Saturday, September 19, 2009

The Return of Nationalism

Asia Views, Vol. IV, No. 4, August-September 2009

I.Wibowo

Lecturer at the Department of International Relations,
Faculty of Social and Political Science, University of Indonesia

As Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia celebrate their national days in August, our minds turn to what it means to be an Indonesian, a Singaporean, a Malaysian, a citizen of a nation-state. Are nation-states and nationalism still relevant as borders are demolished by the juggernaut of globalization?

Looking back to the turn of the 20th century, nationalism caused nothing but misery around the world. In the name of nationalism, one country attacked another, disregarding sovereignty. Indeed, nationalism was even directed internally to destroy those who did not belong to the “pure nation.” And so like the mythic god Janus, nationalism is two-faced.

Then came World War II and when it ended in 1945, with the culprits of war heavily penalized, nationalism still prevailed. Despite the casualties, nationalism did not disappear. On the contrary, it became a source of energy for numerous peoples around the world who wanted to liberate themselves from the yoke of colonialism. Soekarno was one of those nationalists, as was Nasser (Egypt), Nehru (India), Nyerere (Tanzania) and also Mao (China). Without turning to the spirit of nationalism, it would have been difficult for them to stir up emotional sentiment and mobilize their peoples to stand up and take arms. Independence had to be fought and died for and was not something that came easily. It was achieved with a heavy price.

Yet around the world, one country after another, learnt the harsh lesson that even after fighting for their independence, the former colonialist countries did not want to treat them as equals. The world was, and still is, governed by an organization where a select country has the final say on all issues arising in the world. The rest can only hope that this organization, known as the “United Nations”, really is doing its best to promote their interests.

Trade was supposed to be free, but in reality the “Third World” of former colonies was disadvantaged. The industrialization process they wanted to pursue was impossible to achieve without the falling terms of trade being corrected more in their favor. Increasingly, the Third World countries became convinced that they were dependent on their former masters, economically as well as politically, like the periphery to the center. No wonder that many of them joined the “Second World,” the alternate world which adopted the communist model.

It was the promise of globalization in the 1990s that raised the hopes of developing countries. In the late 1980s, Japanese management expert, Kenichi Ohmae, bravely and persuasively argued in his book The End of the Nation-States that as national borders crumble, trade would become easier and, following the free-trade theory of Adam Smith, prosperity would dawn upon the developing countries. In other words, globalization was the panacea. According to this scenario, countries, corporations, and individuals will together hand-in-hand contribute their abilities to the common development of humankind. There will no longer be differences among peoples and countries. There will no longer be a need for nationalism. Any mention of nationalism in the golden age of globalization would be considered anachronistic.

This optimism was suddenly shattered in September 2008. One by one all global actors went to the nation states asking for help. Both multinational and national corporations were on their knees as they lost billions of dollars due to – in the words of Susan Strange - “casino capitalism.” First in the US, then like a virus it spread quickly to the UK, the EU, Japan, and China. No country was spared from this global calamity. For the first time since Keynesian economic theory was shelved in the 1980s, one government after another talked about how to rescue their own economies. The state which had been considered redundant by Milton Friedman and his supporters of neo-liberal economics, was now being called back to rescue the corporations which otherwise would have dragged down the whole economy to collapse. The state became a l¬ender of the last resort.

After being marginalized for about two decades, the state has returned with a vengeance. Now countries talk less about globalization and more about saving their own country instead. “Buy American First” would have been unacceptable in 1990s. Now it sounds like music to the ears of the Americans. Similar words and expressions are heard in other countries. Indonesians say “Aku Cinta Produk Indonesia” – I love Indonesian products.

Even though delegates at the latest G-8 meeting in Italy in July this year promised not to promote protectionism, no one can guarantee that this will promise will be honored. The Economist magazine, well-known for its strong neo-liberal position, had to admit that the economy of the world is indeed looking inwardly, showing a tendency of “economic nationalism.” (Feb 5, 2009)

But nationalism had already returned a few years earlier when terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001. The US reacted swiftly by adopting the Patriot Act to stop terrorism in its soil, giving rise to nationalism. Houses in the US put up flags and people began wearing the pin of the star-spangled banner. Other countries who were also feeling the brunt of terrorism slowly adopted nationalism as their platform to unite their citizens against terrorists. India in the face of a terrorist attack in Mumbay and China with the demonstrators in Tibet and Xinjiang, both found refuge in nationalism. Indonesia, after the bomb attack by terrorists in Jakarta, appealed to a “United Indonesia” prompting an emotional response by the people .

Globalization at its peak managed to downplay nationalism, leading some to conclude that there is the “flattening of the world.” But nationalism, however, has resurfaced and the neo-liberal discourse has fallen to the wayside. People are no longer ashamed to talk about the nation and the nation-state.

From now on, national days and independence days will be celebrated around the world with a fervor rarely seen before. Perhaps people will now reflect with more nuance on the meaning of nation-state and the promise it holds for its citizens.

Proteksionisme Marak

Hampir Semua Negara G-20 Melanggar Kesepakatan

Kompas, Sabtu, 19 September 2009

WASHINGTON, Kamis - Para pemimpin 20 negara perekonomian terbesar di dunia telah bertekad melawan proteksionisme akhir November lalu. Pada April lalu, tekad tersebut juga diulangi. Kenyataannya, di sebagian dari negara itu praktik proteksionisme makin marak.

Selain itu, perselisihan perdagangan pun masih tetap marak. Laporan dari Global Trade Alert, sebuah organisasi perdagangan yang terkait dengan Bank Dunia, secara terpisah mengatakan, lebih dari 100 langkah diskriminasi perdagangan dilakukan oleh negara-negara G-20.

Heather Conley, peneliti di Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), AS, mengatakan keadaan makin memanas. Perselisihan dagang antara AS dan China mengenai ban dan ayam asal China merupakan contoh paling baru. AS mengenakan hambatan tarif baru terhadap dua produk China itu.

Hampir semua anggota Kelompok 20 (G-20) yang akan bertemu di Pittsburgh, AS, pekan depan telah melanggar. Mereka mengingkari kesepakatan mengenai melawan proteksionisme yang dibuat sebelumnya di Washington dan London.

Setiap negara memiliki kepentingan untuk bangkit dari resesi. Tekanan untuk bekerja sama tampaknya akan melemah karena ketidaksabaran menunggu pemulihan ekonomi.

Kepentingan nasional merupakan salah satu agenda pokok. Hal itu termasuk keinginan untuk melindungi industri domestik dari serbuan produk asing.

Beberapa pemerintahan sedang menimbang-nimbang kapan mereka dapat meluncurkan stimulus lagi seperti peningkatan anggaran pemerintah yang lebih besar serta pengenaan tingkat suku bunga rendah. Untuk menghindari stimulus, pemerintahan ingin menggenjot pembelian produksi domestik, dengan melakukan proteksionisme terselubung. Padahal di sisi lain, proteksionisme malah memperlambat pemulihan ekonomi global.

Melunak

Dari Brussells, markas Komisi Uni Eropa, dilaporkan, Perancis siap menerima kesepakatan G-20 tentang bonus yang tidak akan dibatasi secara langsung. Namun, ditekankan akan ada langkah-langkah yang bertujuan membatasi pemberian bonus.

Presiden Perancis Nicolas Sarkozy melunakkan pandangan soal itu. Sebelumnya dia mengancam akan meninggalkan pertemuan G-20 jika tidak ada pembatasan bonus yang jelas. Dia menuntut itu agar dituangkan dalam deklarasi G-20.

Sarkozy mengatakan, pembatasan bonus itu merupakan hal penting bagi upaya reformasi yang tengah dilakukan Presiden AS Barack Obama mengenai sistem bonus.

”Poin yang akan menjadi kendala adalah soal pembatasan bonus. Namun, hal itu bukan menjadi masalah dalam posisi Eropa sepanjang kami memiliki kesepakatan pasti soal masalah lain, seperti penalti terhadap bonus, bonus yang dibagi berulang kali, transparansi atas kinerja perusahaan, dan tingkat permodalan perusahaan,” ujar Sarkozy.

Obama menolak ide pembatasan bonus pada tingkat individu. Presiden AS lebih suka menggunakan seperangkat aturan untuk membatasi bonus yang dibagikan berlebihan dan tidak sesuai kinerja perusahaan. Presiden AS mengusulkan sistem pengawasan, yang membuat perusahaan tak mengobral bonus untuk para eksekutif yang tidak produktif. (Reuters/AP/joe)

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/09/19/04293481/proteksionisme.marak

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Jumlah Personel TNI AD di Freeport Akan Ditambah

Kompas, Selasa, 1 September 2009 | 04:33 WIB

Makassar, Kompas - Jumlah prajurit TNI Angkatan Darat yang dilibatkan dalam operasi pemulihan keamanan PT Freeport Indonesia di Timika, Papua, rencananya akan ditambah menjadi sekitar 600 orang. Selain itu, satuan pasukan juga akan dipisahkan untuk mengefektifkan kinerja TNI dan Polri dalam memulihkan keamanan di perusahaan tambang emas dan tembaga tersebut. Namun, seluruh operasi keamanan tetap dikendalikan Kepolisian Daerah Papua.

Kepala Bidang Humas Kepolisian Daerah (Polda) Papua Komisaris Besar Agus Rianto ketika dihubungi di Timika, ibu kota Kabupaten Mimika, mengungkapkan hal itu, Senin (31/8). Menurut dia, operasi gabungan TNI dan polisi akan berlangsung sampai November 2009.

”Memang ada permintaan dari kami agar jumlah prajurit TNI yang dilibatkan dalam operasi pemulihan keamanan di areal PT Freeport Indonesia (FI) ditambah menjadi sekitar 600 orang. Hal itu sesuai dengan pembicaraan antara Kepala Polda Papua dan Panglima Kodam XVII/Cenderawasih,” kata Agus.

Penambahan prajurit TNI itu, lanjut Agus, terkait dengan perubahan struktur organisasi Satuan Tugas Amole Timika II yang melaksanakan operasi pemulihan keamanan di areal PT FI. ”Pergantian Satuan Tugas Amole Timika II akan efektif berlaku 1 September. Personel yang terlibat sekitar 1.300 orang, termasuk 600 prajurit TNI. Selebihnya polisi,” kata Agus.

Secara terpisah, Kepala Penerangan Kodam XVII/Cenderawasih Letkol Susilo menyatakan, pihaknya akan menyiapkan tambahan prajurit TNI AD yang dibutuhkan. ”Kemungkinan akan diambilkan dari lingkungan Kodam Cenderawasih,” ujarnya

Terkait penambahan pasukan TNI AD itu, di Jakarta, Poengki Indarti dari Imparsial—lembaga swadaya masyarakat yang berkiprah di bidang hak asasi manusia—berpendapat, pengamanan PT FI sepatutnya diserahkan kepada polisi saja. Ia khawatir, jika TNI terus dilibatkan dalam pengamanan wilayah tersebut, hal itu akan berdampak buruk pada proses penegakan hak asasi manusia di sana (ROW/JOS)

Monday, August 24, 2009

Mandiri, Berdikari, Merdeka!

Kompas, Senin, 24 Agustus 2009

Oleh Siswono Yudo Husodo

Sudah 64 tahun kita merdeka, suatu jembatan emas untuk mencapai bangsa yang antara lain ”berdiri di atas kaki sendiri (Berdikari)” dalam bidang ekonomi (menurut ajaran Bung Karno dalam Trisakti).

Namun, justru saat ini terasa tingkat ketergantungan kita pada barang-barang impor (yang sebenarnya dapat diproduksi sendiri) amat tinggi. Banyak potensi ekonomi yang sebenarnya mampu kita kelola sendiri diserahkan kepada asing. Memang, pada era globalisasi ini banyak pihak ingin menjadikan negeri ini sebagai pasar bagi produk dan jasa mereka.

Kita telah menjadi bangsa yang kurang percaya diri dengan tingkat ketergan- tungan yang amat tinggi, menjauh dari cita-cita membangun bangsa yang mandiri yang mengelola berbagai potensi ekonomi yang ada pada dirinya untuk sebesar-besar kemakmuran rakyat. Kecenderungan dominasi asing dalam berbagai kegiatan ekonomi kian nyata dan porsi nasional kian menurun.

