Dear All,
I am sure many must have seen the live testimony of bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Chief Executive Richard Fuld.
To me it was a fascinating case of Hollywood style politics being played out by respected Congressmen, to give the world an aura of transparency, fairness and generosity of spirit that is supposed to have been one of the founding principles of the White settlers who bought over cheap land from Native Americans in the past few centuries and built up America as a model of tolerance and freedom for the world to adulate and squirm in its own filth, prejudice and intolerance.
Thomas Freidman, author of " Hot, Flat and Crowded "of immigrant forefathers from Russia / Eastern Europe, is a man who jokingly talks of an America with high walls but a very large door and now promotes the necessity of high oil and energy prices for America to return to its founding principles of land of innovation and freedom for all, regardless of colour, creed or background.
------
MarketWatch - http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/fuld-blames-lehmans-fall-lack/story.aspx?guid={A94914F8-4190-45B8-A850-2C41067F859B}&dist=msr_19
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Facing skeptical and angry members of Congress, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Chief Executive Richard Fuld blamed the bankruptcy of his firm on a "lack of confidence" Monday, saying in testimony he and other executives did everything they could to protect the investment bank before it imploded in September.
"Ultimately what happened to Lehman Brothers was caused by a lack of confidence," Fuld said. "This was not a lack of confidence in just Lehman Brothers, but part of what has been called a storm of fear enveloping the entire investment-banking field and our financial institutions generally," Fuld said in testimony at a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Read Fuld's testimony.
But lawmakers lashed out at Fuld even before he took his seat at the witness table, with one even asking how the executive could sleep at night.
"Mr. Fuld takes no responsibility for the collapse of Lehman," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the panel's chairman, before Fuld began his testimony. Waxman also said that Fuld will come out of the bankruptcy remaining wealthy while the economy is threatened.
"Mr. Fuld will do fine," Waxman added. "But taxpayers are left with a $700 billion bill to rescue Wall Street and an economy in crisis," referring to the $700 billion rescue plan for the financial markets signed into law Friday.
Waxman also said experts believe that Lehman's (LEHMQ fall triggered the credit crisis and made the rescue plan necessary.
Lehman filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15, the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history. The committee is planning five hearings about the financial meltdown.
Testifying before the panel, Fuld said: "I take full responsibility for the decisions that I made and for the actions that I took."
'I wonder how [Fuld] sleeps at night.'
— Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.
In his testimony, Fuld remarked that he believed the company was "well protected to withstand even the most difficult markets."
But he also said that the government could have taken steps to help the troubled bank. An earlier decision by the Federal Reserve to allow banks to pledge collateral to the central bank "would have been extraordinarily helpful to Lehman Brothers," he commented.
Similarly, help from the Fed for a merger between Lehman and another bank could have stemmed more problems in the market, according to Fuld.
Moreover, he said, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve closely observed the company's business in 2008. "They were privy to everything as it was happening," he asserted. "Quarter to quarter, month to month, regulators saw how we reduced our commercial real-estate holdings, how we increased our liquidity pool, how we decreased leverage and strengthened our capital levels."
But House lawmakers -- all of whom are up for re-election next month -- went on the attack against the embattled executive.
Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said he's asking for a special counsel to investigate the fall of Lehman, and Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said members of his church were asking on Sunday why Fuld and other executives were paid so much money.
"I wonder how [Fuld] sleeps at night," Cummings added.
Lehman's board was asked to approve $20 million in special payments to three departing executives just four days before the company filed for bankruptcy, according to Waxman.
Fuld said the company's executives did all they could to prop up the bank but couldn't manage to save it. "In the end, despite all our efforts, we were overwhelmed, others were overwhelmed and still other institutions would have been overwhelmed had the government not stepped in to rescue them."
Meanwhile, House Republican Leader John Boehner said the hearings amount to little more than "political theater" as long as they don't probe the roles of Fannie Mae (FNM in the credit crisis.
"Chairman Waxman has flatly refused numerous requests by Republicans to hold even a single hearing on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role in the financial crisis that is having an impact on families, seniors, small businesses and every single taxpayer in America," Boehner said in a statement.
----
There were also pointed questions put to Mr Fuld whether he felt he was double crossed by the Treasury Secretary H Paulson, and given to put faith in some wrong planted leads and insider information. To this Mr Fuld replied that he sincerely wished this were not the case.
The Guardian has reported on this Congressional hearing under oath, and - for public consumption, inept Congressman, vacuously kept reminding Mr Fuld , no doubt for public consumption, that he was under oath - - Nagarjuna
----
Guardian has reported : http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/06/creditcrunch.lehmanbrothers
It was a showdown to cherish for critics of Wall Street's culture of enrichment. The grim-faced boss of the bankrupt bank Lehman Brothers was left squirming with discomfort today as a veteran Democrat roasted him over his multi-million dollar pay.
With the startled look of a man unaccustomed to sharp examination, Lehman's chief executive, Richard Fuld, clashed bluntly with the chairman of the House oversight committee, Henry Waxman, on Capitol Hill.
Called upon to explain why Lehman collapsed last month, Fuld began with a note of humility, saying he felt "horrible" over the demise of the 158-year-old institution. "I want to be very clear," said Fuld. "I take full responsibility for the decisions I made and for the actions I took."
In a brief speech that was heard in silence, Fuld told lawmakers that if he could turn back the clock, he would do many things differently. As soon as he finished speaking, sparks began to fly. The chairman of the committee held up a chart suggesting that Fuld's personal remuneration totalled $480m over eight years – including payouts of $91m in 2001 and $89m in 2005.
"Your company is now bankrupt and out country is in a state of crisis," said Waxman, a liberal lawmaker from California. "You get to keep $480m. I have a very basic question – is that fair?" After a long pause, Fuld demurred, saying the figure was exaggerated: "The majority of my compensation, sir, came in stock. The vast majority of the stock I got I still owned at the point of our [bankruptcy] filing."
Waxman cut him off, saying that even if the figure was slightly lower, it was "unimaginable" to much of the public. "Is that fair, for a CEO of a company that's now bankrupt, to make that kind of money? It's just unimaginable to so many people." Waxman asked. "I would say to you the $500m number is not accurate," said Fuld. "I'd say to you, although it's still a large number, for the years you're talking about here, my cash compensation was close to $60m, which you've indicated here, and I took out closer to $250m [in shares]."
Interrupting again, Waxman listed Fuld's collection of property – including a $14m ocean-front villa in Florida and a home in the exclusive ski resort of Sun Valley, Idaho. "You and your wife have an art collection filled with million dollar paintings," said Waxman. "Your former president, Joe Gregory used to travel to work in a helicopter."
The pugnacious Waxman warmed to his theme: "You made all this money taking risks with other peoples' money."
Refusing to give ground, Fuld said his pay had been set by an independent compensation committee which spent "a tremendous amount of time" making sure executives' interests were aligned with those of shareholders.
"When the company did well, we did well," said Fuld. "When the company did not do well, we didn't do well." Waxman disagreed: "Mr Fuld, there seems to be a breakdown, because you did very well when the company was doing well and you did well when the company was not doing well. And now your shareholders who owned your company have nothing. They've been wiped out."
Fuld's evidence on Capitol Hill was his first public appearance since Lehman failed, sparking a chain of events that have sent shockwaves through the global financial system and has prompted the US government to begin a $700bn bail-out of the banking industry.
A lifelong Lehman employee who joined the firm as an intern in 1966, Fuld has been blamed for the debacle by many of the bank's 28,000 staff – including those in London who have accused senior management of filleting Lehman's British operation of money in the bank's final days.
Deadpan and emotionless, Fuld repeatedly frustrated congressmen by answering questions with lengthy, technical financial explanations. Frustrated by his demeanour, a Republican congressman, John Mica, tried humour. "If you haven't discovered your role, you're the villain today," said Mica. "You've got to act like a villain."
Fuld stared back wordlessly, without a shadow of a smile. Towards the end of his two hours of evidence, Fuld told Congress that until the final hours of the bank, he believed a takeover by Barclays would save Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy. In the event, Barclays waited until after Lehman had collapsed before buying the remnants of its US operations.
"Not that anyone on this committee cares about this but I wake up every single night wondering 'what could I have done differently?'" Fuld said. "In certain conversations, what should I have said? What could I have done? I have searched myself every single night." Raising his voice, Fuld continued: "This is a pain that will stay with me for the rest of my life."
===
It is amazing that while paid lobbying is perfectly LEGAL in Washington policy making, naked attempts were made to black wash a man as a VILLAIN - a man who was paying salaries to 28,000 of the smartest individuals in the financial world, a man who evolved a highly successful part salary, part bonuses and part stock options compensations system to ensure alignment of employee interests with those of shareholders in the most sophisticated of American financial institutions and was the epitome of a sophisticated art collector in a land where the rights of the wealthy are protected and kept above the rights of the masses -
One Congressman pointed out the amounts of money paid by Lehman Brothers to influence financial regulators and law makers in Capitol Hill, and if Lehman Brothers was actually manipulated and sabotaged from the very top echelons of the US financial / regulatory watchdogs.
But all this was glossed over in the ridiculous circus of arbitrary transparency that US of A tried to put before the world at large.
Now the nationalized banks are here to stay, greed and profit making is suddenly a dirty word, and attempts are being made to redefine globalization and capitalism for the world in a manner more palatable to American voters and Sovereign Funds from Gulf countries, Japan and Emerging Economies.
Long Live America.
How America has turned 180 degrees is clear before all, when one cuts out the postures, and posture making, and histrionics of American politicans and academics.
Regards,
Nagarjuna
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
21st Century American Foreign Policy, Indian Defense Purchases and the Export of Conflicts to Asia
21st Century - Indian Defense Purchases and American Foreign Policy Agenda of Exporting Conflicts to Asia ---
Dear Eddie and All,
Sorry to butt in, but before Mandeep has a go, my two cents for what they are worth in a 700 Billion dollars bailout / rescue package.
