that the US defendants have been only a couple of times now, and have not lost a case. Companies, however, are just learning how to use these agreements to their advantage.

And the high cost of corporate lawyers in the US, Europe and Japan probably outmatch the underpaid government lawyers trying to defend the public interest. Worse, companies in advanced countries can establish subsidiaries in member countries through which they invest back home, and then sue, giving a new channel to block the legislation.

If there was a need to improve the protection of property, and if this, costly settlement mechanism private disputes were superior to a public judiciary, we should be changing the law not only for the wealthy foreign companies, but also for our own citizens and small businesses . But there has been no suggestion that this is the case.

Rules and regulations determine the type of economy and society in which people live. Affect relative bargaining power, with important implications for inequality, a growing problem worldwide. The question is whether we should allow wealthy corporations use hidden provisions in so-called trade agreements to dictate how we live in the XXI century . I hope people in the US, Europe, and the Pacific answer with a resounding no. 

Joseph E. Stiglitz , Nobel laureate in economics.

May 13, 2015

El factor TRABAJO y su inminente futuro

Talent versus Capital in the Twenty-First Century

 

GENEVA – When financial policymakers attempt to promote economic growth, they almost invariably focus on looking for new ways to unleash capital. But, although this approach may have worked in the past, it risks giving short shrift to the role that talent plays in generating and realizing the ideas that make growth possible. Indeed, in a future of rapid technological change and widespread automation, the determining factor – or crippling limit – to innovation, competiveness, and growth is less likely to be the availability of capital than the existence of a skilled workforce.

Geopolitical, demographic, and economic forces are relentlessly reshaping labor markets. Technology, in particular, is changing the nature of work itself, rendering entire sectors and occupations obsolete, while creating completely new industries and job categories. By some estimates, almost half of today’s professions could be automatable by 2025. Speculation about what will replace them ranges from predictions of unexpected opportunities to forecasts of large-scale unemployment as machines displace most human labor.

The first signs of this disruption are already visible. Global unemployment has topped 212 million, according to the International Labor Organization, and another 42 million new jobs will need to be created each year if the world economy is to provide employment to the growing number of new entrants into the labor market. Meanwhile, last year, 36% of employers worldwide reported facing difficulties in finding talent, the highest percentage in seven years.

Addressing this mismatch in supply and demand will require governments, business leaders, educational institutions, and individuals to overcome incentives to focus on the short term and begin to plan for a future in which change is the only constant. All must rethink what it means to learn, the nature of work, and the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders in ensuring that workers around the world are able to fulfill their potential.

Human-resource executives at some of the world’s largest companies anticipate profound disruptions from the increased adoption of mobile Internet and cloud technology, the use of big data, flexible work arrangements, 3-D printing, advanced materials, and new energy supplies, according to early results from a survey by the World Economic Forum. Their view of the overall impact on employment levels in their industries was for the most part positive – provided that new workforce skills can be developed rapidly in their own sectors and in the labor market more broadly.

As technology increasingly takes over knowledge-based work, the cognitive skills that are central to today’s education systems will remain important; but behavioral and non-cognitive skills necessary for collaboration, innovation, and problem solving will become essential as well. Today’s schools and universities, which are dominated by approaches to learning that are fundamentally individualistic and competitive in nature, must be redesigned to focus on learning to learn and acquiring the skills needed to collaborate with others. Uniquely human skills, like being able to work in teams, manage relationships, and understand cultural sensitivities will become vital for businesses across all sectors and must become a core component of future generations’ education.

Moreover, with education increasingly becoming a lifelong pursuit, businesses must rethink their role in providing for a competitive workforce. Some companies have already grasped this and are investing in their employees’ continuous learning, re-skilling, and up-skilling. Yet most employers still expect to obtain pre-trained talent from schools, universities, and other companies.

Business will increasingly have to work with educators and governments to help education systems keep up with the needs of the labor market. Given rapid change in the skill sets required for many occupations, business must redirect investment to on-the-job training and lifelong learning, particularly as millennials enter the workforce, seeking purpose and diversity of experience where their predecessors sought remuneration and stability.

Business cycles naturally entail peaks and troughs in employment, and socially responsible businesses should follow successful examples in working toward mitigating joblessness and enhancing people’s abilities to earn a livelihood.

Governments, too, have a role to play in creating an environment in which their citizens can reach their potential. Policymakers must use stronger metrics to assess human capital and reexamine investment in education, curriculum design, hiring and firing practices, women’s integration into the workforce, retirement policies, immigration legislation, and welfare policies. Regulatory support for entrepreneurship and small and medium-size enterprises remains one of the most underused means of unleashing creativity, enhancing growth, and generating employment.

Protecting workers and consumers is critical, but shielding specific industries from the impact of new business models will not hold off the next wave of transformation. Rather than seeking to rein in disruptive businesses such as Airbnb and Uber, governments should introduce regulations that enable their sustained growth, while looking for ways to leverage their technologies and entrepreneurial approaches to boost social welfare. Such policies include online education courses for the unemployed, digital workers’ insurance, virtual unionization, and tax policies geared for the sharing economy.

Unlocking the world’s latent talent, and thus its full capacity for growth, requires us to look beyond business cycles and quarterly reports. The future is full of potential, but only if we are smart enough – and courageous enough – to grasp it. 

Klaus Schwab is Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum.

MAY 13, 2015

Premio Europeo a los mejores fármacos del año...