Sedikitnya ada 23 bank umum nasional dimiliki asing dengan penguasaan di atas 44,5 persen dari total saham yang agresif menggarap pasar hingga ke pedesaan dan menyebabkan menyusutnya pangsa pasar Bank Perkreditan Rakyat (BPR) di sektor mikro, kecil, dan menengah atau MKM (Kompas, 19/8/2009). Dengan margin imbal hasil lebih besar dari segmen korporasi, bisnis MKM amat menggiurkan dan menjadi motif akuisisi bank lokal oleh investor asing. Banyak BPR gulung tikar.

Ini adalah potret kian terpinggirkannya pelaku usaha nasional sejak pemerintah dipaksa berbagai kekuatan internasional untuk meningkatkan liberalisasi, privatisasi, dan deregulasi.

Pasar pangan domestik sudah dibanjiri impor, mulai dari daging sapi (30 persen kebutuhan nasional), susu (90 persen), garam (60 persen), kedelai (70 persen), bawang putih hingga gula tebu (40 persen), dan buah-buahan. Sebenarnya, produk-produk itu dapat kita produksi sendiri dan menghemat devisa. Pedagang pasar tradisional di kota-kota besar sudah merasakan hebatnya dampak kehadiran hypermarket milik asing.

Sebagai negara yang telah berpengalaman lebih dari 100 tahun di bidang eksploitasi migas, dari 120 KPS (kontraktor profit sharing), 90 persennya milik asing. Produksi minyak kita juga terus turun, dengan cost recovery (biaya yang ditanggung pemerintah) meningkat tinggi. Dalam RAPBN 2010, pemerintah menetapkan biaya cost recovery 13,1 miliar dollar AS, naik dari 11,05 miliar dollar AS tahun 2009. Ini hanya untuk meningkatkan produksi minyak 5.000 barrel per hari dan gas 232 MMBTU per hari.

Dari total produksi nasional sekitar 1 juta barrel/hari, yang dihasilkan Pertamina hanya 75.000 barrel/hari, sama dengan Medco, swasta nasional. Mayoritasnya asing, terbesar Chevron, 450.000 barrel/ hari. Secara bertahap, ladang minyak dan gas nasional kita dikuasai asing karena aturan untuk menggarap berbagai proyek eksplorasi minyak bumi dan gas di Tanah Air harus melalui tender internasional.

Mayoritas pertambangan perak, nikel, batu bara, dan lainnya juga dikelola asing, bahkan tembaga dan emas, 100 persen dikuasai asing (Freeport dan Newmont). Perkebunan kelapa sawit 30 persennya dimiliki perusahaan asing, padahal kebun sawit efektif untuk pemerataan kesejahteraan, meningkatkan kesejahteraan rakyat melalui konsep inti plasma. Kini ada sekitar 300.000 TKI terampil bekerja di kebun-kebun sawit di Malaysia. Jika saja, dulu, masing-masing diberi kesempatan membeli kebun sawit yang dilelang amat murah oleh BPPN seluas 2-3 ha/KK, tentu naiknya harga CPO sampai tiga kali lipat dinikmati petani kita sendiri.

Sektor telekomunikasi yang amat menguntungkan juga sudah jatuh ke tangan asing. Tragisnya, saat kita ingin memilikinya kembali, pihak asing menawarkan dengan harga berlipat.

Mengavling laut

Indonesia telah membiarkan berbagai kebijakan ekonomi diatur konsultan asing. Bertahun-tahun mereka ada di sejumlah instansi pemerintah. Ini menghapus banyak sektor dari daftar negatif bagi investor asing tanpa memperkuat pengusaha lokal dan mengobral aset ekonomi yang amat prospektif dengan harga amat murah. Pengusaha Indonesia juga terkendala dengan mahal dan seretnya kredit.

Pemerintah bersemangat mengundang investor asing, sementara modal amat besar pengusaha nasional disimpan di luar negeri.

Menteri Kehutanan menawarkan ratusan ribu hektar lahan kepada investor asing untuk bidang perkebunan. Bila hal ini tak dikoreksi, dalam tempo singkat perkebunan di Tanah Air akan dilahap asing. Pertanyaannya, apa bedanya dengan masa penjajahan Belanda?

Kini sedang berkembang diskusi untuk mengavling laut dan menjualnya kepada investor. Tak terbayang bila sebentar lagi pengelolaan laut dan kekayaan di dalamnya juga dikuasai asing. Sekarang saja ruang perairan kita praktis dikuasai asing. Sekitar 96,6 persen muatan angkutan laut dari Indonesia ke luar negeri diambil kapal asing dan 46,8 persen muatan laut dalam negeri dikuasai kapal berbendera asing (Media Indonesia, 6/12/2007).

China, negara yang bersama-sama kita melakukan liberalisasi, privatisasi, dan deregulasi, tidak mengalami hal seperti itu. China berusaha agar kegiatan ekonomi dikuasai warga sendiri dan menghindari intervensi asing dalam kebijakan ekonomi. Kepemilikan asing dalam jumlah mayoritas relatif tak diizinkan.

Syarat investasi asing di China untuk otomotif tidaklah ringan. Para investor wajib memiliki mitra lokal dan melakukan alih teknologi dalam jadwal ketat. Kini, China menjadi produsen otomotif mandiri dan berdaya saing tinggi.

Saya berdoa agar di tengah persaingan sengit dalam memperebutkan dana dan investasi asing, pemerintah dapat bertindak tepat dalam melindungi pelaku usaha domestik. Jangan sampai demi meningkatkan pertumbuhan PDB, BUMN dijual murah, porsi mayoritas asing diizinkan pada lebih banyak sektor, bahkan instrumen untuk melindungi pelaku dalam negeri berupa daftar negatif investasi asing dihapus seluruhnya.

Kita perlu membangun kesadaran umum bahwa kita memiliki pasar amat besar, kaya sumber daya alam. Dan potensi pertanian, perkebunan, perikanan, dan peternakan harus pertama-tama digunakan untuk mengembangkan potensi ekonomi rakyat sendiri.

Siswono Yudo Husodo Ketua Yayasan Pendidikan Universitas Pancasila

http://koran.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/08/24/02524235/mandiri.berdikari.merdeka

Monday, June 8, 2009

Kebijakan Ekonomi Indonesia 100 Persen Liberal

Kompas Online, Selasa, 9 Juni 2009 | 13:31 WIB

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - Beberapa pihak menolak disebut sebagai penganut ekonomi neoliberalisme, namun, kenyataannya neoliberalisme telah merasuk hampir di seluruh kegiatan ekonomi di Indonesia.

"Bohong kalau ada yang bilang Indonesia atau seseorang bebas dari neoliberal. Praktik ekonomi neoliberal telah digunakan dalam seluruh praktik investasi, perdagangan, dan keuangan di negara ini," ujar Indah Suksmaningsih, Direktur Eksekutiftif Institute Global for Justice (IGJ), dalam konferensi Pers Pernyataan Sikap IGJ, di Jakarta, (9/8).

Untuk memperkuat argumennya, Indah memberikan beberapa contoh. Yang pertama di bidang investasi, puncak penerapan aturan yang berwatak neoliberalisme adalah dalam Undang-undang investasi, yaitu dikeluarkannya undang-undang nomor 25 tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal (UU PM).

Undang-undang semasa Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhono ini memberikan fasilitas, intensif, dan kemudahan yang sangat luas kepada penanam modal. "Penguasa tanah diperbolehkan hingga 95 tahun, zaman Hindia Belanda saja batasnya cuma sampai 75 tahun," terangnya.

Contoh kedua penerapan neoliberalisne di Indonesia berada di sektor keuangan. Dengan dikeluarkannya Undang-undang RI Nomor 23 tahun 1999 tentang Bank Indonesia, sebagaimana yang telah direvisi dengan Undang-undang RI Nomor 3 tahun 2004 , menjadikan BI sebagai lembaga independen menjadi dasar dari liberalisasi keuangan. "BI tidak lagi berperan menyalurkan anggaran bagi investasi,akan tetapi hanya menjalankan fungsi moneter, menjaga nilai tukar mata uang dan inflasi dalam rangka makro ekonomi semata," terangnya.

Contoh selanjutnya, berada di bidang perdagangan. Pemerintah telah melakukan perjanjian perdagangan bebas Free Trade Agreement (FTA) dengan hampir semua negara maju dan Uni Eropa. Perjanjian perdagangan bebas hampir meliputi semua sektor.

"Apa yang disepakati FTA jauh lebih menyeluruh dibanding dengan WTO, karena menyangkut seluruh aspek liberalisasi perdagangan dan jasa. Contoh yang paling baru adalah rendahnya tarif bea masuk pada barang-barang ekspor," papar Indah.

Dan contoh terakhir, lanjutnya adalah ekonomi nasional yang didominasi modal asing. Ekonomi Indonesia telah digantung dalam utang yang sangat besar, saat ini jumlahnya mencapai 149 , 14 miliar USD hingga kuartal IV tahun 2008 . "Dengan utang sebesar itu, pemerintah dengan mudah disetir oleh pemodal asing. Dan tidak berani berbuat apa-apa," ujarnya.

"Jelas sudah kalau sekarang kita memang menganut ekonomi liberal, bukan kerakyatan lagi," tegas Indah



KOMPAS.com Rosdianah Dewi

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/0609/13313833Kebijakan.Ekonomi.Indonesia.100.Persen.Liberal

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Boediono Memang Penganut Neoliberal?

DHONI SETIAWAN
Jumat, 22 Mei 2009 | 13:58 WIB

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com — Meskipun bantahan demi bantahan diluncurkan oleh Boediono maupun pihak SBY sebagai pasangannya yang akan maju dalam pemilu presiden mendatang, sejumlah pengamat ekonomi keukeuh menilai Boediono memang menganut paham ekonomi neoliberalisme. Apa saja argumen yang mendasari klaim tersebut?

Mantan Menneg PPN/ Kepala Bappenas zaman Megawati, Kwik Kian Gie, mengatakan punya banyak catatan dalam rekam jejak Boediono sebagai pejabat publik. Sebagian besar langkahnya adalah 'menjual' sumber daya dan fasilitas publik kepada para investor. "Tanya pada Pak Boediono, dia berpendapat atau tidak ketika jalan raya yang mulus bebas hambatan itu harus dikenakan tarif tol, diserahkan kepada investor swasta, domestik maupun internasional. Oleh karena itu, investornya buat laba dan rakyat yang harus bayar tol!?" seru Kwik seusai diskusi bertajuk "JK-Win untuk Indonesia Adil dan Sejahtera: Ekonomi Kemandirian vs Ekonomi Neoliberal" di Jakarta, Jumat (22/5).

Padahal, menurut Kwik, di negara-negara besar di Amerika dan Eropa, seluruh fasilitas dan sumber daya publik dapat dinikmati rakyat secara gratis. Lalu apa lagi? Kwik kemudian menyebutkan beberapa pertanyaan yang patut dilontarkan kepada Boediono untuk membuktikan pria asal Blitar tersebut memiliki mazhab neoliberal.

"Betul atau tidak bahwa Boediono pro penjualan bahan bakar minyak (BBM) suatu waktu ketika Boediono menjabat sebagai Menteri Keuangan meski harganya tinggi? Betul atau tidak bahwa Boediono pro semua jalan bebas hambatan harus dikenakan biaya? Betul atau tidak bahwa Boediono menganggap barang-barang publik yang penting-penting menjadi ajang cari laba untuk investor asing?" tanya Kwik panjang lebar.

Pengamat ekonomi Hendri Saparini dari ECONIT memiliki pendapat serupa. Tiga pilar neoliberal, yaitu stabilitas makro, agenda liberalisasi, dan agenda privatisasi, yang dicetuskan dalam Washington Consensus menjiwai tindakan-tindakan Boediono.

Menurut Hendri, seorang penganut neoliberal tak akan meninggalkannya sedikit pun. Dalam pilar pertama, seorang neoliberal akan membuat kebijakan hanya demi stabilitas makro. Hendri menilai pernyataan-pernyataan SBY menunjukkan ciri ini. Pilihan kebijakannya pun demikian. Mazhab ini mengharuskan pengambilan kebijakan pengurangan atau pemotongan subsidi.