I am sure it is time for the kids who study America and Western industrialization story as the basis of colonialism and imperialism, to grow up and stop campaigning for falsehoods, as American foreign policy is fine tuned to 21st century. Exporting external and internal conflicts to Asia will be part and parcel of this fine tuning maybe even in the garb of improving Indian internal security and the technologies required for it.
Indian military strategists need to study the global presumptions and compulsions of neocon American foreign, diplomatic and military policy, before they look at regional conflicts and ambitions.
Not having studied 20th century globalization in sufficient detail, Indian policy analysts will now have their plates full trying to pull up their socks wrapping their heads around 21st century Post Globalization !!!
Dharampal is the only Indian historian to have studied Western concepts of globalization in sufficient detail in my opinion.
In my opinion, in the 21st century, US of A as a nation and an empire will only be able to survive by supplying arms and military hardware to unsuspecting countries and their army of bureaucrats and commission agents, right from dissatisfied serving defense officers to ex Navy admirals.
US of A, in a world where the dollar will cease to be the reserve currency of the world and when for One Dollar you might only get One Rupee, and for One Pound you will get only Two Rupees - will absolutely need to find new regions for exporting conflict away from the American island to Asian and African countries. In my opinion this is the need of the hour for American foreign policy and defense strategicians.
What better than to pit India against Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China, apart of course from India;s own Muslims who feel marginalized, to serve the long term interests of US of A as a business entity that survives on muscular imperialism.
The current dispensation in India of Pranab Mukherjee and ManMohan Singh has seriously tinkered with and destroyed time tested non alignment principles of Nehruvean foreign policy.
The lame duck US Secretary of State, an ex academician who will soon be returning to a lucrative academic contract, as a representative of lame duck President in WHite House, struggling to find global markets and push up his image in the eyes of the common American, is desperately seeking new markets for global hardware and obsolete nuclear technology.
I find it amazing that when President Bush had last visited India, he had insisted on addressing the architects of post Bofors India from the ramparts of Lal Kila - or Red Fort despite security misgivings of Indian government.
This is symbolic of US foreign policy desire to intervene in South Asian regional insecurity and be the policeman that guarantees regional security in unchartered waters.
Ms Rice is in India and CNN reports on her visit and agenda as the arms exports led American economy and foreign policy rapidly loses steam domestically.
Regards,
Nagarjuna
-----
CNN Report - NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday that a deal lifting a ban on nuclear trade with India would be signed shortly.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says nuclear deal will improve relationship with India.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says nuclear deal will improve relationship with India.
"The president will sign the agreement very soon," she said. The signing had earlier been postponed because of administrative matters.
"Let me be clear, the 123 agreement is done, it's just a matter of signing that agreement," Rice said, referring to the name of the deal, which removes a ban on U.S. nuclear trade with India.
At a luncheon, External Affairs Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee praised Rice and U.S. President Bush for their efforts.
"When I look to the future, I am confident that our relations will continue to improve," he said.
Hours earlier, en route to India, Rice told reporters that work remained to be done. "It's got to be worked out at the last minute, because there are so many administrative issues that we have to deal with," she said. "The important thing about this trip is to talk about the next steps in the U.S.-India relationship, not the last step.
Don't Miss
* Rice hails approval of India nuclear deal
* U.S. to sell $6.4 billion in weapons to Taiwan
"What the civil nuclear deal does is that it removes for India a barrier to full integration on a whole range of technologies," Rice said. "But more importantly, I think it is symbolic of a relationship with India that's now at a very, very different level. And at that different level, one would expect that economic relations, defense relations, a whole range of relationships, including business relationships, will flourish."
The Senate voted 86-13 Wednesday to overturn the 34-year-old ban on nuclear trade with India. The House of Representatives passed the bill without debate last Saturday.
Rice has called the deal "a historic agreement," saying it puts the United States and India on "a firm footing."
It means American businesses can sell nuclear fuel, technology and reactors to India. In turn, India will allow international inspections of its civilian -- but not military -- nuclear power plants. It also promised not to resume testing of nuclear weapons.
The United States banned nuclear trade with India after the country exploded a nuclear device in 1974 and refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
advertisement
Critics contend that it would hurt international efforts to keep nuclear weapons from spreading.
Rice is to travel from India to Kazakhstan.
------
Hi Mandeep,
I tried to access the Bharat Rakshak site you suggested but failed. I suspect it may be a restricted site.
Anyway, I'd like to ask you a question or two, not so much about military history but about India's on-going military build-up.. I think you will be well placed to answer.
I have raised this matter on certain Indian blogs but they just get annoyed and won't give a straight answer.
As I see it, India has not won a single war with an equal enemy like China.
When China invaded in 1962, Nehru was caught by surprise. And no wonder - India's army was no match for the Chinese which had seen combat agaisnt the Americans in the Korean conflict (1950-53). According to India Times (Feb07): "Premier Zhou Enlai said: "we sent three open telegrams to Jawaharlal Nehru asking him to make a public reply, but he refused. He was so discourteous; he wouldn't even do us the courtesy of replying, so we had no choice but to drive him out." The Chinese had no difficulty entering Indian territory, crossing upto 200 miles at one time. They then withdrew of their own accord. (Do you agree with this version of events?)
In the early 70s, India dismembered East Pakistan with ease (there was litle resistance) and created Bangladesh. The outcomes of 3 wars with Pakistan were apparently indecisive. When the Indians tried peace keeping in Sri Lanka in the late 90s, they suffered heavy losses and decided to return. (Is this correct?)
Doesn't all this speak poorly of the Indian military? So to return to my question:
Why does India keep wasting billions buying hardware from the US, Britain, France, Russia and Israel? They have been the world's top aggressors and trouble makers for a long time. So who is India's enemy? India can hardly win against China, so is the build-up to deter little Pakistan (with a quarter the area and one-sixth the population?)
Or do you think India will end up as a junior partner on call to serve US global interests against 'terrorists' , whenever required?
I would appreciate your views on this matter.
Eddie
------------ --------- --------- -----
Mandeep wrote:
Thanks Karam for that great introduction which rather flatters me !
Eddie, I welcome your interest in Indian military history. Count on me for any help you might need. I'm one of the two Editors on www.indianmilitaryh istory.org the site of the Centre for Indian Military History. You will find it useful particularly if you have any questions which we'll answer with alacrity.
Wikipedia has some great articles though I'd treat some of the information with caution since the site consists of inputs from individuals who are free to post whatever they like.
I'd recommend that you try Bharat Rakshak http://bharat-rakshak.com Very informative. You'll find me there too !
Warm Regards to everyone and thanks for welcoming me !
Mandeep Bajwa
Dear Eddie and All,
Sorry to butt in, but before Mandeep has a go, my two cents for what they are worth in a 700 Billion dollars bailout / rescue package.
I am sure it is time for the kids who study America and Western industrialization story as the basis of colonialism and imperialism, to grow up and stop campaigning for falsehoods, as American foreign policy is fine tuned to 21st century. Exporting external and internal conflicts to Asia will be part and parcel of this fine tuning maybe even in the garb of improving Indian internal security and the technologies required for it.
Indian military strategists need to study the global presumptions and compulsions of neocon American foreign, diplomatic and military policy, before they look at regional conflicts and ambitions.
Not having studied 20th century globalization in sufficient detail, Indian policy analysts will now have their plates full trying to pull up their socks wrapping their heads around 21st century Post Globalization !!!
Dharampal is the only Indian historian to have studied Western concepts of globalization in sufficient detail in my opinion.
In my opinion, in the 21st century, US of A as a nation and an empire will only be able to survive by supplying arms and military hardware to unsuspecting countries and their army of bureaucrats and commission agents, right from dissatisfied serving defense officers to ex Navy admirals.
US of A, in a world where the dollar will cease to be the reserve currency of the world and when for One Dollar you might only get One Rupee, and for One Pound you will get only Two Rupees - will absolutely need to find new regions for exporting conflict away from the American island to Asian and African countries. In my opinion this is the need of the hour for American foreign policy and defense strategicians.
What better than to pit India against Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China, apart of course from India;s own Muslims who feel marginalized, to serve the long term interests of US of A as a business entity that survives on muscular imperialism.
The current dispensation in India of Pranab Mukherjee and ManMohan Singh has seriously tinkered with and destroyed time tested non alignment principles of Nehruvean foreign policy.
The lame duck US Secretary of State, an ex academician who will soon be returning to a lucrative academic contract, as a representative of lame duck President in WHite House, struggling to find global markets and push up his image in the eyes of the common American, is desperately seeking new markets for global hardware and obsolete nuclear technology.
I find it amazing that when President Bush had last visited India, he had insisted on addressing the architects of post Bofors India from the ramparts of Lal Kila - or Red Fort despite security misgivings of Indian government.
This is symbolic of US foreign policy desire to intervene in South Asian regional insecurity and be the policeman that guarantees regional security in unchartered waters.
Ms Rice is in India and CNN reports on her visit and agenda as the arms exports led American economy and foreign policy rapidly loses steam domestically.
Regards,
Nagarjuna
-----
CNN Report - NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday that a deal lifting a ban on nuclear trade with India would be signed shortly.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says nuclear deal will improve relationship with India.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says nuclear deal will improve relationship with India.
"The president will sign the agreement very soon," she said. The signing had earlier been postponed because of administrative matters.
"Let me be clear, the 123 agreement is done, it's just a matter of signing that agreement," Rice said, referring to the name of the deal, which removes a ban on U.S. nuclear trade with India.
At a luncheon, External Affairs Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee praised Rice and U.S. President Bush for their efforts.
"When I look to the future, I am confident that our relations will continue to improve," he said.