Life-Saving Drugs for All

 

PRINCETON – The deadly outbreak of Ebola in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea that began last year highlighted a problem in the production of pharmaceuticals. Once it became clear that the epidemic would not be rapidly contained, several firms quickly arranged for clinical trials of potential treatments and vaccines, indicating that they already had the ability to produce plausible candidates.

Ebola is not a new disease: it was first identified in 1976. Prior to 2014, however, the largest outbreak was in Uganda, in 2000, when 425 people were infected and 224 died. Though Ebola was known to be both contagious and often fatal, it was thought that only Africa’s impoverished rural population was at risk. For pharmaceutical firms, the development of a vaccine or treatment was not commercially attractive, and so it did not warrant investment.

All that changed with the latest outbreak. In September 2014, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicted that, in the worst case, 1.4 million people could be infected within four months. Media-fed fears that the disease could spread to affluent countries led to extraordinary precautions. In the United States, President Barack Obama asked Congress for $6.2 billion, including $2.4 billion to reduce the risk of the disease becoming established in America and set up 50 US Ebola treatment centers.

The worst-case scenario did not materialize. As of April 2015, the best estimate is that about 25,000 people have been infected, with approximately 10,000 deaths. Outside West Africa, there have been fewer than 30 cases, and only five deaths. Nevertheless, the fears, and especially the prospect of a new and lucrative market, set pharmaceutical firms scrambling to develop Ebola-related products, while health officials lamented that nothing had been done beforehand.

I am not criticizing pharmaceutical companies for not producing an Ebola vaccine when there was no market for it. They are not charities. If we want them to make products that will help the poor in developing countries, we need to find ways of giving them – and their shareholders – a return on their investment.

Whereas pharmaceutical companies lack incentives to aid the poor in developing countries, they have strong incentives to develop products for people in affluent countries. One drug, Soliris, costs $440,000 per patient per year. In contrast, GiveWell estimates that the cost of saving a life by distributing bed nets in regions where malaria is a major killer is $3,400. Given that most of the lives saved are those of children, who even in developing countries have a life expectancy of at least 50 years, this equates to a cost of $68 per year of life saved. Should we really be valuing the life of a person in an affluent country at more than 6,000 times the value of the life of an impoverished child in a developing country?

Because the overwhelming majority of medical and pharmaceutical research is directed toward products that affect people in affluent countries, it targets only part of the global burden of disease. Some government- and foundation-funded research addresses diseases that primarily affect poor people, but these efforts are not systematic and do not use the incentives that work well to drive pharmaceutical innovation elsewhere.

One promising attempt to correct this imbalance is the proposal for a Health Impact Fund that Thomas Pogge, director of the Global Justice Program at Yale, and Aidan Hollis, an economist at the University of Calgary, launched seven years ago. If the Health Impact Fund could be adequately financed, it would provide incentives to develop products in proportion to their impact in reducing the global burden of disease.

It is not certain that the existence of such a fund prior to the recent Ebola outbreak would have led to the development of vaccines or treatments for the disease. But pharmaceutical companies would have been considering such products – as well as other treatments to save lives or improve health anywhere in the world, regardless of people’s ability to pay.

Pogge and Hollis have now refined their proposal to the point that it is ready for a real-world trial. A company that develops a product would earn a share of reward money based on its share of the health improvements achieved by all the products competing for the available funds. What is still needed, however, is sufficient reward money – perhaps $100 million from governments, NGOs, foundations and the pharmaceutical industry – to stimulate serious investment.

Such a pilot program would benefit poor patients and would test scientists’ ability to measure health impact fairly and accurately. It would also provide the evidence needed to go to governments, foundations, and global institutions for the much larger sums required to expand the present system of incentives that guide pharmaceutical companies’ decisions. If the pilot is successful, we will have found a way to support the development of drugs and vaccines that gives equal weight to protecting the lives and improving the health of all human beings, irrespective of their nationality or wealth. 

Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University.

MAY 12, 2015

En beneficio de todos: UN INTERNET LIBRE

Safeguarding the Open Internet

THE HAGUE – Proposals regarding Internet governance are bound to generate serious friction. The online world, after all, has provided enormous opportunities to billions of denizens, largely because it has never been governed.

And yet, as the Internet grows in importance, so do the risks inherent in the lack of regulation. There is a growing danger that the open platform we all cherish will increasingly be colonized by corporate greed, criminal activity, and conflict between states – with ordinary citizens the ultimate victims. It is essential that safeguards be put in place, and that countries and companies alike are bound by principles that encourage them to act in the common interest.

The utopian view that governments and other institutions should stay out of the way ignores the role that countries are already playing on the Internet, often secretly. Nor does it account for the fact that giant companies are exploiting this largely unregulated environment to set themselves up as the new sovereigns.

When a country censors online content on a massive scale or uses digital backdoors to monitor its citizens, the entire Internet feels the impact. Similarly, when companies with billions of users scattered around the world suffer data breaches or choose to pursue profits at the expense of universal human rights, it is not currently clear who can hold them to account.

Human rights cannot be “balanced” with the interests of states or commercial companies. Upholding core principles requires a system of checks and balances – mechanisms that can ensure that human rights, including privacy, are safeguarded, even as legitimate security concerns are taken into account. Doing this will require the key players responsible for the Internet’s openness to enter into a mix of voluntary and binding agreements that establish something akin to the rule of law.

