My account

http://www.iloveushopping.com

http://www.iloveushopping.com

http://www.iloveushopping.com

http://www.iloveushopping.com

Based on Einstein's theory of special relativity this road goes for approximately 20 Earth years, however, based on the latest nutrino findings a short cut via a global warming agenda (refer road sign) could mean that this road ends sooner than expected.

"Rational or not, perceptions matter."

I am sure the worldwide congregation if oily §hit and $hit would agree with that. As The Economist is a British magazine and both BP and Shell are Britsh and British/dutch companies with enormous significance, this can be understood by "following the money". Far from enlightened though.
Oil has cost the lives of Millions Of Iraqis, Iranians and Germans. The war for "Lebensraum" was also a war for Romanian and Baku Oil. German war strategy was highly influenced by the Need For Oil. A VERY large part of Germany was "not-inhabitable-for-Germans" after that Oil Exploration Called World War 2.

Expect to see More Oil Wars soon; brought to you by BP and Lockheed Martin - Partners In Nastiness(TM).

"Ceiling" - what "ceiling"????? America's overall debt is a skyrocketing 200 trillion "Mission:Impossible-Armageddon".It's "ceiling" is since long that of "Fuckedupshima"!!!

A recent Time article predicts that humans will have indefinitely long life in 35 years. You would think that radiation hardening might also be possible in that time frame. Alternately a rail gun on the moon, solar powered, could put a lot of mass into space. I would think, especially for space, humans would need some sort of implant so they could get power from an electric plug or something. This growing of food method is so inefficient. Space is however very expensive. We need to find an economic reason for humans to be there. Studying human reaction to space has little economic benefit to people back on earth,

Stability is THE condition for China to grow into a wealthy and strong country – this is the only belief shared by Western media, the CCP government, and the Chinese mass.

THIS IS WHY you always see columns like Banyan clamoring for protests in China. THIS IS WHY the CCP government is so resolute to crush dissidents. THIS IS WHY the Chinese mass are indifferent to Banyan and go on their lives as usual.

Self Managed Super Funds are highly successful in Australia, now being the largest single sector. The comments about fees are inaccurate when larger sums are involved, but not viable for smaller investors.

Most SMSF investors want to be less reliant on Government hand outs, not more, so do not blow their funds quickly. And paying off debt is obviously a sane thing to do. A no-brainer, particularly in line with Australian social security rules.

The real scam here involves B & C grade fund managers cutting discounted low fee mandate deals with Union based Industry Super Funds in Australia, with the Union funds retaining hidden fee differentials to pay for their very expensive TV advertising, criticising their competitors; ie the retail funds & financial advisers. Not to mention compulsory default union super funds, which direct their funds to their mates' favourite property deals, which pay even more secret property directors fees.

If there has ever been a reason to not allow Unions to control retirement funds, Australia is the clear test case for it.

It's inevitable China will become the ruler of this planet. The only thing preventing it is perhaps the alient technologies like the Aurora that the US possess when Eisenhower entered into a treaty in 1954 with the ET called the Greada Treaty.

Actually abzs2k, you do have mammary glands, they're just not as obvious as the nipples on your chest. There is such a thing as male lactation in both human and non human mammals. If you're curious, google "male lactation", and you will get about three million hits.

I retired in 2006 at 65 after 49+ years work, my grandson cannot find a job.
I would appreciate an economist's explanation of the mechanics that require my children to work to 70 when my grand children cannot find work.
My logical process has malfunctioned, how do I explain this to my family and ensure that they think I still have my marbles.
Thank you for any advice.