Hours earlier, en route to India, Rice told reporters that work remained to be done. "It's got to be worked out at the last minute, because there are so many administrative issues that we have to deal with," she said. "The important thing about this trip is to talk about the next steps in the U.S.-India relationship, not the last step.
Don't Miss
* Rice hails approval of India nuclear deal
* U.S. to sell $6.4 billion in weapons to Taiwan
"What the civil nuclear deal does is that it removes for India a barrier to full integration on a whole range of technologies," Rice said. "But more importantly, I think it is symbolic of a relationship with India that's now at a very, very different level. And at that different level, one would expect that economic relations, defense relations, a whole range of relationships, including business relationships, will flourish."
The Senate voted 86-13 Wednesday to overturn the 34-year-old ban on nuclear trade with India. The House of Representatives passed the bill without debate last Saturday.
Rice has called the deal "a historic agreement," saying it puts the United States and India on "a firm footing."
It means American businesses can sell nuclear fuel, technology and reactors to India. In turn, India will allow international inspections of its civilian -- but not military -- nuclear power plants. It also promised not to resume testing of nuclear weapons.
The United States banned nuclear trade with India after the country exploded a nuclear device in 1974 and refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
advertisement
Critics contend that it would hurt international efforts to keep nuclear weapons from spreading.
Rice is to travel from India to Kazakhstan.
------
Hi Mandeep,
I tried to access the Bharat Rakshak site you suggested but failed. I suspect it may be a restricted site.
Anyway, I'd like to ask you a question or two, not so much about military history but about India's on-going military build-up.. I think you will be well placed to answer.
I have raised this matter on certain Indian blogs but they just get annoyed and won't give a straight answer.
As I see it, India has not won a single war with an equal enemy like China.
When China invaded in 1962, Nehru was caught by surprise. And no wonder - India's army was no match for the Chinese which had seen combat agaisnt the Americans in the Korean conflict (1950-53). According to India Times (Feb07): "Premier Zhou Enlai said: "we sent three open telegrams to Jawaharlal Nehru asking him to make a public reply, but he refused. He was so discourteous; he wouldn't even do us the courtesy of replying, so we had no choice but to drive him out." The Chinese had no difficulty entering Indian territory, crossing upto 200 miles at one time. They then withdrew of their own accord. (Do you agree with this version of events?)
In the early 70s, India dismembered East Pakistan with ease (there was litle resistance) and created Bangladesh. The outcomes of 3 wars with Pakistan were apparently indecisive. When the Indians tried peace keeping in Sri Lanka in the late 90s, they suffered heavy losses and decided to return. (Is this correct?)
Doesn't all this speak poorly of the Indian military? So to return to my question:
Why does India keep wasting billions buying hardware from the US, Britain, France, Russia and Israel? They have been the world's top aggressors and trouble makers for a long time. So who is India's enemy? India can hardly win against China, so is the build-up to deter little Pakistan (with a quarter the area and one-sixth the population?)
Or do you think India will end up as a junior partner on call to serve US global interests against 'terrorists' , whenever required?
I would appreciate your views on this matter.
Eddie
------------ --------- --------- -----
Mandeep wrote:
Thanks Karam for that great introduction which rather flatters me !
Eddie, I welcome your interest in Indian military history. Count on me for any help you might need. I'm one of the two Editors on www.indianmilitaryh istory.org the site of the Centre for Indian Military History. You will find it useful particularly if you have any questions which we'll answer with alacrity.
Wikipedia has some great articles though I'd treat some of the information with caution since the site consists of inputs from individuals who are free to post whatever they like.
I'd recommend that you try Bharat Rakshak http://bharat-rakshak.com Very informative. You'll find me there too !
Warm Regards to everyone and thanks for welcoming me !
Mandeep Bajwa
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Pray, What might be some Post Globalization Predictions of an Iranian Jew ?
Dear All,
Pray, What might be some Post Globalization Predictions of an Iranian Jew ?
Taking some lessons from the global financial crisis - Time to get down from Air Force One
The Jewish people as a global phenomenon at the very heart of the rise of Zionism and the post Second World War economic and financial system as well as what we have come to know as the post Perestroika unipolar world order dominated by the United States would be very well known to all serious students of cultural history with a keen insight into the the role played by diaspora in shaping world orders.
The Diaspora in nation states of the previous 20 th century, especially the Jews who emigrated from the old Europe to countries like Israel and United States of America are I think a very fit topic for the study into the issue of the convergence of cultural, economic and political identities - the Jews are quintessentially, along with Islam and Christianity, playing out the historical roles assigned to them in their cultural traditions, just below the temporary veneer of twentieth century modernity and the dominance of the Western World over large parts of the non Western world.
I was intrigued to find that the ageing professional champion of ideological economic globalization and the central role of USA in imperialism and world affairs, (a person who worked his way as a quintessential hardworking Oxbridge educated Sikh / silent World Bank economist and bureaucrat, ( but was launched into a political vacuum created by the non acceptance of the Congress party desire for an Italian woman as Indian Prime Minister ), and well known for his domestic reticence and his policy of taking the Nehruvian ideals of non alignment into their deathbed ) - in mediating the affairs of world post 9/11 recently on his tour of USA and Europe - one board his swashy personal aeroplane Air India One, chose to clearly spoke out to the prickly issues of the role of emerging economies in the resolution of the global financial meltdown.
He of course said that the emerging economies cannot be immune from the problems that have catclysmically and shockingly emerged onto the radar of Western political and economic order in the last one month, past the so called regulatory framework, that is not fit for purpose in a laissez faire 21st century global capitalism - the financial earthquake going by the euphemism of " Credit and Liquidity Crunch in Money Markets ".
He said this while he quietly signed an agreement with France on Civil Nuclear cooperation to build more modern nuclear plants than the USA - the mecca of science and technology - is capable of providing to the world and negotiated some cosmetic social security arrangements for short term economic migrants to France from the Indian professional heartland. France incidentally and Monsieur Sarkozy in particular have often been speaking of the need to expand the G-8 group of countries, beyond its imperialistic old Europe and Bretton Woods lineage, to include India as a (responsible economy on the world stage )
In a recent edition of HardTalk on BBC by Stephen Sackur, the issue of the Dollar as the reserve currency for the world and the USA as the underpinner of the world security order, and the instigator of Middle East Asian conflicts came up for discussion.
Why should the whole world ( the Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese and the oil rich Saudis ) spend its cash on propping up the Dollar and what the dollar represents to the World as we know it ?
Economic historians of course know the centrality of Bretton Woods to the whole issue of the Dollar being effectively made the reserve currency of the world as opposed to the more old fashioned precious metal of Gold.
As long as the Dollar remains the effective reserve currency of the world, and as long as the Arab sheikhs keep the cheap oil flowing into guzzling American cars, America can keep up the pretense of being the security guarantor to the world. Effectively the whole world keeps the American Empire afloat, underwriting the trillions od dollars of American global debt, providing Americans with the trust to keep the world moving on its axis.
But this can continue only till the time, lame duck presidents like George Bush and and Neo Conservative twentieth century hawks like Cheney do not run out of their ability to do slightly more than whitewash White House in Washington and Capitol, a bit like Tom Sawyer whitewashing wooden fences for his Uncle to get some pocket money and the intellectual elite of the world keeps flocking to converge onto the American educational campuses.
So here is where an Iranian Jew comes in and begins to predict the demise of US of A as one of the shortest empires in the history of the human civilization.
Professor Nouriel Roubini is a quintessential Diasporean and his specialization happens to be Macro Economics, in a post globalization era in which nobody takes the dire pronouncements of President Bush of Washington any more seriously than the peace talk of the Dalai Lama in Dharamshala.
Prof Nouriel Roubini is now clearly talking of the demise of the American Empire - the uni polar post Bretton Woods and Russian perestroika of Gorbachev of the 20 th century. It is high time Indian brat pack economists like Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Chidambaram begin to take note and reading up more on the history of Iranian Jews.
In Electrical Engineering and in Financial Markets there is a concept like Signal and Noise. The issence of intellectualism lies in separating and muffling the noise from the signal.
Warm Regards,
Nagarjuna
*****
More on Prof Roubini on Wikipedia -
Nouriel Roubini (born on March 29, 1958 in Istanbul, Turkey[1]) is a professor of economics at New York University. He is also the chairman of RGE Monitor, an economic and financial analysis firm.
Contents
* 1 Early life and education
* 2 Career
* 3 Writings
* 4 Research
* 5 Current appointments
* 6 External links
* 7 References
Early life and education
The New York Times describes Roubini's early life as follows: "He was born in Istanbul, the child of Iranian Jews, and his family moved to Tehran when he was two, then to Tel Aviv and finally to Italy, where he grew up and attended college. He moved to the United States to pursue his doctorate in international economics at Harvard."[2] Roubini resided in Italy from 1962-1983, and is currently a U.S. citizen[1]. He speaks English, Italian, Hebrew, and Persian.[1]
Roubini spent one year at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem before receiving his B.A. summa cum laude in Economics from the Bocconi University (Milan, Italy) in 1982. He received his Ph.D. in international economics from Harvard University in 1988. According to his advisor, Jeffrey Sachs, he was unusual in his talent with both mathematics and intuitive understanding of economic institutions.[2]
Career
He served in various roles at the Treasury Department, including Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for International Affairs and Director of the Office of Policy Development and Review (July 1999 - June 2000). Previously, he was a Senior Economist for International Affairs on the Staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisors (July 1998 - July 1999).
Currently, Professor Roubini is a Professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University. He has also held teaching positions at Yale University, but failed to get tenure.