Until now, discussions about Internet governance have aimed at establishing voluntary norms. These are important first steps, but if the process does not eventually lead to binding agreements, it is unlikely to succeed in keeping the Internet functioning and safe. Revelations of pervasive online surveillance have already eroded trust in the Internet and its suitability for communicating, accessing information, and doing business.

It is crucial that the Internet’s central protocols be declared a neutral zone, free from interference by any party, as per a recommendation by the scientific council that is advising the Dutch government. This measure, which will work only if it is binding, is in the interest of all countries and companies, because the trust that users have in the services built on top of these protocols depends on it. Among the protected elements would be TCP/IP protocol suites, various standards, the domain name system (DNS), and routing protocols.

The Global Commission on Internet Governance (of which I am a member) has put forward a proposal for “a new social compact” among citizens, their elected representatives, law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, businesses, civil-society groups, and programmers and developers. Among the provisions would be the recognition of privacy and personal data protection as a fundamental human right, and a call for clear, precise, and transparently created regulations that set limits on government surveillance and companies’ use of consumer data.

Under this framework, governance would strengthen the technology upon which the Internet depends. Governments would not seek to create backdoors to access data if doing so would make the Internet less secure. Companies that store or transmit consumer data would assume greater responsibility for illegal intrusion, damage, or destruction. And efforts by the Internet’s technical custodians to incorporate human-rights-enhancing solutions in standards and protocols, including end-to-end data encryption, would be encouraged.

Such a social compact and multi-stakeholder process would not replace judicial oversight and international human-rights law. Existing governance institutions should be brought to bear on Internet regulation wherever possible. But, given the enormous challenges that this entails, it is also necessary to encourage all actors to behave in the best interest of the Internet ecosystem as a whole. The dangers of doing otherwise are simply too great.

Marietje Schaake , MEP for the Dutch Democratic Party, is the founder of the Intergroup on the Digital Agenda for Europe and a commissioner of the World Commission on Internet Governance.

May 7, 2015

Alemania se ha quedado atascada en el E-barro

Germany v. Google

LONDON – American tech companies are under unprecedented attack by European Union regulators. The European Commission has charged Google with abusing its near-monopoly over Internet search in the EU to favor its own shopping services. It has also opened a probe of Google’s Android mobile operating system. And, as part of its just-announced “Digital Single Market Strategy,” the Commission is calling for a comprehensive investigation of the role of (mostly American) Internet platforms, such as social networks and app stores.

Questionable practices by companies from any country should be addressed in a fair, impartial way. But that seems unlikely to happen here. The key driver of the EU’s regulatory onslaught is not concern for the welfare of ordinary Europeans; it is the lobbying power of protectionist German businesses and their corporatist champions in government.

Germany’s government boasts about how “globally competitive” the country is, and its officials lecture their EU peers on the need to emulate their supposed reformist zeal. And yet, while the country remains a world-beating exporter in industries like automobiles, it is an also-ran in the Internet realm. There is no German equivalent of Google or Facebook. Stymied at home by red tape and a risk-averse culture, the most successful German Internet entrepreneurs live in Silicon Valley. While US-based companies conquer the cloud, Germany is stuck in the mud.

With Germany’s digital start-ups stifled by overregulation and underinvestment, dinosaurs from the analogue world set the policy agenda. Traditional media companies resent their reliance on Google to direct traffic to their sites and its ability to sell advertising based on snippets of their content. The partly state-owned Deutsche Telekom hates that it does not earn additional revenue when people use its network to make calls on Skype, send messages on WhatsApp, and watch videos on Netflix and YouTube. TUI, the world’s largest travel agency and tour operator, feels threatened by TripAdvisor. Retailers fear Amazon’s ever-expanding empire.

Germany was the first EU country to institute a national ban on Uber, at the behest of taxi drivers fearful of competition. And Germany’s powerful industrial lobby frets that American tech companies could eat their manufacturing lunch. As Günther Oettinger, the EU’s (German) digital commissioner, put it, “If we do not pay enough attention, we might invest in producing wonderful cars, but those selling the new services for the car would be making the money.” Whereas Oettinger’s predecessor, Neelie Kroes, championed the potential of disruptive technologies to benefit consumers and boost economic growth, Oettinger is unashamedly corporatist in advancing German business interests.

German companies are not alone in fearing American competition, but their influence within the 

European Commission is decisive. Indeed, Germany has never had more clout in the EU. The debt crisis, which distracted France and alienated the United Kingdom, has thrust Germany, the eurozone’s largest creditor, into the European driver’s seat.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker owes his position to the European People’s Party, the center-right political grouping dominated by German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, which in turns holds sway over the European Parliament. Juncker is also indebted to the Axel Springer media group, the publisher of Bild, Germany’s best-selling tabloid newspaper, which strongly backed him last summer when Merkel was wavering. And his German chief of staff, Martin Selmayr, ensures that his country’s concerns are heeded across the Commission.

Last year, Germany pressured Joaquín Almunia, the EU’s then-competition commissioner, not to settle its antitrust dispute with Google, enabling his successor, Margrethe Vestager, to pursue it. In fact, the investigation into Internet platforms comes at the demand of Germany’s economics minister, Sigmar Gabriel. And its outcome seems preordained; in a leaked position paper, Oettinger proposes a powerful new EU regulator to rein in online platforms. He recently spoke of the need to “replace today’s Web search engines, operating systems, and social networks.”