"Tidak salah jika dalam pidato, SBY mengatakan akan menekan inflasi dan ukuran stabilitas makro. Itu hanya akan menguntungkan kelompok kapital," tutur Hendri.

Belum lagi agenda liberalisasi dan privatisasi yang dilakukan oleh Boediono ketika menjabat sebagai Menkeu dalam masa pemerintahan Megawati dan Menko Ekuin dalam pemerintahan SBY. Misalnya, dalam penyusunan UU Migas. Hendri menilai pemerintahan SBY juga marak melakukan privatisasi. Bahkan, saat ini 40 Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) sudah didata untuk diprivatisasi, antara lain PT Krakatau Steel dan PT Kereta Api Indonesia.

KOMPAS.com Caroline Damanik

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/05/22/13581432/boediono.memang.penganut.neoliberal

Friday, May 8, 2009

INFID blames WB for part in tragedy

The Jakarta Post, 13 April 2009

The International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID) said the World Bank might have been partly responsible for the Situ Gintung dam burst on March 27.

"Not many people realized the maintenance and management of the Situ Gintung dam was related to a World Bank project," Don K. Marut, executive director of INFID, said in a statement.

Marut blamed the deteriorating conditions of the dam in Cireundeu, Banten, partly on World Bank loan requirements the Indonesian government had to comply with under a project scheme, named Water Resources Sector Adjustment Loan (WATSAL). The US$300 million WATSAL, loan agreement was singned on May 28, 1999.

Marut said under the scheme, the Indonesian government was required to revise its laws and regulations to make them compatibel with WB standards. These requirements, among other things, resulted in authority on irrigation matters being delegated to the associations of water-users.

"Many lakes, including Situ Gintung, were neglected due to authority being delegated and lack of coordination among relevant parties," Marut said. "Given the [Situ Gintung] destuction is a result of the loan agreement under the WATSAL, we demand the World Bank admits to the Indonesian public the mistake it made in the WATSAL project."

INFID also called on the Bank to cancel and write off the loan deal.

However, Jakarta's WB senior governance adviser Douglas E. Ramage denied INFID's allegations and regarded them as "unfounded and groundless."

"The World Bank's WATSAL laon has no operational connection to Situ Gintung. The suggestion that the WATSAL loan, which closed in 2004 and the government policies and decision that it supported led to the collapse of the Situ Gintung dam are unfounded," Ramage said in a statement.

Ramage added there had not been any irrigation from the Situ Gintung dam since the early 1990s. "The irrigation function of the Situ Gintung ceased when the land was converted into a residential area. For that reason, there were no associations of water users at Situ Gintung. Therefore, any suggestion that poor maintenance has anything to do with management by water users association is also groundless."

The National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) reported the dam burst claimed 90 lives, while four persons were still missing and 295 families were still living in temporary shelters.

Jakarta Police have been questioning some government officials who allegedly neglected the maintenance of the dam, ultimately leading to the disaster. Before the disaster, local residents reported they had found cracks in the dam walls. (JP/iwp)

Esensi Utang RI Melenceng


Pemerintah Tak Punya Manajemen Utang Independen

Koran Jakarta,
Selasa, 05 Mei 2009 01:36 WIB

JAKARTA – Esensi utang luar negeri Indonesia selama ini melenceng karena pinjaman bukan untuk meningkatkan produktivitas, melainkan untuk menambal defisit anggaran negara akibat utang lama dan mempertahankan nilai tukar rupiah.

Tawaran utang baru dari ADB lebih banyak motif mencari untung bagi lembaga itu. Pemerintah setiap tahun harus membayar bunga utang hingga ratusan triliun rupiah.

JAKARTA – Esensi utang luar negeri Indonesia selama ini melenceng karena pinjaman bukan untuk meningkatkan produktivitas, melainkan untuk menambal defisit anggaran negara akibat utang lama dan mempertahankan nilai tukar rupiah.

Karena itu, pemerintah seharusnya tidak perlu menerima tawaran pinjaman lagi dari Bank Pembangunan Asia (ADB) karena akan melanggengkan beban berat Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara (APBN). Tahun ini, lembaga itu menganggarkan utang hingga dua miliar dollar AS untuk Indonesia.

Ekonom senior Kwik Kian Gie menilai penggunaan utang luar negeri Indonesia selama ini tidak produktif sehingga melenceng dari esensinya. Jika pemerintah menerima utang baru dari ADB, hal ini membuktikan tim ekonomi lebih memihak kepentingan asing.

“Saya tidak pernah melihat alasan yang jelas dalam kebijakan mencari utang luar negeri,” ujarnya, Senin (4/5).

Kwik juga mempertanyakan alasan pemerintah berutang yakni untuk menambal defisit anggaran dan memperkuat nilai tukar rupiah. Pasalnya, defisit yang timbul selama ini justru disebabkan tingginya beban cicilan pokok dan bunga utang. Tujuan untuk menambah likuiditas dollar AS di dalam negeri juga dinilai absurd. Ketika rupiah melemah, pemerintah justru akan menjual cadangan dollar ke pasar.

Menurut Kwik, berdasarkan konsep yang diterima secara internasional, utang harus bisa dibayar kembali dari hasil produktivitas penggunaannya. Namun, untuk kasus Indonesia, utang luar negeri justru tidak efektif. Ini terbukti dari neraca (pembiayaan) utang luar negeri yang selalu defisit. Artinya, pembayaran cicilan utang (pokok dan bunganya) masih jauh lebih besar dari penarikan utang baru. Akibatnya, saldo utang Indonesia justru terus menumpuk.

Berdasarkan catatan, setiap tahun APBN “membuang” lebih dari 100 triliun rupiah hanya untuk pembayaran bunga utang (Lihat infografis).

Jadi, kata Kwik, tawaran utang baru itu lebih disebabkan kepentingan ADB untuk mencari untung dari pinjaman tersebut. APBN sendiri sebenarnya tidak terlalu membutuhkannya yang terbukti dari realisasi belanja yang selalu surplus.

Ekonom dari Econit Hendri Saparini menyatakan pemerintah harus mengukur ulang efektivitas utang luar negeri karena dinilai tidak memberikan manfaat.

Menurut dia, hal ini disebabkan pemerintah tidak memiliki manajemen utang yang dikelola secara independen. Manajemen utang pemerintah, lanjut dia, hanya mengukur rasio utang terhadap produk domestik bruto (PDB).

Seharusnya, kata Hendri, manajemen utang menggunakan ukuran efektivitas dan indikator keberhasilan program pembangunan yang didanai utang luar negeri.
"Dengan demikian, pemerintah tidak bisa seenaknya menambah utang hanya dengan pertimbangan bahwa rasio utang terhadap PDB aman," tegas dia.

Melahirkan Krisis

Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono pada pembukaan sidang tahunan ADB di Nusa Dua, Bali, Senin, mengatakan pemerintah menilai keberadaan ADB masih positif. Pinjaman dan pendampingan dari ADB dianggap memberikan dampak yang positif bagi kesejahteraan masyarakat.

"Dalam 42 tahun terakhir, ADB telah membantu menciptakan kehidupan yang lebih baik di Asia-Pasifik. Kami mengagumi kesetiaan dan profesionalisme yang ditunjukkan ADB selama ini," kata Yudhoyono.

Namun, Endi Saragih dari Serikat Petani Indonesia mengatakan kehadiran dan keterlibatan ADB selama ini hanya melahirkan krisis di berbagai sektor.

"Selama 42 tahun berdirinya, ADB telah menyebabkan timbulnya bencana kelaparan di sejumlah negara Asia. Jika ini diteruskan, kehadiran ADB hanya akan memperlebar kemiskinan di Asia," kata dia saat berunjuk rasa di Denpasar.

Menanggapi pernyataan Presiden Yudhoyono, Hendri menyarankan agar Presiden berhati-hati dalam memberikan pernyataan dukungan. "Ini bisa memunculkan pandangan publik bahwa presiden kita menghendaki penambahan utang dan makin bergantung pada ADB," kata dia.

Persepsi itu, lanjut Hendri, akan mengakibatkan tim ekonomi Yudhoyono makin jor-joran dalam menjalankan kebijakan ekonomi yang hanya mengandalkan pada pendanaan dari utang.

(aji/ito/did/Ant/AR-1)

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Krisis Finansial Membuktikan Ada yang Keliru

Kompas, Selasa, 5 Mei 2009 | 04:56 WIB

Krisis keuangan tahun 1997-1998 membuat sebagian besar negara di Asia terpukul. Kawasan lain di dunia relatif aman. Satu dekade berlalu, krisis keuangan kembali menerpa AS pada akhir tahun 2008. Seluruh dunia pun ikut terganggu karena AS merupakan lokomotif utama ekonomi dan perdagangan dunia.

Krisis keuangan kali ini membuktikan ada yang salah dalam sistem pembangunan ekonomi internasional yang didukung lembaga-lembaga multilateral, seperti Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia, Bank Dunia, Dana Moneter Internasional, dan bank-bank regional, seperti Bank Pembangunan Asia (ADB).

Pernyataan itu dilontarkan Emil Salim, mantan Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup, dalam panel diskusi ”Responding to the Inevitable: Climate Change Adaptation Challenges and Opportunities in Asia and the Pacific” di Nusa Dua, Bali, Minggu (3/5). Diskusi ini berlangsung berkenaan dengan adanya sidang tahunan ke-42 ADB di Nusa Dua, 2- 5 Mei.

”Perubahan tengah berlangsung di semua sektor. Karena itu, tampaknya lembaga-lembaga multilateral tidak bisa melanjutkan paradigma lama,” ujar Emil Salim.

Dengan perubahan itu, Emil Salim menjadi lebih optimistis pada perundingan di Konferensi Para Pihak Ke-15 mengenai Konvensi Perubahan Iklim yang akan berlangsung di Kopenhagen, Denmark, pada akhir tahun 2009 ini.

Sebagai pembicara terakhir setelah Salvano Briceno, Direktur Strategi Internasional untuk pengurangan Bencana Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa; Warren Evans dari Bank Dunia; Luc Gnacada, Sekretaris Eksekutif Konvensi PBB untuk Melawan Penggurunan; dan Ashok Khosla, Presiden International Union for Conservation of Nature, Emil Salim beberapa kali menyelipkan kritiknya terhadap praktik-praktik ADB.

Dalam soal adaptasi dan upaya mengurangi dampak perubahan iklim, misalnya, ia mempertanyakan kenapa lembaga keuangan, seperti Bank Dunia dan ADB, memberikan bantuan pinjaman kepada industri-industri berbasis batu bara dan pembangunan jalan raya yang tidak ramah iklim.

Modus utang baru

Menurut Faby Tumiwa dari Institute for Essential Services Reform, ada kecenderungan lembaga-lembaga keuangan multilateral menjadikan adaptasi perubahan iklim sebagai modus baru pemberian utang.

”Seperti cara baru untuk berbisnis,” ujar Faby seraya menyebut Climate Investment Fund Bank Dunia dan mekanisme serupa yang segera diluncurkan ADB.

Mantan Duta Besar PBB untuk Tujuan Pembangunan Milenium (MDGs) Kawasan Asia Pasifik, Erna Witoelar, juga menolak penambahan utang untuk pencapaian MDGs, khususnya di bidang pendidikan dan kesehatan. ”Kita harus bisa mencapainya dengan sumber daya sendiri,” ujar Erna.

Dihubungi di tempat terpisah, Dani Setiawan dari Koalisi Antiutang (KAU) menyesalkan rencana pemerintah memberikan tambahan modal untuk ADB sebesar Rp 400 miliar per tahun mulai tahun 2010. ”Uang itu lebih tepat digunakan untuk stimulus ekonomi rakyat dalam situasi krisis ini,” ujar Dani.

Mengutip Global Development Finance yang diterbitkan Bank Dunia tahun 2008, Dani menyatakan, telah terjadi peningkatan jumlah utang 44 kali lipat dari negara berkembang dalam kurun tahun 1970-2007, dari sekitar 70 miliar dollar AS menjadi sekitar 3.300 miliar dollar AS. ”Sebenarnya operasi lembaga-lembaga keuangan dunia terus menyebabkan krisis utang di negara berkembang,” kata Dani.