Roubini is known for his predictions of financial crisis, notably at the IMF in 2006, where he was received skeptically, with one commentator noting his lack of mathematical models. As of 2008 many of his predictions have come to fruition. Formerly an obscure academic, he has received invitations to speak before influential organizations such as United States Congress and the Council on Foreign Relations. As of August 2008, he remains pessimistic on the future of the US economy.[2] He has said that "we have a subprime financial system, not a subprime mortgage market".[2] He does not believe that the United States is entering the next Great Depression, but has said that he believes it will be worst recession since then.[2] He has clarified that his pessimism is focused on the short-run rather than the medium or long-run.[3]
In the 1990s, Roubini studied the collapse of emerging economies. Consistent with the unusual talent noted by Sachs, he used an intuitive, historical approach backed up by an understanding of theoretical models to analyze these countries and came to the conclusion that a common denominator across examples was the large [current account] deficits financed by loans from abroad. Roubini theorized that the United States might be the next to suffer, and in 2004 began writing about a possible/future collapse.[2]
Writings
Professor Roubini is the author of several books, including: Bailouts or Bail-ins? Responding to Financial Crises in Emerging Economies, Political Cycles and the Macroeconomy, and International Financial Crises and the New International Financial Architecture.
Research
Professor Roubini's research interests include:
* international macroeconomics and international finance;
* macroeconomics and fiscal policy;
* political economy;
* growth theory;
* European monetary issues.
Current appointments
* Research Fellow, National Bureau of Economic Research
* Research Fellow, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, UK
* Member, Bretton Woods Committee
* Member, Council on Foreign Relations Roundtable on the International Economy
* Member, Academic Advisory Committee, Fiscal Affairs Department, International Monetary Fund
External links
* Professor Roubini's NYU Stern Homepage
* Roubini Global Economics (RGE) Monitor
* New York Magazine article
* Professor Roubini's syndicated series, "Finance in the 21st Century", with Project Syndicate
* Talking to Nouriel Roubini
* Dr. Doom - Profile - Nouriel Roubini - Predicting Crisis in the United States Economy
References
1. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/referen.htm
2. Mihm, Steven. (2008). Dr. Doom. New York Times.
3. Roubini, Nouriel. (2008). New York Times Article on Nouriel Roubini as “Dr. Doom”. RGE Monitor.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouriel_Roubini"
Categories: 1958 births | Living people | People from Istanbul | Persian Jews | Israeli Jews | Turkish Jews | Italian Jews | Jewish American writers | Turkish Americans | Italian-Americans | Iranian Americans | Israeli-Americans | Israelis of Iranian descent | Alumni of Bocconi University | Harvard University alumni | Hebrew University of Jerusalem alumni | Iranian economists | American economics writers | International finance economists | Macroeconomists | New York University faculty | Yale University faculty | United States Department of the Treasury | United States Council of Economic Advisors | Clinton Administration personnel
Pray, What might be some Post Globalization Predictions of an Iranian Jew ?
Taking some lessons from the global financial crisis - Time to get down from Air Force One
The Jewish people as a global phenomenon at the very heart of the rise of Zionism and the post Second World War economic and financial system as well as what we have come to know as the post Perestroika unipolar world order dominated by the United States would be very well known to all serious students of cultural history with a keen insight into the the role played by diaspora in shaping world orders.
The Diaspora in nation states of the previous 20 th century, especially the Jews who emigrated from the old Europe to countries like Israel and United States of America are I think a very fit topic for the study into the issue of the convergence of cultural, economic and political identities - the Jews are quintessentially, along with Islam and Christianity, playing out the historical roles assigned to them in their cultural traditions, just below the temporary veneer of twentieth century modernity and the dominance of the Western World over large parts of the non Western world.
I was intrigued to find that the ageing professional champion of ideological economic globalization and the central role of USA in imperialism and world affairs, (a person who worked his way as a quintessential hardworking Oxbridge educated Sikh / silent World Bank economist and bureaucrat, ( but was launched into a political vacuum created by the non acceptance of the Congress party desire for an Italian woman as Indian Prime Minister ), and well known for his domestic reticence and his policy of taking the Nehruvian ideals of non alignment into their deathbed ) - in mediating the affairs of world post 9/11 recently on his tour of USA and Europe - one board his swashy personal aeroplane Air India One, chose to clearly spoke out to the prickly issues of the role of emerging economies in the resolution of the global financial meltdown.
He of course said that the emerging economies cannot be immune from the problems that have catclysmically and shockingly emerged onto the radar of Western political and economic order in the last one month, past the so called regulatory framework, that is not fit for purpose in a laissez faire 21st century global capitalism - the financial earthquake going by the euphemism of " Credit and Liquidity Crunch in Money Markets ".
He said this while he quietly signed an agreement with France on Civil Nuclear cooperation to build more modern nuclear plants than the USA - the mecca of science and technology - is capable of providing to the world and negotiated some cosmetic social security arrangements for short term economic migrants to France from the Indian professional heartland. France incidentally and Monsieur Sarkozy in particular have often been speaking of the need to expand the G-8 group of countries, beyond its imperialistic old Europe and Bretton Woods lineage, to include India as a (responsible economy on the world stage )
In a recent edition of HardTalk on BBC by Stephen Sackur, the issue of the Dollar as the reserve currency for the world and the USA as the underpinner of the world security order, and the instigator of Middle East Asian conflicts came up for discussion.
Why should the whole world ( the Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese and the oil rich Saudis ) spend its cash on propping up the Dollar and what the dollar represents to the World as we know it ?
Economic historians of course know the centrality of Bretton Woods to the whole issue of the Dollar being effectively made the reserve currency of the world as opposed to the more old fashioned precious metal of Gold.
As long as the Dollar remains the effective reserve currency of the world, and as long as the Arab sheikhs keep the cheap oil flowing into guzzling American cars, America can keep up the pretense of being the security guarantor to the world. Effectively the whole world keeps the American Empire afloat, underwriting the trillions od dollars of American global debt, providing Americans with the trust to keep the world moving on its axis.
But this can continue only till the time, lame duck presidents like George Bush and and Neo Conservative twentieth century hawks like Cheney do not run out of their ability to do slightly more than whitewash White House in Washington and Capitol, a bit like Tom Sawyer whitewashing wooden fences for his Uncle to get some pocket money and the intellectual elite of the world keeps flocking to converge onto the American educational campuses.
So here is where an Iranian Jew comes in and begins to predict the demise of US of A as one of the shortest empires in the history of the human civilization.
Professor Nouriel Roubini is a quintessential Diasporean and his specialization happens to be Macro Economics, in a post globalization era in which nobody takes the dire pronouncements of President Bush of Washington any more seriously than the peace talk of the Dalai Lama in Dharamshala.
Prof Nouriel Roubini is now clearly talking of the demise of the American Empire - the uni polar post Bretton Woods and Russian perestroika of Gorbachev of the 20 th century. It is high time Indian brat pack economists like Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Chidambaram begin to take note and reading up more on the history of Iranian Jews.
In Electrical Engineering and in Financial Markets there is a concept like Signal and Noise. The issence of intellectualism lies in separating and muffling the noise from the signal.
Warm Regards,
Nagarjuna
*****
More on Prof Roubini on Wikipedia -
Nouriel Roubini (born on March 29, 1958 in Istanbul, Turkey[1]) is a professor of economics at New York University. He is also the chairman of RGE Monitor, an economic and financial analysis firm.
Contents
* 1 Early life and education
* 2 Career
* 3 Writings
* 4 Research
* 5 Current appointments
* 6 External links
* 7 References
Early life and education
The New York Times describes Roubini's early life as follows: "He was born in Istanbul, the child of Iranian Jews, and his family moved to Tehran when he was two, then to Tel Aviv and finally to Italy, where he grew up and attended college. He moved to the United States to pursue his doctorate in international economics at Harvard."[2] Roubini resided in Italy from 1962-1983, and is currently a U.S. citizen[1]. He speaks English, Italian, Hebrew, and Persian.[1]
Roubini spent one year at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem before receiving his B.A. summa cum laude in Economics from the Bocconi University (Milan, Italy) in 1982. He received his Ph.D. in international economics from Harvard University in 1988. According to his advisor, Jeffrey Sachs, he was unusual in his talent with both mathematics and intuitive understanding of economic institutions.[2]
Career
He served in various roles at the Treasury Department, including Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for International Affairs and Director of the Office of Policy Development and Review (July 1999 - June 2000). Previously, he was a Senior Economist for International Affairs on the Staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisors (July 1998 - July 1999).
Currently, Professor Roubini is a Professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University. He has also held teaching positions at Yale University, but failed to get tenure.
Roubini is known for his predictions of financial crisis, notably at the IMF in 2006, where he was received skeptically, with one commentator noting his lack of mathematical models. As of 2008 many of his predictions have come to fruition. Formerly an obscure academic, he has received invitations to speak before influential organizations such as United States Congress and the Council on Foreign Relations. As of August 2008, he remains pessimistic on the future of the US economy.[2] He has said that "we have a subprime financial system, not a subprime mortgage market".[2] He does not believe that the United States is entering the next Great Depression, but has said that he believes it will be worst recession since then.[2] He has clarified that his pessimism is focused on the short-run rather than the medium or long-run.[3]
In the 1990s, Roubini studied the collapse of emerging economies. Consistent with the unusual talent noted by Sachs, he used an intuitive, historical approach backed up by an understanding of theoretical models to analyze these countries and came to the conclusion that a common denominator across examples was the large [current account] deficits financed by loans from abroad. Roubini theorized that the United States might be the next to suffer, and in 2004 began writing about a possible/future collapse.[2]
Writings
Professor Roubini is the author of several books, including: Bailouts or Bail-ins? Responding to Financial Crises in Emerging Economies, Political Cycles and the Macroeconomy, and International Financial Crises and the New International Financial Architecture.
Research
Professor Roubini's research interests include:
* international macroeconomics and international finance;
* macroeconomics and fiscal policy;
* political economy;
* growth theory;
* European monetary issues.