No one forces Europeans to use Google as a search engine; competitors are only a click away. For shopping, Europeans increasingly bypass it, searching directly on Amazon or eBay, or navigating through Facebook. So Google scarcely controls, much less monopolizes, this rapidly evolving landscape. Nor have shoppers suffered. But, whereas US antitrust law rightly focuses on whether consumers are being harmed, EU competition authorities also consider whether rival firms have lost out – including old-fashioned shopping portals, such as Ladenzeile.de, owned by Axel Springer.

Creating a digital single market makes sense. Whereas every American Internet start-up benefits from a huge domestic market, their European counterparts are limited by domestic regulations to smaller local markets.

Unfortunately, the European Commission’s proposals are not focused on enabling Italians to buy from British websites or opening a market of 500 million Europeans to Spanish startups. Their main goal seems to be to constrain American digital platforms. As Gabriel put it in a letter to the Commission last November: “The EU has an attractive single market and significant political means to structure it; the EU must bring these factors into play in order to assert itself against other parties involved at the global level.”

Instead of conspiring to hobble its American rivals, stifle innovation, and deprive Europeans of the full benefit of the Internet, Germany should practice what it preaches and make the difficult reforms it needs to raise its game. It should make it easier to start and expand Internet businesses. It should boost investment in broadband infrastructure and digital technologies. And it should throw its weight behind a genuine EU digital single market that benefits consumers and enables startups to flourish, instead of a backdoor industrial policy that favors Germany’s digital flops.

Philippe Legrain

MAY 7, 2015

Paises Islámicos ¿por qué pasa lo que pasa?

How Iran Is Winning

TEL AVIV – In 2003, the United States – which, along with its NATO allies, had already occupied Afghanistan – toppled Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq and overran his army. Iran’s leaders, alarmed that they were being encircled, lost no time in offering the West a grand bargain covering all contentious issues, from nuclear-weapons development – they halted their military nuclear program – to regional security, including the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and their backing of Hezbollah and Hamas.

The recent framework agreement on Iran’s nuclear program has had the opposite effect. Though the deal does slow Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, it does not restrain – or even address – the regime’s hegemonic ambitions in the region, for which it has already spent billions of dollars and suffered crippling sanctions. As a result, the framework agreement is creating strategic chaos in an already dysfunctional region. A future in which regional powers like Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia (which has worked closely with Pakistan on the nuclear front) possess threshold nuclear capabilities is becoming more likely that ever.

These are glorious days for Iran. After more than a decade of diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions, its status as a threshold nuclear state has been internationally legitimized. Moreover, it has managed to compel the US to abandon its dream of regime change, and to coexist – and even engage – with an Islamic theocracy that it finds repugnant.

The regional balance of power is already tilting in Iran’s favor. In Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria, Iranian proxies have prevailed over Saudi-backed groups. And the Iran-backed Houthis remain in control of Yemen, despite Saudi airstrikes.

Iran’s leaders can thank George W. Bush. Far from producing the outcome that they feared in 2003, Bush’s wars in the Middle East left Iran as the most influential actor in Iraq. As Saudi officials have observed, Iranian militias fighting the Islamic State in predominantly Sunni regions north and west of Baghdad hope to reinforce their country’s control over Iraq.

The perceived threat posed by the Islamic State has also caused the US to drop ousting Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Iran’s main regional ally, from its agenda. Indeed, the US has ended up indirectly allied with Hezbollah, a key Iranian proxy, which is fighting alongside Assad’s troops against foreign jihadi forces.

Meanwhile, America’s relationship with its traditional Arab allies – the region’s conservative Sunni regimes – is faltering, owing largely to US President Barack Obama’s failure to respond effectively in the aftermath of the Arab Spring uprisings. Obama’s offers of security guarantees and “nuclear umbrellas” have not been able to restore their trust. (Such security guarantees are, after all, implicit.)

For Iran’s enemies, the message of the framework agreement is clear: protect your own vital interests, rather than waiting for the US. And that is precisely what countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are doing, having established a joint Arab military force to fight Iranian influence in the region, as well as discreet security links with Israel, another self-declared victim of the framework agreement.

Turkey is also engaging in strategic recalculations. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who called Iran his “second home” during a visit to Tehran last year, recently accused the Islamic Republic of “seeking to dominate the region.”

As a result, Turkey now finds itself collaborating with Saudi Arabia in backing the Al Nusra Front, the Syrian arm of Al Qaeda, which captured Idlib in the first major military setback for Assad in recent months. Still, Turkey’s recent behavior – from Erdoğan’s shocking call for an end to the Sykes-Picot system to its de facto collusion with the Islamic State’s siege of the Kurdish town of Kobani, just over the border in Syria – has discouraged the region’s major Sunni powers from pursuing closer ties.

But no regional leader is as frantic – or as dangerous – as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. In his vulgar use of Holocaust metaphors to portray the Iranian threat, he sounds more like the principal of a Jewish ghetto about to be annihilated by an agitated mob than the prime minister of the most powerful country in the Middle East.

Netanyahu’s lack of self-awareness is perhaps best exemplified in his interactions with Obama. He expects the US to offer Israel security assistance to face the challenge that Iran poses, even as he barges clumsily into Obama’s political backyard and forges alliances with his domestic opponents.