Sementara Chris Ng, Sekretaris Regional Union Network International (UNI), di Nusa Dua, menegaskan, UNI bersama dua lembaga swadaya masyarakat internasional lain, Public Services International (PSI) dan Building and Wood Worker Internasional (BWI), bergabung dalam suatu wadah bernama Global Union, meminta ADB merevisi Strategi ADB 2020 karena tidak mengakomodasi perlindungan buruh secara memadai. Global Union mengklaim mewakili 52 juta pekerja di seluruh dunia.

Intinya, krisis keuangan dunia yang membuat banyak orang menderita merupakan kekeliruan lembaga keuangan internasional, termasuk ADB. Kini mereka dituntut.(BEN/OIN/MH)

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/05/05/04561474/krisis.finansial.membuktikan.ada.yang.keliru

Puluhan Aktivis Anti-ADB Protes

Kompas, Selasa, 5 Mei 2009 | 04:44 WIB

Denpasar, Kompas - Puluhan aktivis anti-Bank Pembangunan Asia yang tergabung dalam Asian People’s Movement Against ADB melancarkan protes. Namun, aksi mereka dihadang polisi saat bergerak menuju lokasi sidang tahunan ADB di Nusa Dua, Bali, Senin (4/5).

Mereka akhirnya gagal menggelar aksi demonstrasi yang direncanakan berlangsung saat Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, membuka sidang tahunan ke-42 ADB di Nusa Dua. Para aktivis terpaksa memindahkan aksi mereka ke Denpasar, belasan kilometer dari Nusa Dua.

Sebagian besar rombongan demonstran itu berangkat dari Denpasar menaiki sepeda dan sebagian lagi menumpang bus. Namun, sesampainya di perempatan jalan By Pass Ngurah Rai Benoa sekitar 10 kilometer dari lokasi sidang ADB, mereka dihadang puluhan polisi. Demonstran yang menggunakan sepeda dipaksa balik arah ke Denpasar.

Pada waktu yang sama, rombongan para aktivis Seafish asal Filipina yang berangkat ke Nusa Dua dengan tiga mobil dihentikan tepat di pintu masuk kawasan Bali Tourism Development and Corporation (BTDC) Nusa Dua. Mereka dilarang masuk ke kompleks itu. Mobil digeledah dan sempat digiring ke Kantor Polsek Kuta Selatan dan diinterogasi sebelum dikawal menuju Denpasar. Mereka yang menggunakan bus juga harus menjalani pemeriksaan di pinggir jalan By Pass Ngurah Rai.

Perwira Humas Poltabes Denpasar Komisaris Ketut Suwetra menyatakan, aksi demonstrasi tidak dapat digelar di kawasan Nusa Dua. Kawasan itu dinyatakan steril dari aksi unjuk rasa selama pertemuan ADB berlangsung 2-5 Mei 2009. Polisi juga telah memasang barikade pengamanan berlapis untuk demonstran di simpang patung Dewa Ruci dan patung Ngurah Rai

”Kami meminta Anda kembali ke Denpasar. Silakan gelar aksi di sana. Kita semua ingin agar Bali aman,” kata Suwetra.

Para aktivis memprotes keras penghadangan dan pelarangan mereka menggelar aksi demo di Nusa Dua. Dengan kecewa, mereka pun kembali ke Denpasar.

Utang menyengsarakan

Perwakilan aktivis, M Iqbal, menyatakan, polisi telah melakukan tindakan yang bertentangan dengan demokrasi. Karena kebebasan untuk menyampaikan pendapat diatur dalam Undang- Undang Nomor 9 Tahun 1998.

”Ini juga sekaligus ironis karena apa yang kami perjuangkan juga kepentingan rakyat. Kami tegas menolak ADB karena programnya memberikan utang kepada negara-negara jelas-jelas hanya merugikan dan menyengsarakan masyarakat negara-negara pengutang, termasuk Indonesia,” kata Iqbal.

Ia menyatakan, para aktivis akan tetap nekat mencari cara melanjutkan aksi menentang ADB, termasuk pertemuan tahunan di Nusa Dua itu, hingga pertemuan itu berakhir pada 5 Mei ini. Aksi kemarin ditutup dengan membacakan Deklarasi Bali 2009 di depan Konsulat Jenderal Jepang.

Deklarasi itu terdiri dari empat pokok pikiran. Menuntut penghapusan utang atas proyek-proyek ADB yang tidak sah dan telah memperdalam jeratan utang. Kedua, melawan upaya yang terus dilakukan ADB sebagai penggerak utama privatisasi pangan, benih, air, tanah, energi, kekayaan pesisir dan laut, serta layanan sosial di kawasan Asia.

Ketiga, mengecam dukungan ADB untuk pihak swasta yang telah menguatkan monopoli penguasaan korporasi atas sektor energi, perikanan, pertanian, dan sumber daya air. Keempat, menolak kebijakan ADB yang sengaja mendukung pembiayaan proyek yang terbukti merusak lingkungan dan melahirkan ketidakadilan sosial dan pelanggaran HAM. (BEN/MH/OIN)

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/05/05/04444277/puluhan.aktivis.anti-adb.protes

Monday, April 6, 2009

China's Dollar Deception

Washingtong Post, Monday, April 6, 2009; A15

By Robert J. Samuelson

We are in a race between economic recovery and economic nationalism. At last week's Group of 20 summit, leading nations agreed to roughly $1 trillion of additional lending, mostly through the International Monetary Fund, to help end the worldwide slump. But beneath the veil of consensus, countries are maneuvering to protect their economies and blame someone else for the crisis. Will the world economic order overcome these stresses or give way to a global free-for-all, characterized by rampant protectionism and nationalistic subsidies and preferences?
Emblematic of the tension is a recent proposal by Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China (PBOC), to replace the dollar as the world's major international currency. In a paper, Zhou argued that today's crisis reflects "the inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks" of the dollar-based global economy. The PBOC is China's Federal Reserve; Zhou is no obscure bureaucrat.
It may surprise Americans that, up to a point, his analysis is correct. The dollarized world economy developed huge instabilities -- vast trade imbalances (American deficits, Asian surpluses) and massive, offsetting international money flows. But Zhou's omissions are equally revealing. To wit: China is heavily implicated in the dollar system's failings. By keeping its currency artificially depressed -- as an aid to exports -- China abetted the imbalances it now criticizes.
The Chinese denounce American profligacy after promoting it and profiting from it. Low prices for imported goods (shoes, computers, TVs) encouraged overconsumption. From 2000 to 2008, the U.S. trade deficit with China ballooned from $84 billion to $266 billion. China's foreign exchange reserves are now an astounding $2 trillion.
It's not just that exchange rates were (and are) misaligned. American economists have argued that a flood tide of Chinese money, earned from those bulging trade surpluses, depressed interest rates on U.S. Treasury securities and sent investors searching for higher yields elsewhere. That expanded the demand for riskier securities, including subprime mortgages, and pumped up the housing bubble. So China's policies contributed to the original financial crisis, though they were not the only cause.
For decades, dollars have lubricated global prosperity. They're used to price major commodities -- oil, wheat, copper -- and to conduct most trade. Countries such as Thailand and South Korea use dollars for more than 80 percent of their exports. The dollar also serves as the major currency for cross-border investments by governments and the private sector. Indeed, governments hold almost two-thirds of their $6.7 trillion in foreign exchange reserves in dollars.
But overreliance on the dollar can also backfire, as it now has. It is not just that countries have suffered declines in exports to a slumping U.S. economy. They've also lost dollar loans needed to finance trade with third countries. "When the crisis hit, U.S. banks cut back on dollar credit lines to foreign borrowers," says David Hu of the International Investment Group, an investment fund specializing in trade finance. The extra loans endorsed at last week's summit aim to offset these losses.
Given the dollar's drawbacks, why not switch to something else, as Zhou suggests? The trouble, as even he concedes, is that there's no obvious replacement. The attraction of an international currency depends on its presumed stability, what it will buy and how easy it is to invest. The euro (27 percent of government reserves) and the yen (3 percent) don't yet rival the dollar. As for China, it hasn't made its own currency (the renminbi, or RMB) automatically convertible for Chinese investments.
We're stuck with the dollar standard for a while. To work, it requires that countries with huge trade surpluses reduce the export-led growth that fed the system's instabilities. The Chinese increasingly recognize this. "They're very aware of the need to promote consumer spending," says economist Pieter Bottelier of Johns Hopkins University. In November, China announced a 4 trillion RMB ($586 billion) "stimulus." In addition, says Bottelier, the government is improving health and pension benefits to dampen households' need for high savings.
But China also has a default position: promoting exports. It has increased export rebates; engaged in currency "swaps" with trading partners (the latest: $10 billion with Argentina) to stimulate demand for Chinese goods; and stopped the RMB's slow appreciation. China seems comfortable advancing its economy at other countries' expense. Zhou's pronouncement provides a political rationale for predatory behavior: If we're innocent victims of U.S. economic mismanagement, then we're entitled to do whatever is necessary to insulate ourselves from the fallout. Down this path lies growing mistrust.
The larger point is that the world economy is suspended between the lofty rhetoric of last week's summit and the gritty realities of national politics. Protectionism is rising. A World Bank study found that 17 countries in the G-20 have recently adopted discriminatory policies. Though still modest, they "open the door for a lot of other opportunistic measures," says Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute. And the deeper the recession, the greater the danger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040501724_pf.html

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Lawan Newmont, Pemerintah RI Menang

Kompas, Rabu, 1 April 2009 | 09:17 WIB

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com- Pemerintah berada di atas angin. Kemarin, Majelis Hakim Arbitrase Internasional di Jenewa, Swiss, memenangkan Pemerintah Indonesia dalam sengketa penjualan atau divestasi saham perusahaan tambang PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara (Newmont).

Arbitrase Internasional mengabulkan satu dari dua gugatan Pemerintah terhadap Newmont yang diajukan Juni 2008. Gugatan yang ditolak majelis hakim adalah permintaan Pemerintah menghentikan kontrak karya Newmont.

Majelis hakim memutuskan, Newmont harus melepas 17 persen sahamnya dalam waktu 180 hari sejak putusan keluar, kemarin (31/3). Persentase itu adalah batas kewajiban Newmont yang belum terlaksana sejak 2006 (3 persen), 2007 (7 persen), dan 2008 (7 persen). Sesuai kontrak dengan pemerintah RI, Newmont harus menjual saham secara bertahap hingga mencapai 51 persen pada 2010.

Newmont harus melepas 17 persen saham itu pada Pemerintah Indonesia atau pihak yang ditunjuk Pemerintah. "Saham itu harus bebas gadai," kata Jaksa Pengacara Negara, Joseph Suwardi Sabda.

Sekadar catatan, saat ini Newmont telah menjaminkan sahamnya untuk meminjam dana dari perbankan. Jika Newmont tidak berhasil melaksanakan putusan ini, Pemerintah berhak mencabut kontrak karya Newmont.

Simon Felix Sembiring, mantan Direktur Jenderal Mineral, Batubara, dan Panas Bumi, yang kini menjadi Staf Khusus Menteri Energi Sumber Daya Mineral (ESDM), mengaku, saat ini Pemerintah tak hanya dalam posisi menunggu. "Tapi kami juga punya wewenang menagih karena punya kekuatan hukum tetap," katanya.

Setelah putusan arbitrase itu keluar, Newmont juga mempunyai kewajiban membayar biaya yang dikeluarkan Pemerintah untuk proses pengadilan sebesar 1,8 juta dollar AS.

Tapi, perjalanan kasus ini masih akan panjang. Menurut Kantor berita Reuters, Newmont malah sudah menjual 7 persen saham senilai 427 juta dollar AS kepada PT Pukuafu Indah. Perusahaan milik Yusuf Merukh ini adalah mitra lokal yang sudah menguasai 20 persen saham Newmont.(Gentur Putro Jati/Kontan)

http://bisniskeuangan.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/04/01/09171670/lawan.newmont.pemerintah.ri.menang

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Pemulihan Terjadi pada 2010 dengan Syarat

KRISIS EKONOMI GLOBAL

Kompas, Selasa, 24 Maret 2009 | 05:49 WIB

Geneva, Senin - Perekonomian terus memburuk. Organisasi Buruh Internasional meramalkan pada akhir 2009 akan ada 50 juta penganggur baru. Namun, pemulihan ekonomi bisa terjadi pada 2010 dengan syarat.