Current appointments
* Research Fellow, National Bureau of Economic Research
* Research Fellow, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, UK
* Member, Bretton Woods Committee
* Member, Council on Foreign Relations Roundtable on the International Economy
* Member, Academic Advisory Committee, Fiscal Affairs Department, International Monetary Fund
External links
* Professor Roubini's NYU Stern Homepage
* Roubini Global Economics (RGE) Monitor
* New York Magazine article
* Professor Roubini's syndicated series, "Finance in the 21st Century", with Project Syndicate
* Talking to Nouriel Roubini
* Dr. Doom - Profile - Nouriel Roubini - Predicting Crisis in the United States Economy
References
1. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/referen.htm
2. Mihm, Steven. (2008). Dr. Doom. New York Times.
3. Roubini, Nouriel. (2008). New York Times Article on Nouriel Roubini as “Dr. Doom”. RGE Monitor.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouriel_Roubini"
Categories: 1958 births | Living people | People from Istanbul | Persian Jews | Israeli Jews | Turkish Jews | Italian Jews | Jewish American writers | Turkish Americans | Italian-Americans | Iranian Americans | Israeli-Americans | Israelis of Iranian descent | Alumni of Bocconi University | Harvard University alumni | Hebrew University of Jerusalem alumni | Iranian economists | American economics writers | International finance economists | Macroeconomists | New York University faculty | Yale University faculty | United States Department of the Treasury | United States Council of Economic Advisors | Clinton Administration personnel
Saturday, September 13, 2008
US India Nuclear Deal and Political Lame Ducks
US India Nuclear Deal and Political Lame Ducks :
Dear All,
In my opinion, this certainly does not suggest a "lack of intellectual sophistication" as speculated by you.
The public reticence of the Indian PM all along has been very calculated.
And all along he has known clearly what he is doing.
If it were just so much, teams of British parliamentarians, Indian diaspora and Oxbridge graduates could have been airlifted to India on One Year lucrative academic contracts to offer crash sources in intellectual sophistication to Indian establishment.
It suggests merely the issue of the tail wagging the dog.
In the name of ill spelt out energy needs of India by the Oxbridge educated and World bank economists - it spells a predominance of economistic logic over basic political questions which still struggle to find elucidation in India.
ManMohan Singh and Montek Singh Ahluwalia are representative of Bretton Woods economists who have sought to smother legitimate political consensus.
Indeed the very logic of Nehruvian non alignment on a global stage has been disturbed due to a handful of economists turned politicians gaining ascendancy.
Mr Pranab Mukherjee's claims that India has not budged in its basic foreign policy objectives is very difficult to defend - indeed even he is now known for the hollow slogan of "bijli for aam aadmi " and "India's passport to nuclear trade", an industry purportedly of 100 billion dollars in the coming years.
The BJP led NDA, the other main opposition coalition is treading the same economic centralization doctrine and path though they claim that they still believe in the primary logic of the statement - "US is our natural ally ".
Whether the internal logic of the American military establishment and foreign policy will ever allow a stable and peaceful Middle Eastern and South Eastern Asia is an issue that BJP economic doctrinaires have not bothered to consider.
For this class of Indian elite, electoral success does not matter - they need control over the economic agenda - and for this they are CONTENT to LOSE political power in the states and regions of India, but SOMEHOW manage to RETAIN power at the centre in New Delhi in a curious mix of heavy handed American federal structure and British parliamentary democracy.
This central leverage is required by economists turned politicians to push through the economic agenda of rapid economic centralization in India without social equity.
It is also in this context that I judge the political immaturity of Prakash Karat and SitaRam Yechury in exiting the UPA coalition as against the political wisdom of Surjit Singh and Jyoti Basu, as regards the need for central leverage and fringe politics of the Left.
The US leaning Indian media almost forced out Prakash Karat from the UPA coalition in a well laid out trap.
In the present term, economic and intellectual reticence - as exemplified by the economists turned politicians at the helm in New Delhi - is the passport to economic heavy handedness and the preponderance of the economic elite over the political elite.
Regards,
Nagarjuna
-------------------------------
Indo-US nuclear deal
More embarrassing revelations have emerged.
The poor Indian PM, Manmohan Singh, has apparently failed to have grasped the fundamental provisions. Following the recent 26 pages of explanations provided by the Bush admin to the US Congress, Dr Brahma Chellaney (professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi) clarifies.
· The US has given no binding fuel-supply assurance to India. The Indian PM told the Lok Sabha on August 13, 2007 that 'detailed fuel supply assurances by the US for the uninterrupted operation of our nuclear reactors are reflected in full' in the 123 Agreement’. But the Bush administration has denied this. Its letter to the House Committee states that the US will render help only in situations where 'disruptions in supply to India... result through no fault of its own,' such as a trade war or market disruptions. 'The fuel supply assurances are not, however, meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of non-proliferation commitments, ' the letter said. The letter also reveals that the US has given no legally binding fuel-supply assurance of any kind.
· No US consent to India's stockpiling of lifetime fuel reserves for safeguarded power reactors. The prime minister had told the Lok Sabha on August 13, 2007 that, 'This Agreement envisages, in consonance with the Separation Plan, US support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply for the lifetime of India's reactors.' But the Bush administration' s letter to the House Committee makes clear that India will not be allowed to build such stocks as to undercut US leverage to re-impose sanctions.
· US civil nuclear cooperation is explicitly conditioned to India not testing ever again. The PM told the Lok Sabha as recently as July 22, 2008 that, 'I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing.'
Last year, he had told Parliament that, 'There is nothing in the Agreement that would tie the hands of a future Government or legally constrain its options to protect India's security and defence needs.' The Bush administration, however, has told the House Committee that India has been left in no doubt that all cooperation will cease immediately if New Delhi conducted a test.
· The US has retained the right to suspend or terminate supplies at its own discretion. The Bush administration letter plainly contradicts the prime minister's assertion in Parliament on August 13, 2007 that, 'An elaborate multi-layered consultation process has been included with regard to any future events that may be cited as a reason by either Party to seek cessation of cooperation or termination of the (123) Agreement.' The letter states that the US right to suspend all supplies forthwith is unfettered.
· The letter makes clear that the 123 Agreement has granted India no right to take corrective measures in case of any fuel-supply disruption. Rather, India's obligations are legally irrevocable. It further indicates there is no link between perpetual safeguards and perpetual fuel supply. Contrast this with what the prime minister claimed in Parliament on August 13, 2007 : 'India's right to take "corrective measures" will be maintained even after the termination of the Agreement.' Or the prime minister's repeated assurances to Parliament since March 2006 that India 's acceptance of perpetual international inspections will be tied to perpetual fuel supply.
· The Bush administration' s letter states that the 123 Agreement fully conforms to the Hyde Act provisions. In a press release recently, the Prime Minister's Office made the following claim on July 2, 2008 : 'the 123 Agreement clearly overrides the Hyde Act and this position would be clear to anyone who goes through the provisions.'
· The letter assures Congress that the 'US government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies. ' That rules out not only the transfer of civil reprocessing and enrichment equipment or technologies to India even under safeguards, but also casts a shadow over the US granting India operational consent to reprocess spent fuel with indigenous technology. Under the 123 Agreement, India has agreed to forego reprocessing until it has, in the indeterminate future, won a separate, congressionally vetted agreement.
On one issue, the 123 Agreement had held out hope for India in the future by stating in its Article 5(2) that, 'Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement.' But the Bush administration' s letter to Congress states that the US government had no plan to seek to amend the deal to allow any sensitive transfers.
Contrast this with what the prime minister said in Parliament on August 17, 2006 -- that ‘India wanted the removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy, ranging from nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, to reprocessing spent fuel. We will not agree to any dilution that would prevent us from securing the benefits of full civil nuclear cooperation as amplified above.'
Going by the above, poor India seems to have been roundly hoodwinked by the US lawyers. Does it suggest a lack of intellectual sophistication?
The nuclear deal might well prove to be India’s nemesis.
Eddie
Dear All,
In my opinion, this certainly does not suggest a "lack of intellectual sophistication" as speculated by you.
The public reticence of the Indian PM all along has been very calculated.
And all along he has known clearly what he is doing.
If it were just so much, teams of British parliamentarians, Indian diaspora and Oxbridge graduates could have been airlifted to India on One Year lucrative academic contracts to offer crash sources in intellectual sophistication to Indian establishment.
It suggests merely the issue of the tail wagging the dog.
In the name of ill spelt out energy needs of India by the Oxbridge educated and World bank economists - it spells a predominance of economistic logic over basic political questions which still struggle to find elucidation in India.
ManMohan Singh and Montek Singh Ahluwalia are representative of Bretton Woods economists who have sought to smother legitimate political consensus.
Indeed the very logic of Nehruvian non alignment on a global stage has been disturbed due to a handful of economists turned politicians gaining ascendancy.
Mr Pranab Mukherjee's claims that India has not budged in its basic foreign policy objectives is very difficult to defend - indeed even he is now known for the hollow slogan of "bijli for aam aadmi " and "India's passport to nuclear trade", an industry purportedly of 100 billion dollars in the coming years.
The BJP led NDA, the other main opposition coalition is treading the same economic centralization doctrine and path though they claim that they still believe in the primary logic of the statement - "US is our natural ally ".
Whether the internal logic of the American military establishment and foreign policy will ever allow a stable and peaceful Middle Eastern and South Eastern Asia is an issue that BJP economic doctrinaires have not bothered to consider.
For this class of Indian elite, electoral success does not matter - they need control over the economic agenda - and for this they are CONTENT to LOSE political power in the states and regions of India, but SOMEHOW manage to RETAIN power at the centre in New Delhi in a curious mix of heavy handed American federal structure and British parliamentary democracy.
This central leverage is required by economists turned politicians to push through the economic agenda of rapid economic centralization in India without social equity.