In fact, Netanyahu has fundamentally misunderstood the Iran challenge: It is not an existential threat, but part of a broader struggle for regional mastery. Rather than engaging in an unrealistic campaign to kill the nuclear agreement, Netanyahu should have been focusing on the strategic implications of Iran’s rise. It is Iran’s geopolitical behavior, not its threshold nuclear status, that matters.

Of course, Netanyahu is intentionally exaggerating the Iranian threat to deflect attention from Israel’s real problems – especially its enduring conflict with Palestine. But he can hope to obscure the sins of occupation only temporarily. If the Palestine issue is not resolved soon, there can be no lasting alliances with “moderate” Sunni powers to counter Iran.

In order to bring some semblance of stability to the Middle East, the US must think beyond the framework nuclear agreement with Iran and develop, with all stakeholders, a collective security regime – an initiative that will require the US to regain the trust of its allies in the region. In reality, the key question has never been when Iran will develop a nuclear weapon, but how to integrate it into a stable regional system before it does. 

Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, is Vice President of the Toledo International Center for Peace.
APR 27, 2015

La Revolución Tecnológica y nuestra preparación tecnológica

The Age of Adaptation

GENEVA – The world needs to stop looking backward. Since the 2008 financial crisis, we have wasted far too much energy trying to return to the days of rapid economic expansion. The flawed assumption that the post-crisis world's challenges were only temporary has underpinned policies that have yielded only lackluster recoveries, while failing to address key problems like high unemployment and rising inequality.

The post-crisis era is over, and the “post-post-crisis world" is upon us. It is time to adopt a new framework of realistic solutions that promote shared prosperity within the global economy of today and tomorrow.

In this new era, economic growth will occur more slowly – but potentially more sustainably – than it did before the crisis. And technological change will be its driving force. Indeed, just as the Industrial Revolution transformed the productive potential of societies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a new wave of technological breakthroughs is reshaping economic and even social dynamics today. The difference is that this revolution's impact will be even greater.

One outstanding feature of this revolution is the scope and scale of its disruptiveness. The Industrial Revolution occurred relatively slowly, like long waves in the ocean; though it began in the 1780s, its impact was not really felt until the 1830s and 1840s. The current technological revolution, by contrast, hits economies like a tsunami, with little warning and inexorable force.

The pace of change has been accelerated by the interconnected nature of today's world. Technological progress is occurring within a complex and deeply integrated ecosystem, meaning that it simultaneously affects economic structures, governments, security arrangements, and people's daily lives.

In order to prepare a country to reap the benefits of rapid, far-reaching change, policymakers must account for the entirety of the ecosystem in which it is taking place, ensuring that government, business, and society all adjust to every shift. In other words, competing in the twenty-first century economy will require relentless adaptation.

Nothing is off limits. Every practice and standard will have to be rethought. Every industry will be at risk of being turned on its head. The car-sharing service Uber, for example, has not only changed how people get around; it also appears to be leading a retail revolution in which goods and services are “Uberized" – customers pay to use them, not own them.

The manufacturing industry, meanwhile, will be similarly transformed by 3D printing technology. Supply chains will be eliminated or reshaped – an expectation that the CEO of a major aluminum manufacturer recently described. He knows that, in order to succeed, firms will have to anticipate and respond to such trends. Gone are the days of big fish eating small fish. In the post-post-crisis world, fast fish will dominate – and slow fish will die.

But the current technological revolution is not just reshaping what we produce and how we produce it; it is fundamentally reshaping who we are – our habits, interests, and worldviews. Consider the vast difference between the way young people and older generations interpret privacy in the Internet age. It is also extending our lifespans, with one in two babies born today in Switzerland expected to live more than 100 years.

On balance, the impact of technological progress will be positive. But that does not negate the massive challenge it will pose.

For example, job automation will ultimately propel more people toward higher-paying, more productive employment that is better suited to the new era of “talentism," when human imagination and innovation, not capital or natural resources, drive economic growth. But, if workers fail to acquire the skills to fill these new positions, they will be left behind.

Government, more than any other sector, can shape the impact of technological change, ensuring that challenges are addressed and opportunities are seized. Indeed, it should be at the forefront of such change, by creating an environment that encourages private-sector innovation and creativity, while ensuring that citizens are equipped to compete.

Of course, governments cannot always be ahead of the curve. They will also have to react and respond to new needs and demands, such as the expectation that public services meet the same level of high-tech efficiency and convenience that private companies offer.

Change may be frightening, but it is inevitable. And, in fact, it is an important source of opportunity to improve our systems, our strategies, and ourselves. The latest wave of technological change is far from cresting. We should be excited – and filled with hope – by where it could take us. 

Klaus Schwab is Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum.

FEB 19, 2015

URGENTE 'Es muy necesario aspirar nuevamente a una igualdad social y económica y a una solidaridad internacional'.

The end 1945

 

NEW YORK - May 8, 1945, when World War II officially ended in Europe, much of the world was in ruins. But if the human ability to destroy knows few limits, the ability to start over is so remarkable. Such this is why mankind has managed to survive until now.

Certainly, millions of people in the end of the war were too hungry and tired to do anything beyond stay alive. At the same time, a wave of idealism swept the wreckage, a collective sense of determination to build more equitable, peaceful and safer world. 

That is why great war hero, Winston Churchill, was dismissed in the summer of 1945, even before Japan surrendered. The men and women had not risked their lives simply to return to the old days of privileges class and social deprivation. They wanted better housing, education and free medical care for all.