”Semua kebijakan harus diimplementasikan,” kata Direktur Pelaksana Dana Moneter Internasional (IMF) Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Senin (23/3) di Geneva, Swiss, dalam pertemuan Organisasi Buruh Internasional (ILO).

Krisis global terjadi karena kredit macet perbankan global di Amerika Serikat senilai 2 triliun dollar AS. Penipuan oleh Wall Street, julukan bursa saham AS, menambah persoalan, seperti yang dilakukan Bernard Madoff, pelaku penggelapan lebih dari 60 miliar dollar AS nilai nominal investasi milik sejumlah lembaga dan perorangan.

Tindakan gegabah dan spekulatif eksekutif itu, sebagaimana dituliskan Paul Krugman di New York Times edisi 22 Maret, turut membangkrutkan lembaga keuangan. ”Krisis terjadi karena disfungsi sistem keuangan,” tulis Krugman.

Hindari cara konvensional

Penelitian Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia (WTO) dan IMF menyebutkan, krisis yang dipicu kehancuran sektor keuangan secara empiris merusak mata rantai perekonomian. Kehancuran sektor ini membuat transaksi kacau dan merembet cepat ke semua sektor.

Strauss-Kahn meminta bank-bank sentral dan pemerintah menghindari pola konvensional dengan mengguyur uang begitu saja ke pasar. Sejak 2008, sejumlah negara maju mengguyur uang ke pasar. Sebagaimana dikatakan Krugman, disfungsi sistem keuangan tak akan mampu memutarkan uang-uang itu ke sektor perekonomian.

Sejauh ini, sejumlah pemerintah sudah meluncurkan dana stimulus ekonomi, menyuntikkan dana-dana ke perbankan. Hal ini terus dilakukan dan menjadi tindakan favorit AS. Namun, langkah itu tak mencegah ekonomi menuju krisis lebih dalam.

Uni Eropa memilih penyehatan perbankan, yang kemudian mulai dilakukan AS. Seiring dengan hal itu, para eksekutif perbankan Eropa, Asia, dan AS bertemu di London, Selasa ini. Pembahasan mereka adalah bagaimana menegakkan etika dan perilaku sistem keuangan. Bahasan lain pertemuan yang dihadiri Menteri Keuangan Inggris Alistair Darling itu adalah suntikan modal bank.

Krugman mengatakan, karena kekacauan perbankan lebih parah daripada yang terjadi pada dekade 1990-an, waktu yang diperlukan untuk sebuah solusi akan lebih lama. Hal itu bergantung pada sejauh mana Pemerintah AS melihat bahwa masalah ada pada disfungsi sektor keuangan. ”Namun, cara-cara yang dilakukan Presiden Barack Obama tetap saja sama dengan pendahulunya, George W Bush,” kata Krugman yang menegaskan agar fokus penyelesaian kebangkrutan perbankan diutamakan.(REUTERS/AP/AFP/MON)

Thursday, March 12, 2009

More Companies At Risk of Failing

U.S.News & World Report

Tuesday March 10, 12:46 pm ET
By Rick Newman

Everybody hopes the economy bottoms out and starts to improve tomorrow. Or sooner. But there are few signs of an imminent recovery. One obvious indicator is the health of big companies - you know, the ones that have been announcing all those four- and five-digits layoffs recently. And the outlook for them seems to be getting worse, not better.

Moody's, the ratings agency, recently published a list of "bottom rung" companies most likely to default on their debt. The criteria are technical, but the upshot is that a lot of companies are in deep trouble - and the list is getting longer, not shorter. Moody's predicts that the default rate on corporate bonds this year will be three times higher than in 2008, and 15 times higher than in 2007. Defaults are often the last step before a bankruptcy filing. And bankrupt companies, obviously, don't usually hire people. They dramatically shed costs and workers and sometimes liquidate completely, firing everybody.


So the Moody's findings help explain why most economists expect the unemployment rate, now 8.1 percent, to rise as high as 9 or 10 percent before it starts to drift back down. And right now, real and perceived fears about job security are the main force driving a contraction in consumer spending, and the economy as a whole. Here's what the bottom-rung report tells us about the next several months:

There will be a lot more bankruptcies. Moody's places 283 companies on its bottom-rung list, up from 157 a year ago. Since the quarterly list was last updated, 73 additional companies have fallen to the bottom rung. Twenty-four companies made their way off the list - but mostly because they defaulted on their debts. Only one company, Landry's Restaurants, got off the list because its circumstances improved.

Companies exposed to consumer spending have it toughest. The industries most represented on the list are media, automotive, retail and manufacturing. Companies in the most acute danger are those with reduced cash flow and a high debt load. A lot of big, well-known companies are in danger. On the list: Advanced Micro Devices; AirTran; AMR (parent of American Airlines); Chrysler; Duane Reade; Eastman-Kodak; Ford; General Motors; JetBlue; Krispy Kreme; Palm; R.H. Donnelly; Reader's Digest Association; Rite-Aid; UAL (parent of United Airlines); Unisys; and US Airways.

Many of the other firms on the list are second- or third-tier suppliers to automakers, airlines, and other troubled firms. Being on the list doesn't mean a firm is destined for bankruptcy. But it does mean the company faces severe constraints in terms of raising new capital, making new investments, and hiring. Instead of expanding, it may be far more inclined to sell assets, streamline or close divisions, and lay people off to cut costs and raise cash.

America's malls are going to end up looking a lot different. The retail sector is obviously getting hammered, with chains like Circuit City and Linens 'n Things already out of business. Many other retail chains are in trouble. Also on the bottom-rung list: Barney's; BCBG Maz Azria; Blockbuster; Brookstone; Claire's Stores; Eddie Bauer; Finlay Fine Jewelry; Harry & David; Loehmann's; Michael's Stores; Oriental Trading Co.; and Sbarro. Again, this doesn't mean the company is doomed. But many of these firms will restructure, close outlets, shrink, and find ways to transform themselves. So if you ever go back to the mall, and your favorite shop has disappeared, you'll know why.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

The U.S. Hegemony ends, the era of global multipolarity enters

08:38, February 24, 2009

By Li Hongmei People's Daily Online

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently published two graphics which struck people as odd by the stark juxtaposition: In 2003, GDP in the U.S accounted for 32 percent of the world total, while GDP of the emerging economies put together took up only 25 percent. In 2008, however, things just reversed with 25 percent for the U.S. and 32 percent going to the emerging economies. The two graphs show GDP as a percentage of total world output. However, what deserves notice is that the dramatic reversal could take place in just five years, and how much more will it change in the next five or the next ten years?

It is evident that the upshot of the shifting economic power signals a swift reduction of U.S. strength as a unipolar power. 'At best, America's unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift…So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing—and losing—in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world's other superpowers: the European Union and China,' citing an article in Saturday's New York Times Magazine titled 'Waving Goodbye to Hegemony' by Parag Khanna.

In the post-Cold War period and with the decomposition of the former Soviet Union, the world scenario was generally subject to the U.S influence. And especially in the 1990s, it seemed conceivable and probable that the international power structure would be ended in the U.S. predominance in the political, economic and cultural systems, or simply and bluntly put, the U.S. would be 'King of the hill.' It would be that case if the U.S. were not hit by the '9.11' terrorist attack.

The U.S. used to rally the international support by launching a severe clampdown upon terror and acting as the global rescuer to keep the world free from the terrorist havoc. But quite soon, this noble campaign against terrorism, initiated by the U.S. Neo-Conservative elites, was interpreted by the international community as a camouflage used by the U.S. to hide its intention to regain monopoly over the entire globe. In 2008, nevertheless, the U.S hegemony was pushed onto the brink of collapse, as a result of its inherent structural contradictions, which proved well-rooted in the American society and far from conciliatory. A visible sign of the U.S. strength decline turned out to be the decline of its monolithic economic clout over the globe.

The typically American liberal capitalist financial system, featuring the loopholes of effective monitoring and feeding greed and exploitation, sparked a swirl of Domino Effects last year and quickly sent the whole economy into plunging. The worst ever economic downturn since the Great Depression also helped the first African-American president Barack Obama take power in a backdrop that Americans are so dearly longing for a radical change.

With the breakdown of the U.S.--dominated international power structure, the world attention would be focused on such an unavoidable question: Does the decline of U.S. geopolitical hegemony make multilateral global governance more likely? Perhaps it is still too early to rush any conclusion, but at least one thing is certain: the U.S. strength is declining at a speed so fantastic that it is far beyond anticipation. The U.S. is no longer 'King of the hill,' as a new phase of multipolar world power structure will come into being in 2009, and the international order will be correspondingly reshuffled. Albeit, for now, the new international power structure is still indiscernible—

In the Middle East, peace talks between Palestine and Israel have yet to see any fruit, and maybe not in prospect; Iran is rising as a regional power; Latin America is stepping up its efforts to break away from the U.S. orbit; the European Union cannot afford its increasing expansion; Leading players on the European Continent such as Britain, Germany and France are battling their own economic downtrend; and Russia also faces a tough job in reducing its heavy reliance on gas exports and building the modern manufacturing industry of its own.

China has grown to be a new heavyweight player and stepped into the limelight on the world stage. And its role in salvaging the plummeting world economy from hitting bottom looms large and active, as the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during her just wrapped-up Asian tour, 'the U.S. appreciates the continued Chinese confidence in the U.S treasuries.' If the Cold War was 'a tug of war' between East and West, and a showcase of hard power, what we have today, for the first time in history, is a global, multicivilizational and multipolar competition, and a display of smart power. To be the winner, one has to seek more cooperation rather than confrontation.


http://english.people.com.cn/90002/96417/6599374.html#

Copyright by People's Daily Online, All Rights Reserved

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Obama Signs $787 Billion Economic Stimulus Bill

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 17, 2009; 3:34 PM

President Obama today signed into law a $787 billion economic stimulus plan that he said begins "the essential work of keeping the American dream alive in our time."

In a speech and signing ceremony in Denver, Obama said the new law is aimed at creating millions of jobs and halting the U.S. economy's downward spiral.

Obama signed the massive, nearly 1,100-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, a setting intended to underscore the new law's role in creating clean-energy jobs. Before the signing, the president toured a solar panel installation on the museum's roof.

From Colorado, Obama is scheduled to fly to Arizona, where he plans to unveil an initiative tomorrow to help millions of homeowners avoid foreclosure.

The bill passed the House Friday by a vote of 246 to 183 and was approved that night in the Senate by 60 to 38. No House Republicans voted for the package. In the Senate, only three Republicans supported the bill, narrowly giving it a filibuster-proof majority and handing Obama a major legislative victory within his first month in office.

Obama said the legislation will save or create 3.5 million jobs over the next two years, pulling the nation back from the brink of what he has called a potential economic catastrophe. The measure aims to spur job growth through massive new investments in energy, transportation, education and health-care projects, while reviving social safety-net programs.

A little more than a third of the legislation's price tag comes from tax cuts. The rest of the costs, about $507 billion, are from spending.

In part, the new law is intended to make good on Obama's campaign pledges to upgrade the nation's aging roads, bridges and electricity grid; overhaul and computerize medical record-keeping and develop alternative energy resources to fight global warming and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

The bill includes nearly $50 billion for roads, bridges, transit and rail, including $8 billion for high-speed rail.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

‘Grimmest’ Davos Ever Brings Anger, Finger-Pointing at Bankers

By James Hertling and Simon Kennedy

Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The theme of the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting was “Shaping the Post-Crisis World.” Unfortunately, the assembled executives, policy makers and do- gooders were stuck in the here and now.

The search for scapegoats and the worst economic prospects since World War II resulted in a gathering marked by fear, anger and bitterness, a far cry from the usual search for consensus.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stormed out of a panel discussion and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin hectored the U.S. as the font of the world’s economic woes. Almost everyone blamed the few bankers who showed up for the near-collapse of the financial system.

Attendees were “less reluctant to criticize, and sometimes very vocally criticize, the U.S. and its capitalist system because of the problems we’re having,” said David Rubenstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, who first came to Davos a decade ago. “Maybe that’s deserved, but it’s a big change.”