It is also in this context that I judge the political immaturity of Prakash Karat and SitaRam Yechury in exiting the UPA coalition as against the political wisdom of Surjit Singh and Jyoti Basu, as regards the need for central leverage and fringe politics of the Left.
The US leaning Indian media almost forced out Prakash Karat from the UPA coalition in a well laid out trap.
In the present term, economic and intellectual reticence - as exemplified by the economists turned politicians at the helm in New Delhi - is the passport to economic heavy handedness and the preponderance of the economic elite over the political elite.
Regards,
Nagarjuna
-------------------------------
Indo-US nuclear deal
More embarrassing revelations have emerged.
The poor Indian PM, Manmohan Singh, has apparently failed to have grasped the fundamental provisions. Following the recent 26 pages of explanations provided by the Bush admin to the US Congress, Dr Brahma Chellaney (professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi) clarifies.
· The US has given no binding fuel-supply assurance to India. The Indian PM told the Lok Sabha on August 13, 2007 that 'detailed fuel supply assurances by the US for the uninterrupted operation of our nuclear reactors are reflected in full' in the 123 Agreement’. But the Bush administration has denied this. Its letter to the House Committee states that the US will render help only in situations where 'disruptions in supply to India... result through no fault of its own,' such as a trade war or market disruptions. 'The fuel supply assurances are not, however, meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of non-proliferation commitments, ' the letter said. The letter also reveals that the US has given no legally binding fuel-supply assurance of any kind.
· No US consent to India's stockpiling of lifetime fuel reserves for safeguarded power reactors. The prime minister had told the Lok Sabha on August 13, 2007 that, 'This Agreement envisages, in consonance with the Separation Plan, US support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply for the lifetime of India's reactors.' But the Bush administration' s letter to the House Committee makes clear that India will not be allowed to build such stocks as to undercut US leverage to re-impose sanctions.
· US civil nuclear cooperation is explicitly conditioned to India not testing ever again. The PM told the Lok Sabha as recently as July 22, 2008 that, 'I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing.'
Last year, he had told Parliament that, 'There is nothing in the Agreement that would tie the hands of a future Government or legally constrain its options to protect India's security and defence needs.' The Bush administration, however, has told the House Committee that India has been left in no doubt that all cooperation will cease immediately if New Delhi conducted a test.
· The US has retained the right to suspend or terminate supplies at its own discretion. The Bush administration letter plainly contradicts the prime minister's assertion in Parliament on August 13, 2007 that, 'An elaborate multi-layered consultation process has been included with regard to any future events that may be cited as a reason by either Party to seek cessation of cooperation or termination of the (123) Agreement.' The letter states that the US right to suspend all supplies forthwith is unfettered.
· The letter makes clear that the 123 Agreement has granted India no right to take corrective measures in case of any fuel-supply disruption. Rather, India's obligations are legally irrevocable. It further indicates there is no link between perpetual safeguards and perpetual fuel supply. Contrast this with what the prime minister claimed in Parliament on August 13, 2007 : 'India's right to take "corrective measures" will be maintained even after the termination of the Agreement.' Or the prime minister's repeated assurances to Parliament since March 2006 that India 's acceptance of perpetual international inspections will be tied to perpetual fuel supply.
· The Bush administration' s letter states that the 123 Agreement fully conforms to the Hyde Act provisions. In a press release recently, the Prime Minister's Office made the following claim on July 2, 2008 : 'the 123 Agreement clearly overrides the Hyde Act and this position would be clear to anyone who goes through the provisions.'
· The letter assures Congress that the 'US government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies. ' That rules out not only the transfer of civil reprocessing and enrichment equipment or technologies to India even under safeguards, but also casts a shadow over the US granting India operational consent to reprocess spent fuel with indigenous technology. Under the 123 Agreement, India has agreed to forego reprocessing until it has, in the indeterminate future, won a separate, congressionally vetted agreement.
On one issue, the 123 Agreement had held out hope for India in the future by stating in its Article 5(2) that, 'Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement.' But the Bush administration' s letter to Congress states that the US government had no plan to seek to amend the deal to allow any sensitive transfers.
Contrast this with what the prime minister said in Parliament on August 17, 2006 -- that ‘India wanted the removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy, ranging from nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, to reprocessing spent fuel. We will not agree to any dilution that would prevent us from securing the benefits of full civil nuclear cooperation as amplified above.'
Going by the above, poor India seems to have been roundly hoodwinked by the US lawyers. Does it suggest a lack of intellectual sophistication?
The nuclear deal might well prove to be India’s nemesis.
Eddie
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Want American citizenship ? Fight American coalition Wars
Who are the people dying for the adventurous wars fought by old American men on Foreign Soils - while safely growing old, sittiing in Washington. Do they send their own children for dying for American glory, american brass trinkets, medals, and America's Fear and Awe Strategy ? The truth is far more sordid as the Cheneys and Bush's and the old white gentlemen fighting and scheming for American wars and defence sales equipments across the globe - would rather not tell us.
The Wars of White Old Men of Washington : from AP
A young, ambitious immigrant from Guatemala who dreamed of becoming an architect. A Nigerian medic. A soldier from China who boasted he would one day become an American general. An Indian native whose headstone displays the first Khanda, emblem of the Sikh faith, to appear in Arlington National Cemetery.
ADVERTISEMENT
These were among more than 100 foreign-born members of the U.S. military who earned American citizenship by dying in Iraq.
Jose Gutierrez was one of the first to fall, killed by friendly fire in the dust of Umm Qasr in the opening hours of the invasion.
In death, the young Marine was showered with honors his family could only have dreamed of in life. His sister was flown in from Guatemala for his memorial service, where a Roman Catholic cardinal presided and top military officials saluted his flag-draped coffin.
And yet, his foster mother agonized as she accompanied his body back for burial in Guatemala City: Why did Jose have to die for America in order to truly belong?
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who oversaw Gutierrez's service, put it differently.
"There is something terribly wrong with our immigration policies if it takes death on the battlefield in order to earn citizenship," Mahony wrote to President Bush in April 2003. He urged the president to grant immediate citizenship to all immigrants who sign up for military service in wartime.
"They should not have to wait until they are brought home in a casket," Mahony said.
But as the war continues, more and more immigrants are becoming citizens in death — and more and more families are grappling with deeply conflicting feelings about exactly what the honor means.
Gutierrez's citizenship certificate — dated to his death on March 21, 2003, — was presented during a memorial service in Lomita, Calif., to Nora Mosquera, who took in the orphaned teen after he had trekked through Central America, hopping freight trains through Mexico before illegally sneaking into the U.S.
"On the one hand I felt that citizenship was too late for him," Mosquera said. "But I also felt grateful and very proud of him. I knew it would open doors for us as a family."
"What use is a piece of paper?" cried Fredelinda Pena after another emotional naturalization ceremony, this one in New York City where her brother's framed citizenship certificate was handed to his distraught mother. Next to her, the infant daughter he had never met dozed in his fiancee's arms.
Cpl. Juan Alcantara, 22, a native of the Dominican Republic, was killed Aug. 6, 2007, by an explosive in Baqouba. He was buried by a cardinal and eulogized by a congressman but to his sister, those tributes seemed as hollow as citizenship.
"He can't take the oath from a coffin," she sobbed.
There are tens of thousands of foreign-born members in the U.S. armed forces. Many have been naturalized, but more than 20,000 are not U.S. citizens.
"Green card soldiers," they are often called, and early in the war, Bush signed an executive order making them eligible to apply for citizenship as soon as they enlist. Previously, legal residents in the military had to wait three years.
Since Bush's order, nearly 37,000 soldiers have been naturalized. And 109 who lost their lives have been granted posthumous citizenship.
They are buried with purple hearts and other decorations, and their names are engraved on tombstones in Arlington as well as in Mexico and India and Guatemala.
Among them:
• Marine Cpl. Armando Ariel Gonzalez, 25, who fled Cuba on a raft with his father and brother in 1995 and dreamed of becoming an American firefighter. He was crushed by a refueling tank in southern Iraq on April 14, 2003.
• Army Spc. Justin Onwordi, a 28-year-old Nigerian medic whose heart seemed as big as his smiling 6-foot-4 frame and who left behind a wife and baby boy. He died when his vehicle was blown up in Baghdad on Aug. 2, 2004.
• Army Pfc. Ming Sun, 20, of China who loved the U.S. military so much he planned to make a career out of it, boasting that he would rise to the rank of general. He was killed in a firefight in Ramadi on Jan. 9, 2007.
• Army Spc. Uday Singh, 21, of India, killed when his patrol was attacked in Habbaniyah on Dec. 1, 2003. Singh was the first Sikh to die in battle as a U.S. soldier, and it is his headstone at Arlington that displays the Khanda.
• Marine Lance Cpl. Patrick O'Day from Scotland, buried in the California rain as bagpipes played and his 19-year-old pregnant wife told mourners how honored her 20-year-old husband had felt to fight for the country he loved.
"He left us in the most honorable way a man could," Shauna O'Day said at the March 2003 Santa Rosa service. "I'm proud to say my husband is a Marine. I'm proud to say my husband fought for our country. I'm proud to say he is a hero, my hero."
Not all surviving family members feel so sure. Some parents blame themselves for bringing their child to the U.S. in the first place. Others face confusion and resentment when they try to bury their child back home.
At Lance Cpl. Juan Lopez's July 4, 2004, funeral in the central Mexican town of San Luis de la Paz, Mexican soldiers demanded that the U.S. Marine honor guard surrender their arms, even though the rifles were ceremonial. Earlier, the Mexican Defense Department had denied the Marines' request to conduct the traditional 21-gun salute, saying foreign troops were not permitted to bear arms on Mexican soil.
And so mourners, many deeply opposed to the war, witnessed an extraordinary 45-minute standoff that disrupted the funeral even as Lopez's weeping widow was handed his posthumous citizenship by a U.S. embassy official.