Similar demands were heard throughout Europe, where the anti-Nazi and anti-fascist resistance was often led by leftists and even communists and conservatives in prewar were frequently contaminated by collaboration with fascist regimes. There was talk of revolution in countries France, Italy and Greece. This did not happen, because neither the Western allies, and the Soviet Union supported. Stalin was content to settle for an empire in Eastern Europe. 

But even Charles de Gaulle, leader of the resistance of the right, had to accept Communists in his first post-war government, and agreed to nationalize industries and banks. The shift to the left, social democratic welfare states, occurred in Western Europe. It was part of the 1945 consensus.

A different kind of revolution took place in the former European colonies in Asia, where native peoples had no desire to be ruled again by the Western powers, which had been so ignominiously defeated by Japan. Vietnamese, Indonesians, Filipinos , Burmese, Indians and Malays wanted freedom, too.

These aspirations are often expressed in the United Nations, founded in 1945. The UN, as the dream of European unity, was also part of the 1945 consensus. For a short time, many prominent people - Albert Einstein, for example - believed Only a world government would be able to ensure world peace.

This dream quickly faded when the Cold War divided the world into two hostile blocs. But somehow the 1945 consensus, in the West, was strengthened by the policy of the Cold War. Communism, still wrapped in the leaf of laurel antifascism, had a great intellectual and emotional appeal, not only in the so-called Third World, but also in Western Europe. The Social Democracy, with its promise of greater equality and opportunity for all, served as an ideological antidote. Most the Social Democrats were indeed fiercely anti-communist.

Today, 70 years later, most of the 1945 agreement no longer survives. Few people can muster great enthusiasm by the UN. The European dream is in crisis. And the social democratic welfare state of war is eroding more and every day.

The rot began during the 1980s under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The neoliberals attacked the expense of social welfare programs and the vested interests of the trade unions. Citizens, it was thought, had to become more self sufficient assistance programs social government were doing everything soft and dependent world. In the famous words of Thatcher, there was no such thing as "society", only families and individuals who should be taking care of themselves.

But the consensus 1945 suffered a much greater blow just when we all rejoice in the collapse of the Soviet empire, the other great tyranny of the twentieth century. In 1989, it looked as if the dark legacy of the Second World War, the enslavement of Europe This was over. And in many ways, it was. But much more collapsed with the Soviet model. The social democracy has lost its raison d'être as an antidote to communism. All forms of leftist ideology - indeed, everything that smacked of collective idealism - came to be seen as misguided utopianism that could only lead to the Gulag.

Neoliberalism filled the void, creating vast wealth for some, but at the expense of the ideal of equality that had emerged from the Second World War. The extraordinary reception of Thomas Piketty capital in the XXI century shows how they felt deeply the consequences of the fall of the left.

In recent years, other ideologies have also emerged to fill the human need for collective ideals. The rise of right-wing populism reflects aspirations of pure national communities that keep immigrants and minorities was revived. And, against all logic, US neoconservatives have transformed the internationalism of the old left, trying to impose a democratic world order by military force.

The answer to these alarming events is not nostalgia. We can not return to the past. Too much has changed. However, a new aspiration towards social and economic equality and international solidarity is very necessary. It can not be the same as 1945 consensus, but would do well, on this anniversary, to remember why that consensus was forged in the first place.

Ian Buruma is Professor of Democracy, Human Rights and Journalism at Bard College.

May 5, 2015

Varoufakis ve la solución de Grecia en un 'Banco de Desarrollo' y un 'Banco Malo'

Un plan para la recuperación de Grecia

 

ATHENS – Months of negotiations between our government and the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, and the European Central Bank have produced little progress. One reason is that all sides are focusing too much on the strings to be attached to the next liquidity injection and not enough on a vision of how Greece can recover and develop sustainably. If we are to break the current impasse, we must envisage a healthy Greek economy.

Sustainable recovery requires synergistic reforms that unleash the country’s considerable potential by removing bottlenecks in several areas: productive investment, credit provision, innovation, competition, social security, public administration, the judiciary, the labor market, cultural production, and, last but not least, democratic governance.

Seven years of debt deflation, reinforced by the expectation of everlasting austerity, have decimated private and public investment and forced anxious, fragile banks to stop lending. With the government lacking fiscal room, and Greek banks burdened by non-performing loans, it is important to mobilize the state’s remaining assets and unclog the flow of bank credit to healthy parts of the private sector.

To restore investment and credit to levels consistent with economic escape velocity, a recovering Greece will require two new public institutions that work side by side with the private sector and with European institutions: A development bank that harnesses public assets and a “bad bank” that enables the banking system to get out from under their non-performing assets and restore the flow of credit to profitable, export-oriented firms.

Imagine a development bank levering up collateral that comprises post-privatization equity retained by the state and other assets (for example, real estate) that could easily be made more valuable (and collateralized) by reforming their property rights. Imagine that it links the European Investment Bank and the European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s €315 billion ($350 billion) investment plan with Greece’s private sector. Instead of being viewed as a fire sale to fill fiscal holes, privatization would be part of a grand public-private partnership for development.

Imagine further that the “bad bank” helps the financial sector, which was recapitalized generously by strained Greek taxpayers in the midst of the crisis, to shed their legacy of non-performing loans and unclog their financial plumbing. In concert with the development bank’s virtuous impact, credit and investment flows would flood the Greek economy’s hitherto arid realms, eventually helping the bad bank turn a profit and become “good.”