“Everyone I spoke to says it’s the grimmest Davos they’ve ever been to,” said Kenneth Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University and a World Economic Forum regular since 2002. “The mood has been very depressed. It’s a low-burn depression.”

Another big change was the virtual absence of Wall Street figures among the 2,500 delegates at the conference, which ended yesterday.

‘Stupid Things’

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon was the only U.S. banking chief who showed up. He made a concession to the mood of this year’s event by accepting some blame for the collapse that has led to more than $1 trillion of writedowns. He deflected the rest at regulators.

“God knows, some really stupid things were done by American banks and by American investment banks,” Dimon said. “To policy makers, I say: ‘Where were they?’”

That attitude was tough for some to swallow. At one session, a call for curbs on bankers’ bonuses was met with applause by sections of the audience.

“We should not trust these bankers,” said Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of the best-selling book “The Black Swan.” “Look at their track record. The only way to stop the process is for the government to own those banks.”

With the world’s elite nursing a collective hangover after the greatest era of global prosperity came to an end, there was enough bile to go around.

Erdogan’s Walkout

Erdogan stunned a packed house on Jan. 29 by walking out on a debate on last month’s war in the Gaza Strip. He claimed that the session’s moderator didn’t give him equal time with Israeli President Shimon Peres and vowed never to return to Davos. By the time he met the press an hour later, he promised to reconsider.

Anyone who thought Barack Obama’s election as president would temper criticism of U.S. policies would have been disappointed. Economists questioned his $819 billion stimulus plan, urged him to deliver another rescue package for banks and fretted about soaring national debt.

“People are looking for the solution but don’t yet have the question formulated,” Arif Naqvi, chief executive officer of Abraaj Capital Ltd., which manages $7.5 billion, said.

The need for action wasn’t in debate. Away from the slopes, U.S. stocks capped their worst ever January, the International Monetary Fund forecast the weakest global growth in 60 years and companies from Starbucks Corp. to Caterpillar Inc. cut jobs.

Deepening Recession

That led many attendees to predict they’ll still be in a funk when they return in 2010.

“We’re in a multi-multi year problem,” Howard Lutnick, chief executive officer of Cantor Fitzgerald LP., said. “We’ve weathered horrible times before. That’s what lies ahead of us now.”

Delegates also took turns bashing America’s policies and its role in the world.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Putin cited the U.S. for leading the world into recession in back-to-back speeches on the opening day.

“Just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum emphasized the U.S. economy’s fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects,” Putin said.

To cap it off, Putin dismissed a query from audience member Michael Dell, head of personal-computer maker Dell Inc., about what the technology community could do to assist Russia.

“We don’t need any help. We are not invalids,” Putin said.

Balanced Tone?

The spats gave this year’s conference a more balanced tone, said Bahraini banker Khalid Abdulla-Janahi, who remembers then- Vice President Dick Cheney “hammering the Russians, the Iranians and many others” during his 2004 visit.

“This time, it was a two-way street,” said the chairman of Ithmaar Bank BSC. “We heard Putin hammering the West and Erdogan standing up to Peres. That’s how it should be.”

Those who made it to the five-day Alpine retreat insisted that they weren’t wasting their time or their money --and they really didn’t mind the muted tone of the event’s party circuit.

“People are conscious about throwing parties or even smiling this year,” said Martin Sorrell, chief executive of WPP Group Plc. “It’s become a little too big, but it’s never been more relevant.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSrfvUUeboBM&refer=home#

To contact the reporter on the story: James Hertling in Davos at jhertling@bloomberg.net; Simon Kennedy in Davos at skennedy4@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: February 1, 2009 18:01 EST

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

“Be Nice to the Countries That Lend You Money”

The Atlantic, December 2008

by James Fallows

In his first interview since the world financial crisis, Gao Xiqing, the man who oversees $200 billion of China’s $2 trillion in dollar holdings, explains why he’s betting against the dollar, praises American pragmatism, and wonders about enormous Wall Street paychecks. And he has a friendly piece of advice: “Be Nice to the Countries That Lend You Money”

Americans know that China has financed much of their nation’s public and private debt. During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama and John McCain generally agreed on the peril of borrowing so heavily from this one foreign source. For instance, in their final debate, McCain warned about the “$10 trillion debt we’re giving to our kids, a half a trillion dollars we owe China,” and Obama said, “Nothing is more important than us no longer borrowing $700billion or more from China and sending it to Saudi Arabia.” Their numbers on the debt differed, and both were way low. One year ago, when I wrote about China’s U.S. dollar holdings, the article was called “The $1.4 trillion Question.” When Barack Obama takes office, the figure will be well over $2 trillion.

During the late stages of this year’s campaign, I had several chances to talk with the man who oversees many of China’s American holdings. He is Gao Xiqing, president of the China Investment Corporation, which manages “only” about $200billion of the country’s foreign assets but makes most of the high-visibility investments, like buying stakes in Blackstone and Morgan Stanley, as opposed to just holding Treasury notes.

Gao, whom I mentioned in my article, would fit no American’s preexisting idea of a Communist Chinese official. He speaks accented but fully colloquial and very high-speed English. He has a law degree from Duke, which he earned in the 1980s after working as a lawyer and professor in China, and he was an associate in Richard Nixon’s former Wall Street law firm. His office, in one of the more tasteful new glass-walled high-rises in Beijing, itself seems less Chinese than internationally “fusion”-minded in its aesthetic and furnishings. Bonsai trees in large pots, elegant Japanese-looking arrangements of individual smooth stones on display shelves, Chinese and Western financial textbooks behind the desk, with a photo of Martin Luther King Jr. perched among the books. Two very large, very thin desktop monitors read out financial data from around the world. As we spoke, Western classical music played softly from a good sound system.

Gao dressed and acted like a Silicon Valley moneyman rather than one from Wall Street—open-necked tattersall shirt, muted plaid jacket, dark slacks, scuffed walking shoes. Rimless glasses. His father was a Red Army officer who was on the Long March with Mao. As a teenager during the Cultural Revolution, Gao worked on a railroad-building gang and in an ammunition factory. He is 55, fit-looking, with crew-cut hair and a jokey demeanor rather than an air of sternness.

His comments below are from our one on-the-record discussion, two weeks before the U.S. elections. As I transcribed his words, I realized that many will look more astringent on the page than they sounded when coming from him. In person, he seemed to be relying on shared experience in the United States—that is, his and mine—to entitle him to criticize the country the way its own people might. The conversation was entirely in English. Because Gao’s answers tended to be long, I am not presenting them in straight Q&A form but instead grouping his comments about his main recurring themes.

Does America wonder who its new Chinese banking overlords might be? This is what one of the very most influential of them had to say about the world financial crisis, what is wrong with Wall Street, whether one still-poor country with tremendous internal needs could continue subsidizing a still-rich one, and how he thought America could adjust to its “realistic” place in the world. My point for the moment is to convey what it is like to hear from such a man, rather than to expand upon, challenge, or agree with his stated views.

.....

About the financial crisis of 2008, which eliminated hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of savings that the Chinese government had extracted from its people, through deliberately suppressed consumption levels:

We are not quite at the bottom yet. Because we don’t really know what’s going to happen next. Everyone is saying, “Oh, look, the dollar is getting stronger!” [As it was when we spoke.] I say, that’s really temporary. It’s simply because a lot of people need to cash in, they need U.S. dollars in order to pay back their creditors. But after a short while, the dollar may be going down again. I’d like to bet on that!

The overall financial situation in the U.S. is changing, and that’s what we don’t know about. It’s going to be changed fundamentally in many ways.

Think about the way we’ve been living the past 30 years. Thirty years ago, the leverage of the investment banks was like 4-to-1, 5-to-1. Today, it’s 30-to-1. This is not just a change of numbers. This is a change of fundamental thinking.

People, especially Americans, started believing that they can live on other people’s money. And more and more so. First other people’s money in your own country. And then the savings rate comes down, and you start living on other people’s money from outside. At first it was the Japanese. Now the Chinese and the Middle Easterners.

We—the Chinese, the Middle Easterners, the Japanese—we can see this too. Okay, we’d love to support you guys—if it’s sustainable. But if it’s not, why should we be doing this? After we are gone, you cannot just go to the moon to get more money. So, forget it. Let’s change the way of living. [By which he meant: less debt, lower rewards for financial wizardry, more attention to the “real economy,” etc.]

.....

About stock market derivatives and their role as source of evil:

If you look at every one of these [derivative] products, they make sense. But in aggregate, they are bullshit. They are crap. They serve to cheat people.

I was predicting this many years ago. In 1999 or 2000, I gave a talk to the State Council [China’s main ruling body], with Premier Zhu Rongji. They wanted me to explain about capital markets and how they worked. These were all ministers and mostly not from a financial background. So I wondered, How do I explain derivatives?, and I used the model of mirrors.

First of all, you have this book to sell. [He picks up a leather-bound book.] This is worth something, because of all the labor and so on you put in it. But then someone says, “I don’t have to sell the book itself! I have a mirror, and I can sell the mirror image of the book!” Okay. That’s a stock certificate. And then someone else says, “I have another mirror—I can sell a mirror image of that mirror.” Derivatives. That’s fine too, for a while. Then you have 10,000 mirrors, and the image is almost perfect. People start to believe that these mirrors are almost the real thing. But at some point, the image is interrupted. And all the rest will go.

When I told the State Council about the mirrors, they all started laughing. “How can you sell a mirror image! Won’t there be distortion?” But this is what happened with the American economy, and it will be a long and painful process to come down.

I think we should do an overhaul and say, “Let’s get rid of 90 percent of the derivatives.” Of course, that’s going to be very unpopular, because many people will lose jobs.

.....

About Wall Street jobs, wealth, and the cultural distortion of America:

I have to say it: you have to do something about pay in the financial system. People in this field have way too much money. And this is not right.

When I graduated from Duke [in 1986], as a first-year lawyer, I got $60,000. I thought it was astronomical! I was making somewhere a bit more than $80,000 when I came back to China in 1988. And that first month’s salary I got in China, on a little slip of paper, was 59 yuan. A few dollars! With a few yuan deducted for my rent and my water bill. I laughed when I saw it: 59 yuan!

The thing is, we are working as hard as, if not harder than, those people. And we’re not stupid. Today those people fresh out of law school would get $130,000, or $150,000. It doesn’t sound right.

Individually, everyone needs to be compensated. But collectively, this directs the resources of the country. It distorts the talents of the country. The best and brightest minds go to lawyering, go to M.B.A.s. And that affects our country, too! Many of the brightest youngsters come to me and say, “Okay, I want to go to the U.S. and get into business school, or law school.” I say, “Why? Why not science and engineering?” They say, “Look at some of my primary-school classmates. Their IQ is half of mine, but they’re in finance and now they’re making all this money.” So you have all these clever people going into financial engineering, where they come up with all these complicated products to sell to people.

.....

About the $700 billion U.S. financial-rescue plan enacted in October:

Finally, after months and months of struggling with your own ideology, with your own pride, your self-right-eousness … finally [the U.S. applied] one of the great gifts of Americans, which is that you’re pragmatic. Now our people are joking that we look at the U.S. and see “socialism with American characteristics.” [The Chinese term for its mainly capitalist market-opening of the last 30 years is “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”]

It is joking, and many people are saying: “No, Americans still believe in free capitalism and they think this is just a hiccup.” This is like our great leader Deng Xiaoping, who said that it doesn’t matter if the cat is white or black, as long as it catches the mouse. It doesn’t matter what we call this. It’s pragmatic.

.....

With so much of China’s money at stake, did U.S. officials consult the Chinese about the rescue plan?

Not directly. We were talking to people there, and they were hoping that we would be supportive by not pulling out our money. We know that by pulling out money, we’re not serving anyone’s good. Including ourselves. [This is the famous modern “balance of financial terror.” If Chinese officials started pulling assets out of the U.S. and touched off a run on the dollar, their vast remaining dollar holdings would plummet in value.] So we’re trying to help, at least by not aggravating the problem.

But I think at the end of the day, the American government needs to talk with people and say: “Why don’t we get together and think about this? If China has $2 trillion, Japan has almost $2 trillion, and Russia has some, and all the others, then—let’s throw away the ideological differences and think about what’s good for everyone.” We can get all the relevant people together and think up what people are calling a second Bretton Woods system, like the first Bretton Woods convention did.