The same swirl of conflicting emotions and messages often overshadows the military funerals of posthumous citizens in the U.S.
Smuggled across the Mexican border in his mother's arms when he was 2 months old, Jose Garibay was just 21 when he died in Nasiriyah. The Costa Mesa police department made him an honorary police officer, something he had hoped one day to become. America made him a citizen.
But his mother, Simona Garibay, couldn't conceal her bewilderment and pain. It seemed, she said in interviews after the funeral, that more value was being placed on her son's death than on his life.
Immigrant advocates have similar mixed feelings about military service. Non-citizens cannot become officers or serve in high-security jobs, they note, and yet the benefits of citizenship are regularly pitched by recruiters, and some recruitment programs specifically target colleges and high schools with predominantly Latino students.
"Immigrants are lured into service and then used as political pawns or cannon fodder," said Dan Kesselbrenner, executive director of the National Immigration Project, a program of the National Lawyers Guild. "It is sad thing to see people so desperate to get status in this country that they are prepared to die for it."
Others question whether non-citizens should even be permitted to serve. Mark Krikorian of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, argues that defending America should be the job of Americans, not non-citizens whose loyalty might be suspect. In granting special benefits, including fast-track citizenship, Krikorian says, there is a danger that soldiering will eventually become yet another job that Americans won't do.
And yet, immigrants have always fought — and died — in America's wars.
During the Cvil War, the Union army recruited Irish and German immigrants off the boat. Alfred Rascon, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, received the Medal of Honor for acts of bravery during the Vietnam war. In the 1990s, Gen. John Shalikashvili, born in Poland after his family fled the occupied Republic of Georgia, became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
After the Iraq invasion, the U.S. Embassy in Mexico fielded hundreds of requests from Mexicans offering to fight in exchange for citizenship. They mistakenly believed that Bush's order also applied to nonresidents.
The right to become an American is not automatic for those who die in combat. Families must formally apply for citizenship within two years of the soldier's death, and not all choose to do so.
"He's Italian, better to leave it like that," Saveria Romeo says of her 23-year-old son, Army Staff Sgt. Vincenzo Romeo, who was born in Calabria, died in Iraq and is buried in New Jersey. A miniature Italian flag marks his grave, next to an American one.
"What good would it do?" she says. "It won't bring back my son."
But it would allow her to apply for citizenship for herself, a benefit only recently offered to surviving parents and spouses. Until 2003 posthumous citizenship was granted only through an act of Congress and was purely symbolic. There were no benefits for next of kin.
Romeo says she has no desire to apply. She says she couldn't bear to benefit in any way from her son's death. And besides, she feels Italian, not American.
Fernando Suarez del Solar just feels angry — angry at what he considers the futility of a war that claimed his only son, angry at the military recruiters he says courted young Jesus relentlessly even when the family still lived in Tijuana.
His son was just 13, Suarez del Solar said, when he was first dazzled by Marine recruiters in a California mall. For the next two years Jesus begged the family to emigrate and eventually they did, settling in Escondido, Calif., where the teen signed up for the Marines before he left high school.
Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez Del Solar was 20 when he was killed by a bomb in the first week of the war. He left behind a wife and baby and parents so bitter about his death that they eventually divorced.
Today, his 52-year-old father has become an outspoken peace activist who travels the country organizing anti-war marches, giving speeches and working with counter-recruitment groups to dissuade young Latinos from joining the U.S. military.
"There is nothing in my life now but saving these young people," he says. "It is just something I feel have to do."
But first he had to journey to Iraq. He had to see for himself the dusty stretch of wasteland where his son became an American. In tears, he planted a small wooden cross. And he prayed for his son — and for all the other immigrants who became citizens in death.
The Wars of White Old Men of Washington : from AP
A young, ambitious immigrant from Guatemala who dreamed of becoming an architect. A Nigerian medic. A soldier from China who boasted he would one day become an American general. An Indian native whose headstone displays the first Khanda, emblem of the Sikh faith, to appear in Arlington National Cemetery.
ADVERTISEMENT
These were among more than 100 foreign-born members of the U.S. military who earned American citizenship by dying in Iraq.
Jose Gutierrez was one of the first to fall, killed by friendly fire in the dust of Umm Qasr in the opening hours of the invasion.
In death, the young Marine was showered with honors his family could only have dreamed of in life. His sister was flown in from Guatemala for his memorial service, where a Roman Catholic cardinal presided and top military officials saluted his flag-draped coffin.
And yet, his foster mother agonized as she accompanied his body back for burial in Guatemala City: Why did Jose have to die for America in order to truly belong?
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who oversaw Gutierrez's service, put it differently.
"There is something terribly wrong with our immigration policies if it takes death on the battlefield in order to earn citizenship," Mahony wrote to President Bush in April 2003. He urged the president to grant immediate citizenship to all immigrants who sign up for military service in wartime.
"They should not have to wait until they are brought home in a casket," Mahony said.
But as the war continues, more and more immigrants are becoming citizens in death — and more and more families are grappling with deeply conflicting feelings about exactly what the honor means.
Gutierrez's citizenship certificate — dated to his death on March 21, 2003, — was presented during a memorial service in Lomita, Calif., to Nora Mosquera, who took in the orphaned teen after he had trekked through Central America, hopping freight trains through Mexico before illegally sneaking into the U.S.
"On the one hand I felt that citizenship was too late for him," Mosquera said. "But I also felt grateful and very proud of him. I knew it would open doors for us as a family."
"What use is a piece of paper?" cried Fredelinda Pena after another emotional naturalization ceremony, this one in New York City where her brother's framed citizenship certificate was handed to his distraught mother. Next to her, the infant daughter he had never met dozed in his fiancee's arms.
Cpl. Juan Alcantara, 22, a native of the Dominican Republic, was killed Aug. 6, 2007, by an explosive in Baqouba. He was buried by a cardinal and eulogized by a congressman but to his sister, those tributes seemed as hollow as citizenship.
"He can't take the oath from a coffin," she sobbed.
There are tens of thousands of foreign-born members in the U.S. armed forces. Many have been naturalized, but more than 20,000 are not U.S. citizens.
"Green card soldiers," they are often called, and early in the war, Bush signed an executive order making them eligible to apply for citizenship as soon as they enlist. Previously, legal residents in the military had to wait three years.
Since Bush's order, nearly 37,000 soldiers have been naturalized. And 109 who lost their lives have been granted posthumous citizenship.
They are buried with purple hearts and other decorations, and their names are engraved on tombstones in Arlington as well as in Mexico and India and Guatemala.
Among them:
• Marine Cpl. Armando Ariel Gonzalez, 25, who fled Cuba on a raft with his father and brother in 1995 and dreamed of becoming an American firefighter. He was crushed by a refueling tank in southern Iraq on April 14, 2003.
• Army Spc. Justin Onwordi, a 28-year-old Nigerian medic whose heart seemed as big as his smiling 6-foot-4 frame and who left behind a wife and baby boy. He died when his vehicle was blown up in Baghdad on Aug. 2, 2004.
• Army Pfc. Ming Sun, 20, of China who loved the U.S. military so much he planned to make a career out of it, boasting that he would rise to the rank of general. He was killed in a firefight in Ramadi on Jan. 9, 2007.
• Army Spc. Uday Singh, 21, of India, killed when his patrol was attacked in Habbaniyah on Dec. 1, 2003. Singh was the first Sikh to die in battle as a U.S. soldier, and it is his headstone at Arlington that displays the Khanda.
• Marine Lance Cpl. Patrick O'Day from Scotland, buried in the California rain as bagpipes played and his 19-year-old pregnant wife told mourners how honored her 20-year-old husband had felt to fight for the country he loved.
"He left us in the most honorable way a man could," Shauna O'Day said at the March 2003 Santa Rosa service. "I'm proud to say my husband is a Marine. I'm proud to say my husband fought for our country. I'm proud to say he is a hero, my hero."
Not all surviving family members feel so sure. Some parents blame themselves for bringing their child to the U.S. in the first place. Others face confusion and resentment when they try to bury their child back home.
At Lance Cpl. Juan Lopez's July 4, 2004, funeral in the central Mexican town of San Luis de la Paz, Mexican soldiers demanded that the U.S. Marine honor guard surrender their arms, even though the rifles were ceremonial. Earlier, the Mexican Defense Department had denied the Marines' request to conduct the traditional 21-gun salute, saying foreign troops were not permitted to bear arms on Mexican soil.
And so mourners, many deeply opposed to the war, witnessed an extraordinary 45-minute standoff that disrupted the funeral even as Lopez's weeping widow was handed his posthumous citizenship by a U.S. embassy official.
The same swirl of conflicting emotions and messages often overshadows the military funerals of posthumous citizens in the U.S.
Smuggled across the Mexican border in his mother's arms when he was 2 months old, Jose Garibay was just 21 when he died in Nasiriyah. The Costa Mesa police department made him an honorary police officer, something he had hoped one day to become. America made him a citizen.
But his mother, Simona Garibay, couldn't conceal her bewilderment and pain. It seemed, she said in interviews after the funeral, that more value was being placed on her son's death than on his life.
Immigrant advocates have similar mixed feelings about military service. Non-citizens cannot become officers or serve in high-security jobs, they note, and yet the benefits of citizenship are regularly pitched by recruiters, and some recruitment programs specifically target colleges and high schools with predominantly Latino students.
"Immigrants are lured into service and then used as political pawns or cannon fodder," said Dan Kesselbrenner, executive director of the National Immigration Project, a program of the National Lawyers Guild. "It is sad thing to see people so desperate to get status in this country that they are prepared to die for it."
Others question whether non-citizens should even be permitted to serve. Mark Krikorian of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, argues that defending America should be the job of Americans, not non-citizens whose loyalty might be suspect. In granting special benefits, including fast-track citizenship, Krikorian says, there is a danger that soldiering will eventually become yet another job that Americans won't do.