Finally, imagine the effect of all of this on Greece’s financial, fiscal, and social-security ecosystem: With bank shares skyrocketing, our state’s losses from their recapitalization would be extinguished as its equity in them appreciates. Meanwhile, the development bank’s dividends would be channeled into the long-suffering pension funds, which were abruptly de-capitalized in 2012 (owing to the “haircut” on their holdings of Greek government bonds).

In this scenario, the task of bolstering social security would be completed with the unification of pension funds; the surge of contributions following the pickup in employment; and the return to formal employment of workers banished into informality by the brutal deregulation of the labor market during the dark years of the recent past.

One can easily imagine Greece recovering strongly as a result of this strategy. In a world of ultra-low returns, Greece would be seen as a splendid opportunity, sustaining a steady stream of inward foreign direct investment. But why would this be different from the pre-2008 capital inflows that fueled debt-financed growth? Could another macroeconomic Ponzi scheme really be avoided?

During the era of Ponzi-style growth, capital flows were channeled by commercial banks into a frenzy of consumption and by the state into an orgy of suspect procurement and outright profligacy. To ensure that this time is different, Greece will need to reform its social economy and political system. Creating new bubbles is not our government’s idea of development.

This time, by contrast, the new development bank would take the lead in channeling scarce homegrown resources into selected productive investment. These include startups, IT companies that use local talent, organic-agro small and medium-size enterprises, export-oriented pharmaceutical companies, efforts to attract the international film industry to Greek locations, and educational programs that take advantage of Greek intellectual output and unrivaled historic sites.

In the meantime, Greece’s regulatory authorities would be keeping a watchful eye over commercial lending practices, while a debt brake would prevent our government from indulging in old, bad habits, ensuring that our state never again slips into primary deficits. Cartels, anti-competitive invoicing practices, senselessly closed professions, and a bureaucracy that has traditionally turned the state into a public menace would soon discover that our government is their worst foe.

The barriers to growth in the past were an unholy alliance among oligarchic interests and political parties, scandalous procurement, clientelism, the permanently broken media, overly accommodating banks, weak tax authorities, and a weighed-down, fearful judiciary. Only the bright light of democratic transparency can remove such impediments; our government is determined to help it shine through.

Yanis Varoufakis es ministro de Finanzas de Grecia.

06 de mayo 2015

Y mañana elecciones: ¿Son dignos los Gobiernos que elegimos?

“La socialdemocracia será eclipsada por fuerzas más radicales”

Un ‘chacal rebuznante’, según Fox News. Socialista. Columnista del Guardian”. Así se define Owen Jones, 31 años (nacido en Sheffield, Inglaterra, 1984) en su perfil de Twitter. En 2011, con solo 27 años, publicó un libro —Chavs, la demonización de la clase obrera— que se convirtió en un fenómeno editorial y a su autor, en una de las voces más influyentes de la izquierda británica. Su nuevo ensayo, El establishment (Seix Barral), es un estudio de la historia política de Reino Unido después de la II Guerra Mundial, a través del grupo de poder que la domina, desafiando a la democracia desde arriba y unido por el objetivo común de mantener un sistema que Jones considera nefasto y perverso. Nos recibe en un café del norte de Londres, a pocas semanas de unas elecciones cruciales para el futuro de su país y, afirma, para el de la propia izquierda en Europa.

Pregunta. Augura que las generaciones futuras mirarán atrás y contemplarán con asombro y desprecio cómo se organiza hoy la sociedad británica. ¿Tan grave es?

Respuesta. Es injusta e insostenible. Tenemos una sociedad en la que la riqueza de los mil que más tienen se ha duplicado durante los cinco años de una de las mayores crisis económicas que ha sufrido este país, mientras un millón de personas tienen que recurrir a los bancos de alimentos. Es una sociedad perversa.

P. ¿La culpa es del establishment?

R. Hubo mucha resistencia a la democracia en este país por el miedo de los de arriba a que, si todo el mundo podía votar, habría una redistribución de la riqueza y el poder. Era cierto: la democracia conlleva una redistribución. Pero en los últimos 30 años ha habido un intento de recuperar el poder y la riqueza perdidas. Y eso es el establishment. Un colectivo unido por intereses económicos, mentalidades y conjeturas comunes.

P. ¿Una conspiración?

R. No. Una unión de intereses que colisionan con la democracia. Es la amenaza a la democracia desde arriba. Este establishment exhibe un triunfalismo sin precedentes. Cree que ha derrotado a todos sus enemigos. La manera en que funciona la sociedad parece inevitable.

P. ¿Estamos resignados a su poder?

R. El establishment depende de un sentimiento de resignación. Es como el tiempo: puedes protestar porque llueve pero no puedes hacer nada. Pero las encuestas revelan que la opinión de la mayoría de los votantes entra en colisión con el establishment. La mayoría apoya la renacionalización de los trenes y de la energía, quieren más impuestos para los ricos, más derechos de los trabajadores. En temas económicos se identifican más con la izquierda. Pero ha cuajado un sentimiento de que no hay alternativa.

P. Ha ayudado, sostiene usted, un redireccionamiento del enfado.

R. A los trabajadores que cobran sueldos miserables se les dice que no es con sus jefes con quien deben enfadarse sino con los parados que viven lujosamente o con el inmigrante que les quita sus recursos. El establishment le dice a la gente: te han robado, pero no te enfades por el hecho de que te hayan robado, sino por que a tu vecino le han robado menos.