To the economista and many other, i believe that you are being too hard on Ms Fujimori. Today I am 20 and i recall my mother telling me how she waited with me in her arms for my father. Listening to the bombs of terrorist groups and waiting for him under candlelight. We could not move from Lima due to the possibility of being murdered, and due to a lack of roads to other places in Peru. This is what Alberto Fujimori did. Putting aside how his government ended, people seem to have forgotten that it was him who eliminated terrorism, who created the roads and who built schools in every little village all over Peru. The presidents after him, Toledo and Garcia, had it easy, as the real problems had already been eliminated. However, due to a lack of maintenance, all the school and roads have began to degrade. Ms Fujimori, as she has said, will show people that the state has not forgotten about them, as has happened so many times before, and would, instead, plant the bases for a developed country. This not only in Lima, the capital, but also in provinces, where poverty is the highest.

As for Humala, he is a Chavez follower, as you have said. He will make Peru grow back 20 years, with all his changes in the constitution and the nationalization of private companies. However with the help of Lula's marketing advisors, he has changed his speech to look more democratic. However, this is just a lie. When you listen to him speak and you read his plan of action, you notice a lot of differences. I ask: why would someone try to disguise who he really is, if it not because even he knows it's not the best option? Answer: Because he knows that people will not want what he really offers.

On the other hand, Mr Kuczynski, is probably the best for the country. He has experience and a thorough knowledge in politics and economics. He will help Peru grow with foreign investment and will try and reduce poverty, not with the trickle down effect, but with actual help, such as services for all, schools, health care and legalizing informal businesses. He is what the country needs!

re Condotierro and Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism:

"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

---Theoretically it could be, and morally it ought to be, but in practice capitalism is a system that favours one means of production over the other. It recognizes the rights of capital (the few)while subjugating the rights of labour (the many). Hence the dying unionism and labour benefits with rising corporate profits. Hence why the US can't afford healthcare, but it can feed the military-industrial machine.

"Free Market: In a free market, all prices, wages, and profits are determined—not by the arbitrary whim of the rich or of the poor, not by anyone’s “greed” or by anyone’s need—but by the law of supply and demand. The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgment. A man can grow rich only if he is able to offer better values—better products or services, at a lower price—than others are able to offer."

---The idea that the market is this autonomous magic machine that sets supply and demand but is outside of society and free of human vice (and therefore free to function without moral restraint) - is what's gotten us into this whole mess in the first place. Supply and demand IS the sum of the GREED and NEED of humanity. The things we buy on the market are to satisfy our needs or because we simply want to have things others don't have. And a man can grow rich by offering lower prices- in a competitive market, or he can grow rich by monopolizing. The obvious trend to anyone whose paying attention is that free markets tend towards monopolies over the long run, not increased competition.

Further, as it has been pointed out: there is no such thing as a perfectly free market. The government must intervene to make and keep the market free in the first place, as in the case of Free Trade Agreements. There is, however, a spectrum of how much leverage the State (and by extension society) has to restrain or regulate the market. The 'free market' of the US can then be compared to the regulated market of Scandinavian countries but they are all functioning in the capitalist world economy.

Now to the graph: It is certainly true that how people understand the concepts of 'capitalism' and the 'free market' makes strict comparisons across countries impossible. Worrying about semantics and comparability misses the point though: an increasing number of people across the world are becoming disenchanted with the current capitalist world economy and how it is functioning. That does not automatically mean that they want communism. I didn't realize a better capitalism was off the table?

If any budget that drastically cuts spending is considered radical, I pose the question how radical is it for a country to significantly outspend what it earns in revenues. How can we really know if we support all of things the U.S. government spends money on if we are not forced to pay for it that year? For instance, if I support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan shouldn't we be asked to pay that year in taxes for the actual costs of that endeavor? How can I really judge the merits of any activity if I don’t need to pay for it? I find many people support broad spending measure, as long as the government makes no effort to collect the appropriate taxes to support those spending measures.
More importantly, it will be impossible for the US to regain its economic footing unless we radically reform government spending. The government is so big now that it commands most of the work in the U.S. private sector, and leaves little incentive to innovative organizations to look outside of our borders for export opportunities. Basically companies are drawn to the easy money which is some form of government spending.
Not surprisingly, many business owners I talk to say the US will never manufacture again. Moreover, the notion seems to accept and embrace big government in place of big manufacturing as a viable economic plan. However, I feel its requisite to point out how ridiculous that notion is, and how unusual it is to accept the idea of a country is willing to sign trade agreements that destroy its companies.

