Comments by yongy

Come now, we know better than to have optimism for officiousness. And from 68 nations at that.

This article provides a very unfair and highly biased view of foreign aid in any form. Aid is almost always tied to numerous conditions - multi- or bi-lateral, the former being more infamous for doing so. The IMF or WB are global finance institutions specialising in "structural reform" - look what they fed Indonesia in the 1997 Asian meltdown. In exchange for a modest loan, the nation was forced to privatise its natural resource industry almost in its entirety, by capital-flushed Western firms. A series of privitisations, liberalisation, and cutbacks to social spending followed - in Poland, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa.The latter (reduction of government interference) is highly unlikely, but it is highly possible that if the IMF/WB or any other global institution of similar nature were to offer such loans or "handouts", they would hesitate little to tie the deal to trade-offs. Nations with "little fiscal firepower" have little choice left, let's not torture them more.

This article is the product of outdated references, entrenched bias, and an ignorant author.The most atrocious allegation made is that ASEAN member nations have a "traditional reluctance to force member countries to abide by collective decisions". Obviously ASEAN will not fulfil the "ultimate goal" of having a common currency, among other collaboration measures, by the 2015 guideline - this is an obvious statement that needs no repetition or rehashing. The author asks why ASEAN cannot fulfil this, and points to the "famous reluctance" of ASEAN members to cede any "meaningful sovereignty" to answer his own question. ASEAN’S upholding EU as a model of wealth does not mean that ASEAN nations intend to use the same processes of ceding economic soverignty to a single decision-making centre. In any case, the current crisis has caused the EU to be challenged beyond its limits - now, this proud association of nations is in a precarious, risky and immensely dangerous situation, not just fiscally, but also financially. So much for giving up sovereignty.This article is backdated by 2 years - the ASEAN nations could even dare to propose such a bold economic integration move in early 2007, when the globally economic outlook was filled with roses. Thorns have grown - and the export-oriented economics in ASEAN are probably the worst hit in the world. The author mocks the unaccomplished goal with derision - but in the same breath, he ridicules the massive economic disparities between ASEAN members. Does he not, then, swallow his own words? Despite having one of the fastest growth rates last year, ASEAN remains the most unequal region in the world. It has huge, gaping holes where national issues like poverty, environment, corruption are concerned - all of which remain unsolved - and the author talks about the ASEAN 2015 guideline? Laughable, I should say.Anti-protectionism remains a key issue in ASEAN, because all (and not just Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand) ASEAN nations are export-oriented economies which trade intensively with each other: a dominant majority of all ASEAN exports circulate within the region. Historically, and even more so now, free trade has always been the top agenda of ASEAN, and it's been a massively effective growth ladder for most of the time.If anyone should be " talking shop", it's not the ASEAN - it’s the writer of this article.

The events stated in this article is prophesy to the ultimate purpose of the US invasion in Iraq. The removal of Saddam Hussein and his despotic regime meant that the state control over these oil fields was now annihilated. Now the US firms are moving in for the killing - with a desperate government eager for influxes of FDI to increase revenues, the rapid privatisation of these oil fields (barely a month after the US announced a concrete and complete pull-out plan) only mean a massive "dirt-cheap" auction for these western TNCs.This liberalisation strategy is not optimal for the state. Iraq needs funds to rebuild and repair infrstructure - both tangible and intangible - and should take immediate control over their own resources. Being nationalistic now will pay off in the future, especially considering the long-term financial gains or other spin-offs from oil revnues. Iraq should instead sweep control and demand at least half of oil revenue - no TNCs will say reject the offer anyway, Iraq's black gold is way too plentiful for them to say otherwise.Most importantly, Iraq must ensure that its potential oil revenues do not get lost in a tangle of corruption previously existent in Saddam's bureaucracy. Although Saddam did achieve some commendable results during his term (almost full literacy in 1985, at his zenith, strong healthcare and welfare sector), the steady decline of his regime eroded his power base. Having a strong state sector in the first few decades of growth is not a option. The people have many needs, and their greatest resource should not flow through foreign hands. Iraq should ensure history does not repeat itself.

This article considers SA's future from a solely economic perspective, which makes it rather narrow and dangerous. It is persistently biased towards the corporations and white-collar businessmen in the nation. Should it not also take into view that its HDI ranking has dropped consistently? Its human capital has been steadily declining as well. Obviously the nation's investment and confidence will plummet even more than other nations in the face of the global crisis, with such appalling inequalities and lack of a trained workforce.It questions the effectiveness of current fiscal and monetary policies, but once again, in true Economist-style, neoliberal fashion, state intervention is treated with that inalienable tinge of disdain. The author has to get his facts right: statism doesn't directly boost production or growth. It creates better conditions for it to happen. Now it is for companies to respond to the incentives. It isn't just about capital inadequacies that restrain SA's growth. The lack of education and credit traps facing the poor make for an incompetent workforce that clearly creates an uncertain future and a worsening economy. This is South Africa's real problem.

This article is obviously written by a freshman - with the traditional hallmarks of cultural bias and a complete ignorance of world economics as it stands now.Yes, Asians are blaming the west. Asian governments have not tried to "absolve" themselves of the "responsibility for economic suffering" - simply because they had no responsibility in the first place. The appeal in this argument lies in its truth. Neither have Latin American governments took any responsibility unto themselves - because for the first time in history, they are in a crisis they didn't cause.The article explicitly places the blame on Asian "government policies", for having adopting a "familiar" "mercantilism" mindset after the financial crisis. Once again the author demonstrates his incompetence - in a blatant fashion. The "bottomless pit of Western consumer demand" has created a dependence on Asian exports. With a sudden contraction in Western demand, it is obvious that the massive vacuum created hits East Asia hard. There is nothing wrong with this economic management, nor was it a result of "frightened" governments. On the contrary, it was because of enlightened East Asian governments that these nations still retain the upper hand in fiscal power, providing the macroeconomic stabilisers which the citizens need now.Macroeconomic reforms are something the author does not understand either. Japan’s Great Recession was perpetuated because of a contraction in domestic spending, but the government continuously freed up credit and became the largest spender. Even at record low interest rates, businesses were still not borrowing, but instead paying their debts. Why? Because the balance sheets showed debt in the form of massively depreciated assets – the exact conditions which the entire world is reeling from now. Japan is the worst example possible example to use. Where it is the author’s intention to explain import-export “deficiencies”, he/she used monetary policy instead.Still, the most disdainful part of this article is the clarion call for Asian governments to adopt structural policies to "encourage people to spend and reduce the need for them to save". It is precisely this endless spending-borrowing vicious circle that has got America on its knees.The last thing the impoverished in Asia need now is an Economist writer telling them to spend more and save less.