P. Predican el libre mercado pero, según usted, dependen del Estado más que ningún otro colectivo. ¿En qué sentido?

R. Esa es la ironía. El sector financiero no fue rescatado por el dogma del libre mercado, sino por el Estado. Es socialismo para los ricos y capitalismo para los pobres.

P. ¿Se puede combatir a ese establishment desde la política?

 

R. El debate político está hoy en los matices y no en los contrastes radicales. El final de la Guerra Fría fue el final de la historia, en palabras de Fukuyama. La izquierda como visión de la sociedad colapsó. El nuevo laborismo fue un producto del fracaso. Asumió los presupuestos del thatcherismo, igual que los Gobiernos conservadores de los años cincuenta aceptaron los del laborismo de posguerra. En 2008 la presunción de la izquierda, o de lo que restaba de ella, fue que el neoliberalismo había quedado desacreditado, así que emergería una alternativa. Pero eso no pasó. Milton Friedman dijo que los cambios se consiguen a través de una crisis, pero depende de las ideas que haya en el aire. Y la izquierda no tenía muchas ideas en 2008. Por eso la derecha mantuvo su hegemonía intelectual.

P. ¿Cómo ve usted al laborismo hoy?

R. La gente tiende a olvidar dónde estaba el nuevo laborismo. ¡Era tan abiertamente neoliberal! Ha cambiado bastante, aunque no se acerque ni de lejos a donde llegaría yo. Y lo ha hecho porque la ciudadanía desde diferentes foros lo ha reclamado. Frederick Douglass dijo que el poder no concede nada sin una demanda. Si hay presión desde abajo puede cambiar.

P. ¿Qué espera de ellos?

R. Su misión original era ser la voz de los trabajadores. Y estos han sufrido la mayor caída en sus ingresos desde la época victoriana. La mayor parte de la gente que está en la pobreza trabaja. Se levanta por la mañana para ganarse su pobreza. El laborismo debe preguntarse por qué vivimos en una sociedad que sirve a los poderosos en lugar de a los verdaderos generadores de riqueza. La riqueza la creamos todos: los trabajadores, el Estado, el profesor, el médico, los limpiadores. Debe estar mejor distribuida.

P. ¿En qué consiste la revolución democrática que usted propone?

R. La democracia está amenazada por los poderosos y debemos volver a conquistar la soberanía de la gente.

P. ¿La casta de Podemos es lo mismo que su establishment?

R. Supongo que sí. Para ellos es un poder al que no se le puede exigir responsabilidades, corrupto legal y moralmente, cuyo comportamiento colisiona con los intereses de la mayoría de la sociedad. España demuestra que, cuando la gente lo pasa mal, no es inevitable que la beneficiada sea la derecha populista. Es una lección para todos nosotros. No tiene por qué haber una política del miedo: es posible una política de la esperanza. La política de la esperanza dice que la injusticia es temporal y puede superarse.

P. Usted se define como socialista. Podemos, en cambio, parece haber renunciado a esa dialéctica de derecha e izquierda.

R. Lo entiendo. Creo que solo intentan comunicar sus ideas en una sociedad donde la izquierda ha sufrido enormes calamidades y derrotas políticas.

P. ¿Podría triunfar un movimiento así si se define como de izquierdas?

R. Yo soy socialista. Creo que la retórica de derecha e izquierda sigue siendo válida. Pero es la gente ya politizada la que piensa en términos de derecha o izquierda, los que vivimos en la burbuja política. La mayoría piensa en términos de vivienda, empleo, servicios, salarios, hijos. Y hay que afrontar esas preocupaciones de una manera convincente. Quien quiera cambiar la sociedad debe mirar dónde hay un movimiento con éxito y ver qué han hecho bien, y qué ha hecho mal las izquierda tradicional.

P. ¿Es esta incapaz de proporcionar el cambio que usted busca?

R. Grecia y España demuestran que, si la socialdemocracia ataca a su propia base, no puede confiar en la lealtad de esta porque encontrará alternativas. Si el laborismo llega al poder y ataca a sus seguidores, atravesará su propia pasokificación y eso podría abrir el camino a fuerzas como Podemos o Syriza. Vivimos en una era en la que la socialdemocracia puede ser eclipsada por fuerzas más radicales. Tras la Guerra Fría, eso no estaba en el guion. En la era de la austeridad, el proyecto de la socialdemocracia está en una crisis profunda y será eclipsado por fuerzas más radicales.

P. ¿Toda era, incluida esta, vive en la ilusión de que es permanente?

R. El búho de Minerva solo emprende el vuelo con la llegada del ocaso, decía Hegel. Creo que estamos ante el ocaso de esta era. La transición a una nueva será muy difícil, pero sucederá. Cuando el neoliberalismo tuvo su auge, que aquí fue con el thatcherismo, la izquierda era triunfalista. Creían que Thatcher no iba a durar. Mis padres lo creían. No se dieron cuenta de que asistían a la construcción de una nueva era. Las enseñanzas de nuestros antecesores, que desafiaron viejos órdenes y ganaron, deberían darnos esperanza y dar miedo a los poderosos. Demuestran que todo orden caerá y será sustituido. Lo importante es qué lo sustituye. Yo quiero una sociedad construida para la gente trabajadora, creadora de riqueza, no para una élite. Una sociedad donde la democracia alcance. Esa sociedad será construida algún día y esta, también, pasará.