What's the solution? First, force the Chinese government to quit devaluing it currency. When China had the Coast Guard conflict with Japan it quickly devalued its currency to force the Japanese to capitulate and release the Chinese fisherman. However, the Chinese deny its efforts to devaluate it currency against the U.S. dollar at every opportunity. What's the net result? Four years ago our products should have been competitive with normal currency realignment, but it stays as it has been which hurts U.S. companies.

Second, drastically reduce the size of all forms of government. No government agency should be immune. Democrats protect social programs, and Republicans support military based spending. Each side seems unwilling to make cuts across the board. For the U.S. to have a chance at reducing debt extreme cuts must begin quickly. Once the cuts take place it will be paramount to ensure that the Chinese are no longer manipulating its currency, because so many industries benefit from government contracts. Spending cuts must be accompanied by export increases or the current recession will become a depression.

In summary, it’s hard to make real change in a country that chooses stomach stapling over dieting. Furthermore, Americans seem to be intoxicated by the idea of excessive spending and low taxes. If we don’t force China and other countries to play fair now we will be quickly on the way to insolvency.

Whooo hooo ! Paul Lepage in The Economist ! Now we're talking ! Putting his ignorance all over the world. But lest The Economist make the same mistake that Lepage and his ilk commit, i have a correction: The NAACP is not a "black advocacy group". True, the 'CP' in the acronym does stand for 'colored people', but they advocate for All People-- yep, even whitey's like Lepage himself. Th mission of the NAACP is "to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination." To The Economist: Please Correct this error! We have enough people who don't understand the NAACP is not just for black folks -- the NAACP works for all of us.

Dear Author,

You have written this:
"But Fidesz is reaping what it sowed: when Ferenc Gyurcsany, the former Socialist prime minister, spoke in parliament, Fidesz MPs walked out."
I ask you: have you ever heard about the speech of Őszöd(Oszod)? Just right after this "speech of veracity" (interpretation of the members and fans of MSZP) getting publicity the FIDESZ decided to walk out when it was planned in advance Gyurcsány wanted to speak.
It is just an hysterical political marketing of MSZP.
Bests.

@jocý
The first sentence of Constitution of Germany:
"Preamble
Conscious of their responsibility before God and men..."
So what are you talking about, man? I don't know if you are Hungarian, but the first sentence (ISTEN, ÁLDD MEG A MAGYART) is the first row of the national anthem of HUngary. Did you know that? Keep on chugging with you '89er democratic friends! Have a nice day!

D. Darko-

Don't blame GOPers for de-regulation. It has been happening ever since Regan, until Obama. It is both republicans and democrats alike, especially Greenspan and Bernanke.

Our future lays in the hands of the young adults, however, many young adults are not interested in reading what is truly going on in their specific government. They rather watch a Jersey Shore marathon and expect to be sugar coated all the time instead of procrastinating, at least, by reading articles like this one. They are our future, and we do not do something to gain their political interests, whether it be commercials in favor of voting, that is appealing to young adults, we cannot change the world with older and typically conservative folks. Throwing an opinion out there. If another young person, like myself really reads into this stuff, they will to make efforts to change it.

I have seen young people from other countries, being more politically active and concerned than American young adults and this is really concerning. Why doesn't anyone take off the fantasy perfect world they think they live in and persuade them to make a change? Now I even see people aged 24-40, who never talk about politics. People this young, especially women in third world countries I bet, would love to take a chance and vote the ideas and beliefs they strongly support.

However, politics does also need to take on change as an optimistic thing and teach young adults that participating in politics can help everyone as a whole, with more open minded, smart, less or more conservative in some cases, young minds who are strong determinants of our future. Even the school systems are allowing these kids to go home and have it kinda easy if not, extremely.