.....

On what might make the Chinese government start taking its dollars out of America (I began the question by saying that China would hurt itself by pulling out dollar assets—at which he interjected, “in the short term”—and then asked about the long-term view):

Today when we look at all the markets, the U.S. still is probably the most viable, the most predictable. I was trained as a lawyer, and predictability is always very important for me.

We have a PR department, which collects all the comments about us, from Chinese newspapers and the Web. Every night, I try to pick a time when I’m in a relatively good mood to read it, because most of the comments are very critical of us. Recently we increased our holdings in Blackstone a little bit. Now we’re increasing a little bit our holdings in Morgan Stanley, so as not to be diluted by the Japanese. People here hate it. They come out and say, “Why the hell are you trying to save those people? You are the representative of the poor people eating porridge, and you’re saving people eating shark fins!” It’s always that sort of thing.

.....

And how should Americans feel about the growing Chinese presence in their economy? Isn’t it natural for them to worry that China will keep increasing its stake in American debt and assets—or that China won’t, essentially cutting America off?

I can understand why Americans might feel that way. But, talking with my lawyer head once again, it’s not relevant to discuss how Americans “should” think. We should discuss how Americans might think.

This concern is not really about China itself. It could be any country. It could be Japan, or Germany. This generation of Americans is so used to your supremacy. Your being treated nicely by everyone. It hurts to think, Okay, now we have to be on equal footing to other people. “On equal footing” would necessarily mean that sometimes you have to stoop to appear to be humble to other people.

And you can’t think as a soldier. You put yourself at the enemy end of everyone. I grew up during the Cultural Revolution, when people really treated other people like enemies. I grew up in an environment where our friends, our relatives, people I called Uncle or Auntie, could turn around and put a nasty face to me as a small child. One time, Vladimir Lenin told Gorky, after reading Gorky’s autobiography, “Oh my god! You could have become a very nasty person!” Those are exactly the words one of my dear professors told me after hearing what I went through.

But over the years, I believe I learned to be humble. To treat other people nicely. I learned that, from a social point of view, no matter how lowly statured a person you are talking to, as a person, they are the same human being as you are. You have to respect them. You have to apologize if you inadvertently hurt them. And often you have to go out of your way to be nice to them, because they will not like you simply because of the difference in social structure.

Americans are not sensitive in that regard. I mean, as a whole. The simple truth today is that your economy is built on the global economy. And it’s built on the support, the gratuitous support, of a lot of countries. So why don’t you come over and … I won’t say kowtow [with a laugh], but at least, be nice to the countries that lend you money.

Talk to the Chinese! Talk to the Middle Easterners! And pull your troops back! Take the troops back, demobilize many of the troops, so that you can save some money rather than spending $2 billion every day on them. And then tell your people that you need to save, and come out with a long-term, sustainable financial policy.

.....

Although Gao has frequently mentioned Chairman Mao’s maxim—“Go with the Republicans. They’re predictable!”—he obviously was hoping for a “change” agenda under the Democrats:

The current conditions can’t go on. It is time for the new government, under Obama or even McCain, to really tell people: “Look, this is wartime, this is about the survival of our nation. It’s not about our supremacy in the world. Let’s not even talk about that any more. Let’s get down to the very basics of our livelihood.”

I have great admiration of American people. Creative, hard-working, trusting, and freedom-loving. But you have to have someone to tell you the truth. And then, start realizing it. And if you do it, just like what you did in the Second World War, then you’ll be great again!

If that happens, then of course—American power would still be there for at least as long as I am living. But many people are betting on the other side.
The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200812/fallows-chinese-banker
SUBSCRIBE TO THE ATLANTIC TODAY!
Take advantage of our great rate to subscribe to a year of The Atlantic Monthly.
Go to the following Web address to sign up today:

http://www.theatlantic.com/subscribe12
All material copyright The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Big Companies Shed Jobs

Business Week, January 26, 2009,

On a single day, tens of thousands of jobs are eliminated at Caterpillar, Sprint Nextel, Pfizer, Home Depot, and General Motors

By BusinessWeek Staff and Wire Reports

The beginning of the workweek brought another round of bad news for U.S. workers, as several major companies announced layoffs totaling in the tens of thousands. Adding to the discouragement, labor market experts said that more layoffs are likely in the near term.

"We are very early in the cycle," said Peter Morici, a professor at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. "We are going to see the fury of the Old Testament for what we have done to the economy."

Among the cuts announced on Jan. 26:

• Caterpillar (CAT), the world's largest maker of mining and construction equipment, announced 5,000 new layoffs on top of several earlier actions. The latest cuts of support and management employees will be made globally by the end of March. The company says it is in the process of shedding about 20,000 jobs. The company employs 112,000 worldwide.

• Wireless phone carrier Sprint Nextel (S) said it is eliminating about 8,000 positions in the first quarter as it seeks to cut annual costs by $1.2 billion. The layoffs will trim about 14% of Sprint Nextel's 56,000 employees. The company said it is also suspending its 401(k) match for the year, extending a freeze on salary increases, and suspending a tuition reimbursement program.

• Pharmaceutical company Pfizer (PFE), which announced a deal to buy rival drugmaker Wyeth (WYE) for $68 billion, said it would cut 8,000 jobs. The cuts will begin in the first quarter and are to be complete by 2011, according to company spokesman Ray Kerins. Cuts will include most departments, from administration and sales to manufacturing and research.

• Home improvement retailer Home Depot (HD) said it was shutting down four small units—Expo Design Centers, YardBIRDS, Design Centers, and HD Bath, a bath remodeling business—trimming about 7,000 jobs in the process. The cuts represent about 2% of Home Depot's total workforce.

• General Motors (GM) said it will cut 2,000 jobs at plants in Michigan and Ohio and will halt production for several weeks at nine plants over the next six months because of slow sales. The company said the layoffs are part of its efforts to "align production with market demand."

The U.S. economy lost 2.6 million jobs in 2008, and the new year has brought no letup in the pink slips. The recent spate of layoffs represent "structural, not cyclical changes to the economy," said Maryland's Morici. "They're the hallmark of depression."

Morici said we've so far only seen a sliver of the job losses to come and that unemployment will reach 9% by the end of the year—with "no end in sight."

The gloom was echoed by the National Association for Business Economics. In a report issued on Monday, the organization said job losses accelerated in the fourth quarter, with about 44% of reporting companies cutting payrolls while only 14% added workers. The group said business conditions were the worst since it began its survey in 1982.

The group said that 39% of companies plan to reduce payrolls over the next six months, while 17% plan to increase employment. The only increase in jobs came in the services sector.

Korporasi Global Masih Terus Bertumbangan

Kompas
Selasa, 27 Januari 2009 | 01:05 WIB

PARIS, Senin - Bank terkemuka di Eropa, BNP Paribas SA, menyatakan, kemungkinan akan membukukan kerugian sebesar 1,4 miliar euro pada kuartal keempat 2008. Kerugian yang cukup besar ini terjadi setelah terjadi gejolak di pasar sehingga menyebabkan BNP Paribas harus melakukan penghapusbukuan sebagian aset bermasalah dan kehilangan unit bank investasi.

Perusahaan produsen lampu terbesar di dunia, Royal Philips Electronics NV, juga melaporkan kerugian kuartal keempat sebesar 1,47 miliar euro atau 1,9 miliar dollar AS. Philips merencanakan pemangkasan tenaga kerja hingga 6.000 orang.

Kedua perusahaan terkemuka itu terkena dampak dari penurunan aktivitas perekonomian global. Semakin banyak orang yang tidak lagi membeli produk-produk jasa keuangan ataupun produk manufaktur, seperti bola lampu yang dihasilkan Philips.

BNP Paribas yang merupakan bank terbesar di Perancis menyatakan, unit korporasi dan bank investasi menargetkan pembukuan kerugian sebelum pajak sebesar 2 miliar euro karena tingginya risiko di pasar modal. BNP Paribas juga melakukan penghapusbukuan aset sebesar 400 juta euro pada kuartal keempat setelah kehancuran pasar modal.

Untuk kinerja keuangan selama satu tahun penuh, BPN Paribas menyatakan masih memegang keuntungan bersih sebesar 3 miliar euro. Kentungan tersebut karena kinerja pada unit perbankan ritel dan aset manajemen.

Saham BNP Paribas naik 7,1 persen menjadi 22,9 euro pada perdagangan sesi pagi di Paris. ”Pada periode pasar yang sedang bergejolak demikian pesat, saya rasa transparansi sangat diperlukan, yaitu memberitahukan kepada pasar bagaimana kinerja kami untuk kuartal keempat dan sepanjang tahun 2008,” ujar CEO BNP Paribas Baudouin Prot. Pengumuman resmi kinerja BNP Paribas akan dikeluarkan pada 19 Februari.

PHK Philips

Pengurangan pegawai di Philips yang juga merupakan produsen peralatan kesehatan dan peralatan elektronik pada kuartal keempat sudah mencapai 7.000 orang. Saat ini Philips memiliki 121.000 pegawai di seluruh dunia.

Perusahaan yang bermarkas di Amsterdam itu juga menyatakan bahwa penjualan turun hingga 9,7 persen menjadi 7,63 miliar euro.

”Perkembangan yang memburuk dari laporan kuartalan kami mencerminkan penurunan perekonomian yang semakin cepat pada akhir tahun 2008,” ujar Chief Executive Gerard Kleisterlee dalam sebuah pernyataannya.

Laba operasi juga turun di kebanyakan divisi utama, yaitu produk konsumen, sehingga secara keseluruhan hanya mencapai 22 juta euro dari 427 juta euro. Penyebabnya antara lain anjloknya penjualan televisi.

Laba operasi dari divisi lampu juga turun menjadi 143 juta euro daripada tahun sebelumnya, 170 juta euro. Pasar di AS diperkirakan masih melemah hingga tahun depan. (AP/AFP/joe)

joe

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/01/27/01053182/korporasi.global.masih.terus.bertumbangan

Sunday, January 11, 2009

The global crisis of capitalism and its impact

Dani Nabudere (2008-12-11)


The present financial crisis afflicting the global economy should not be seen from the narrow focus of the credit crunch and its relationship to the subprime mortgage crisis in the Western countries, especially the US. The crisis goes to the very foundations of the global capitalist system and it should be analysed from that angle. What is at the core of the crisis is the over-extension of credit on a narrow material production base. This is in a situation in which money has become increasingly detached from its material base of a money commodity that can measure its value such as gold.

The expansion of the world economy from 1945 onwards was based on the US providing some kind of link between money and the gold standard, which the US tried to maintain until its collapse in the 1970s. Increasingly the dollar became the global currency but without a backing to its currency from a money commodity. The over-expansion of credit that has taken place since then, especially with the globalisation of the world economy, has meant that a lot of paper money and monetary instruments in the form of derivatives and ‘future options’ have lost any relationship to the ‘fundamentals’ in the material production of the world economy.

That is why there has been a growing outcry that the growth of ‘speculative capital’ has over-run the growth of ‘productive capital’ with large amounts of money and credit circulating without the backing of any production at all. That is also why the relationship between the ‘fundamentals’ in the economy and the new credit instruments created on a daily basis in many cases from speculative ‘short-selling’ have become narrower and narrower over time. This is also why the present financial crisis is also a reflection of the energy and food crisis, because oil and food products such as wheat, rice and other commodities have been subjected to speculative trading to back up paper money many years in the future. The British Prime Minister, among the world leaders, is the only one who has seen this connection when he brought it up in the World Bank meeting a few months ago and also when he met the US Democratic Party Presidential candidate,
Barrack Obama, when he visited Europe recently.

Thus the amount of credit floating around the world is ‘loose money’ completely run-wild, which claims a relationship with a narrow production base. This is in a situation when the US is increasingly unable to repay debts it has accumulated in its Treasury Bonds and Bills, in which the rest of the world have placed their reserves. Most African countries have millions of dollars in these US Treasury bills, which are held as the countries’ ‘reserves.’ China, India and Japan have trillions deposited in these ‘T’ bills and bonds This means that should the world economy collapse under pressure of ‘loose money’ wanting to be given a value (which they do not have) so that the holders of that ‘money’ can preserve their wealth, those holdings in US Treasury bills (or US debt to the rest of the world) will be lost forcing many weak economies to collapse along with it.

This is why it is wrong to conclude, like many people do that capitalism has the capacity, as it has shown over the years, to always reinvent itself by growing a new skin to resist the pangs of crisis inflicted on it by its own greed. That is a false conclusion. US and British capitalism are being put under pressure to stay a float only by nationalising a number of banks and the corporations that can no longer sustain their operations because of shortage of ‘liquid cash.’ These corporations and banks demand that the state should bail them out. The state is being forced to bail these enterprises out on condition that they shall sell the bulk of their shares to the state. This means that these capitalist states are being forced to move in the direction of central planning and management of the economy. For lack of space, we cannot go into this matter in greater detail.

In short, what Karl Marx called ‘the financial oligarchy’ is demanding that the state should take over their burdens and maintain the ‘value’ of their valueless credit instruments while insisting that the poor workers and the middle classes shall take care of themselves. In other world, the oligarchy demand communism for themselves while relegating socialism and capitalism for the middle class and the working class and the other poor strata of society because socialism and capitalism are the only ways through which the middle class and the working poor can ‘compete’ among themselves for survival. Remember that Marx defined communism as: ‘to each according to his needs’ and socialism as: ‘to each according to his capacities.” Capitalism can now better be defined as: ‘to each according to his own devices,’ which is a paradigm fit for the working poor.

THE CREDIT CRUNCH AND THE FOOD CRISIS

The economic crisis has also revealed the way credit over-expansion has affected food prices throughout the world. In fact when the credit crunch struck the world and the food crisis was announced, the crisis was recognised as a global food crisis. That is why the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank immediately held a special session of the Boards of Governors of their institutions to develop policies to deal with this crisis when it became clear that the food crisis was likely to stay with us until 2015 at the very least.

Immediately following the meetings of these multilateral institutions, the World Food Organisation-FAO held an urgent Food Summit on June 3-5 in Rome, in which the Summit called for an immediate response by governments. After the World Bank meeting, the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, wrote a letter to the Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who was at the time the chair of the G8, in which he asked the group to act with speed to address the soaring food prices. What was significant was that Gordon also recognised that the financial market-based risk management instruments, including derivatives, had to be considered as contributing to the food price volatilities. What did Gordon Brown mean by this statement? The real problem underlying currency instability and commodity price volatilities is the fact that the dollar, which acts as a global reserve currency, is not backed by any solid money commodity such as gold or silver. These money
commodities were historically overwhelmed by the growth of capitalist wealth. As a result not all paper wealth that was held by economic actors could be changed into gold in periods of crisis when the demand for ‘real’ money became overwhelming. With the collapse of the gold standard in the US in the 1970s because of the outgrowth of Eurodollars, attempts were made to rely on other commodities such as platinum to back up the dollar, but this was a non-starter because the cost of storing platinum was too high to be borne by paper wealth holders. But financial instruments, especially future options and instruments called derivatives continued to grow in volume.

This is what led to the food commodities coming into the picture to back up future contracts and derivatives expressed in US dollars. The centre of the global commodity trade is the Chicago Board of Trade-CBOT. It is here that global trade in commodities is valued and undertaken together with other commodities markets. It is also here that all commodities, including food commodities, are ‘financialised’ in dollar financial instruments Wheat, oats, corn, rice and soybean are all agricultural products traded on various commodities exchanges, including the CBOT. Here the exchanges also trade the financial ‘products,’ as well as futures and options contracts on these and several derivative products such as bean oil. Coffee, cocoa, sugar, cotton and orange juice are all 'soft' commodities, many of which are traded on the CSCE (Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange). Interestingly, since 80% of the oranges grown in the U.S. are turned into frozen orange
juice concentrate, it's the juice that is traded as a commodity, not the fruit.

An article that appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of 31st May 2008 argued that it was the deregulation of financial markets and the systematic exploitation of US regulatory loopholes that had led to the upsurge of speculative investments in food commodity markets, much of it by institutional investors such as the managers of pension funds. "These funds", wrote the authors, "have ploughed tens of billions of dollars into agricultural commodities as a way of diversifying their assets and improve returns for their investors.”

According to the authors, the amount of fund money invested in commodity indexes had climbed from just $13-billion in 2003 to a staggering $260-billion in March 2008, according to calculations based on regulatory filings. There were warnings that this amount could easily quadruple to $1-trillion, if pension fund managers allocated a greater portion of their portfolio to commodities, as some consultants suggested they were poised to do. Thus, it was the progressive loosening of regulatory requirements, which made possible the enormous influx of money, much of it fleeing the meltdown in the market for mortgage-backed securities and the wider fallout, including big leveraged buyouts in banks.

Because agricultural markets are small - relative to stock markets - the amount of cash pouring into these markets gives these funds substantial clout. The authors observed that these big institutional investors controlled enough wheat in futures instruments, which could supply the needs of American consumers for the next two years. They blamed the "demand shock" from these recent entrants to the commodities markets as the primary factor behind the sudden soaring of food prices. They noted that if no immediate action was taken, food and energy prices were bound to rise still further leading to the catastrophic economic effects on millions of already stressed U.S. consumers and the possible starvation of millions of the worlds poor.

For instance, the Ontario Teachers' Pension fund, which began with a modest investment in food commodities in 1997, had by 2008 invested some 3 billion dollars in this market. With rising investor activity and increasing demand, prices began to rise. Between 2000 and 2007, the price of wheat increased 147 per cent on the Chicago Board of Trade. Over the same period, corn increased by 79 per cent and soybeans by 72 per cent. As more funds moved in to invest, speculators began clamour for more flexibility with trading limits and since there were no controls, the food commodity prices kept on rising.

It has been estimated that for every one percent increase in the price of food, there is an additional 16 million people who go hungry. In its briefing paper for the World Food Summit, the FAO Secretariat devoted two whole paragraphs to the influence of financial markets in pushing upwards the cost of staple food commodities in its assessment of recent developments. However, it had nothing to say about the matter when it came to recommending "policy options" for dealing with the problem. This was not accidental, but a reflection of the positions of the States.

This is why it was correct to conclude, as we have done above, that for the financial oligarchy who wield power in the States, the demand is that the State must guarantee them ‘communism’ (which can assure them their needs) while for the producing and middle classes the attitude of the State is only to guarantee them the conditions for ’free competition’ for the little the financial oligarchy is able to leave aside for the ‘markets’ (to compete over according to their abilities and devices). Financial markets in the global capitalist system, as well as global inter-governmental organisations such as FAO, it seems, have no ‘policy options’ to attend to the needs of the starving masses. There always are, however, ‘options’ for ‘bailing out’ the financial oligarchy while the masses are left to the devices of ‘the markets.’

THE WAY OUT OF THE CRISIS FOR AFRICA

It is clear from the above that agricultural production has become a victim of late capitalist crisis. This is as it has been because from its birth capitalism had always profited from agriculture as an ‘old industry’ in which this ‘industry’ provided the raw materials for its expanded reproduction at low cost. Capitalist crisis has therefore contributed greatly to the exploitation of agricultural workers and ultimately to its collapse. It did so first, by plundering the European peasantry and converting them into paupers through the enclosure system by using the proceeds for its ‘primitive accumulation’ of capital as one of the sources of its birth.

In so doing, it turned the peasants into workers and in its imperialist phase turned to the colonies for agricultural raw materials where the colonial peasant producers were paid prices below subsistence subsidised by female and child free labour working on land. Only after decolonisation and the establishment of the European Common Market did Europe develop a common agricultural policy to avoid being starved in case of wars in the post-colonial States.

Secondly, with the increasing securitisation of commodities, in which the central banks relied on a variety of commodities to give value to paper debt instruments, capitalists fell to agriculture in the post-colonial States of Africa to save their currencies from collapse. This as we saw above is what led to the escalation in the prices of food products leading to their destruction as commodities. The collapse of the dollar and other ‘hard currencies’ has meant a doom for those agricultural food products as their prices begun to plummet with the collapsing currencies.

This is what the economists are calling a ‘recession.’ But nobody knows when the recession will end although many of them now agree that it is already on in all the developed capitalist countries. So those who believed that with high food prices the peasant producers would earn high incomes had better rethink their arithmetic because they need to revise their knowledge of how capitalism operates in its old age. African agricultural and food production based on exports to the markets of the developed countries can no longer be assured and so the African farmer has to find a way out of this mess as quickly as possible.

What we have said above must already alert us as to what we have to do to get out of the mess. First, we have to look at how we can survive in terms of food availability. For the first time, we have to wake up to the reality that African countries need a food security policy as a matter of urgency about which leaders can no longer dilly-dally. That means African countries have first to focus on the home market followed by the regional market and finally the global market. With the home market becoming the focus for our production, we can create regional currencies because in that case we shall have no alternative but to create them to serve the regional markets, but operating under completely new conditions and principles. But we cannot develop a food security based on food crops of which people have very little knowledge, especially since with the currency crisis; we shall not have sufficient dollars to buy foreign food products with in the short and
medium terms.

This means we have to rely more on indigenous food products as the basis of our food security, which we must quickly encourage the farmers to revive. Although many of our indigenous food crops were abandoned in favour of exotic products that could also be sold on the market, there is still a reservoir of knowledge about these crops in the rural communities. So reviving these crops would not be an uphill task if we have a policy that is driven with the same zeal as that of the current production for export. The African elites will have to content themselves with consuming indigenous crops since they can no longer depend on exotic foreign products.

Secondly, we have to consider the strategy of encouraging cooperative production because with the increasing population driven by poverty and the great fragmentation of land holding, it will not be possible to sustain families on the small farm-holdings. A cooperative policy also presupposes a sound credit policy that can enable farmers to borrow for their production and hence the need to hasten the creation of a regional currency that can inform the creation of new local credit systems drawing on the experiences of the ‘informal sector.’ We should learn what the people of Somaliland have done in this respect because they have managed to create a very strong local currency that is not pegged to any global currency.

The collapse of the global capitalist system will not mean the end of the world! On the contrary, it will release the bottled up energies of the people that have been suffocated by the collapsing capitalist system. We shall survive by burying the old system and creating a new one. Such a new system will have to be socialist-oriented since even the most developed capitalist countries have no alternative but to do so as we can already see with the whole sale nationalisation of banks throughout Europe and the US. Some countries such as Iceland have already gone bankrupt.

This means that even the political system has to change. The key to political rejuvenation will lie in the ‘deepening of democracy’ right from the family level, to the clan and to the traditional institutions level since the post-colonial state would have collapsed along with the dollar. New forms of political power will emerge at a local level unless new warlords try to occupy the political space. But the warlords are already doomed as the Somali situation already demonstrates. The local power structures will need a wider cooperative basis on the model of confederal or federal regional states and we should consider Southern, Eastern African or the Great Lakes region for such a partnership.

The development of local markets will need the backing of regional markets for wider exchange of commodities. Therefore, new forms of agricultural and industrial production will have to be tailored to local needs and tastes. Similarly, new local markets will emerge in other parts of the world calling for global exchanges of commodities with those consumers. Eventually a new global currency or currencies based on a basket of commodities will have to be created to facilitate these exchanges on a completely new basis not based on capitalist super-profits run by transnational corporations.

At a political level, we shall increasingly see the emergence of a global civil society along side the new global market. Hence, we can already envisage the emergence of a GLOCAL SOCIETY (a Global society based on local nationalities and global citizenship). Along side with these developments will eventually emerge a federated global State, which will be developed by the local powers. We can no longer return to the caves, we can only move forward to a new world. Yes, a New World is possible and it can now be said with certainty: A NEW WORLD IS INEVITABLE!

* Professor Dani W. Nabudere is the Executive Director of the Afrika Study Centre

* Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org/

Source: http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/52604

Rafael V. Mariano, chairperson of the Peasant Movement of the Philippines, 2000

Food has long been a political tool in US foreign policy. Twenty-five years ago USDA Secretary Earl Butz told the 1974 World Food Conference in Rome that food was a weapon, calling it 'one of the principal tools in our negotiating kit.' As far back as 1957 US Vice-President Hubert Humphrey told a US audience, "If you are looking for a way to get people to lean on you and to be dependent on you in terms of their cooperation with you, it seems to me that food dependence would be terrific."