And yet, immigrants have always fought — and died — in America's wars.
During the Cvil War, the Union army recruited Irish and German immigrants off the boat. Alfred Rascon, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, received the Medal of Honor for acts of bravery during the Vietnam war. In the 1990s, Gen. John Shalikashvili, born in Poland after his family fled the occupied Republic of Georgia, became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
After the Iraq invasion, the U.S. Embassy in Mexico fielded hundreds of requests from Mexicans offering to fight in exchange for citizenship. They mistakenly believed that Bush's order also applied to nonresidents.
The right to become an American is not automatic for those who die in combat. Families must formally apply for citizenship within two years of the soldier's death, and not all choose to do so.
"He's Italian, better to leave it like that," Saveria Romeo says of her 23-year-old son, Army Staff Sgt. Vincenzo Romeo, who was born in Calabria, died in Iraq and is buried in New Jersey. A miniature Italian flag marks his grave, next to an American one.
"What good would it do?" she says. "It won't bring back my son."
But it would allow her to apply for citizenship for herself, a benefit only recently offered to surviving parents and spouses. Until 2003 posthumous citizenship was granted only through an act of Congress and was purely symbolic. There were no benefits for next of kin.
Romeo says she has no desire to apply. She says she couldn't bear to benefit in any way from her son's death. And besides, she feels Italian, not American.
Fernando Suarez del Solar just feels angry — angry at what he considers the futility of a war that claimed his only son, angry at the military recruiters he says courted young Jesus relentlessly even when the family still lived in Tijuana.
His son was just 13, Suarez del Solar said, when he was first dazzled by Marine recruiters in a California mall. For the next two years Jesus begged the family to emigrate and eventually they did, settling in Escondido, Calif., where the teen signed up for the Marines before he left high school.
Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez Del Solar was 20 when he was killed by a bomb in the first week of the war. He left behind a wife and baby and parents so bitter about his death that they eventually divorced.
Today, his 52-year-old father has become an outspoken peace activist who travels the country organizing anti-war marches, giving speeches and working with counter-recruitment groups to dissuade young Latinos from joining the U.S. military.
"There is nothing in my life now but saving these young people," he says. "It is just something I feel have to do."
But first he had to journey to Iraq. He had to see for himself the dusty stretch of wasteland where his son became an American. In tears, he planted a small wooden cross. And he prayed for his son — and for all the other immigrants who became citizens in death.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
हमारी अग्यानता की जड़ें गहरी व मज़बूत हैं ?
- अगर हमारी अग्यानता की जड़ें गहरी व मज़बूत हैं ? -
- तो क्या आगे का पथ सरल व आसान हो सकता है ?
- शुरुआत कहाँ से की जाय ?
-------
१ - किसके लिए ? -
२ - मसीहा या पथ ? -
३ - लक्षण क्या अौर कैसे ? -
४ - आधुनिक, सरल व साधनों के अनुरूप ? -
५ - ग्यान की कमी, साधनों की कमी, या विश्वास की कमी ? -
- तो क्या आगे का पथ सरल व आसान हो सकता है ?
- शुरुआत कहाँ से की जाय ?
-------
१ - किसके लिए ? -
२ - मसीहा या पथ ? -
३ - लक्षण क्या अौर कैसे ? -
४ - आधुनिक, सरल व साधनों के अनुरूप ? -
५ - ग्यान की कमी, साधनों की कमी, या विश्वास की कमी ? -
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Social Production of Hierarchy
Dear All,
I find this post very interesting because it critiques the question "what is the agenda of edu-factory".
Hierarchies have always been an integral part of non Western societies but the Western world in the last 400 years has had very specific agendas in categorizing non Western societies, for political and business purposes.
This extends to non Western education, non Western values, non Western cultural mores, non Western elites and non Western society at large.
Western universities, education models and education institutions of the Oxbridge variety have played along with that agenda and portrayed themselves as physical / virtual sites and locations for a "disinterested search for knowledge and rational critique", riding on the back of what are self defined as "Western cultural values" of freedom, discussion, open debate, sound models of higher education, vis a vis, non Western hierarchies in knowledge and education.
Globalization is now seeing the business models of many such educational institutions clutching for ways and means to retain their global influence. So often, the Western educational fringe raises the questions of corporatism, wage rates, exclusion etc.
This whole model of discussing cleavages in education is suspect, because it presumes the continued domination of Western cultural values and educational institutions.
I sometimes feel, 400 years of domination over the world is enough, is it not. Let others also talk.
So when one raises the issue in terms that Xiang Biao has raised, it immediately strikes some forgotten chords in people like me - brown from the outside, white from the inside.
Xiang Bao - "Institutionalized education in most part of the human society seems intrinsically hierarchical"
That it need not be so, is a purely Western idea of the last 400 years.
So I feel it would be good to see the numbers of people who have traditionally been in higher education in previous times and the numbers who are now seeking entry into so called "democratic / liberal institutes of Westernized higher education".
-- However, we should not deny that educational hierarchy is also widely recognized, respected and sometimes even celebrated by the larger society. --
As Xiang Bao goes on to discuss the numbers entering education in Asia, maybe we need some comparative analysis with the numbers in Europe and America and how these scale up in comparison with overall population. He has suggested the numbers from Far East.
I would be very interested in similar data regarding other Asian countries.
But somehow the colonial agendas would never make this a fashionable topic for study, and Indian TV shows are well known for advertising one or two scholarships to Oxbridge.
Imagine, Indian media gets British professors to conduct third rate quiz shows and millions of students go through rounds and rounds of elimination to emerge as victors.
What for ? For a one or two seats in Oxbridge !! From a pool of millions of aspirants.
Needless to say, among the millions other who are left out, a few thousands force their skeptical middle class parents to shelve out money and foreign currency for "paid education and degrees", convincing their sceptical parents that after their education they will be given residence / work permits in EU and America and will not be thrown back to native countries.
So, the competition for marketing and corporate funds for attracting this few thousands of Chinese and Indian students becomes an industry by itself.
Native students in Western countries, who see themselves as disinterested pristine academics, feel, suddenly shortchanged by the struggle for Chinese and Indian students, by the managers and corporate staff, marketeers and racketeers, of Western universities, which they think are "their own" by definition and by birth.
Regards,
Nagarjuna
------------------
The social production of hierarchy, and what we can do about it : Notes from Asia
Here is Xiang Biao scheduled contribution.
The social production of hierarchy, and what we can do about
it: Notes from Asia
XIANG Biao
Institutionalized education in most part of the human society seems intrinsically hierarchical. One is supposed to progress from a “lower” level of learning to the “higher”; “average” kids study in mediocre schools, and the “outstanding” go to top colleges; and finally, “degree” is by definition hierarchical. Recent discussions on higher education have focused on the
governmentalization /corporatization (roughly meaning tightened administrative management in order to make university managerially accountable) and the marketization of universities. This essay explores the logic of hierarchy making in a larger, societal context. It is beyond dispute
that established institutions have deeply vested interest in maintaining exclusive and hierarchical systems, and it is also true that hierarchy, particularly in the form of the
ranking tally, is imposed top down by the establishment.
However, we should not deny that educational hierarchy is also widely recognized, respected and sometimes even celebrated by the larger society. Nor should we reduce the public acceptance to merely an example of false consciousness. Most people know much better than us (university nerds) how to deal with the world. There are ethnical and moral dimensions to the socially produced
hierarchy. Instead of aiming to eradicate hierarchy altogether (which cannot be a feasible agenda despite the ideological appeal), this post wishes to explore room in the social process of hierarchy making which may enable realistic action agendas.
Precarious Hierarchy and the Ethnics of Hierarchy :
In the modern time in general, higher education become less exclusive, and educational hierarchy become much less absolute. In colonial Asia, for example, formal English education had such a magic power that it directly contributed to the creation of the institution of modern
dowry in India. It is also safe to say that, in Asia at least, higher education become less hierarchical in the so-called neoliberal era. (I use neoliberal era with some reluctance. By this term I am referring to the period starting at the end of 1970s for China, the beginning of
1990s for India, the early 1990s for Japan, and the late 1990s for South Korea).
China launched a new, unprecedented round of university expansion in 1998. The number of newly admitted students jumped from 1.08 million in 1998 to 2.5 million in 2001. By 2007, the planed intake reached 5.67 million!
Similar to Japan and South Korea, entering universities is no longer a crucial life event—it is not difficult to get in, and furthermore getting in does not guarantee good job prospects. Students have more freedom in choosing universities according to location, subject or campus “culture” instead of a single system of hierarchical evaluation.
But hierarchy certainly does not go away. Universities become ever more concerned about hierarchical ranking.
Shanghai Jiaotong University produces one of the best known tallies in the world. This reflects the fact that previously fixed hierarchy is replaced by more dynamic and unstable
differentiation. Hierarchy is in struggle. This also suggests that the process of hierarchy making becomes more public, or social, than before when it was declared by the state or established by tradition.
Underlying the new project of hierarchy making in the higher education is a unmistakable capitalist logic. The higher rank a university secures, the higher tuition fees it
charges. But the opposite is untrue. In general, students cannot enter a high-rank university simply by paying more fees. There is a limit to capitalism.
A curious example is the mushrooming MBA courses in China. On the one hand, no other institutions are more conscious than the MBA programs about hierarchical ranking which directly determine the fees they charge. On the other hand, most of the MBA students, particularly those enrolled in the elite institutes in China, had work experiences and many are self employed, and thus the ranking does not mean much for them in the material sense (say, compared to other students who may need a strong university brand for looking for jobs).
When I asked an entrepreneur (incidentally, a Taiwanese) why he applied for an expensive MBA course in Shanghai, he gave me three reasons: good teachers, the reputation of the course (“it sounds good”), and the opportunity to prove that, after
working for many years, he is still able to pass tough examinations. The Chinese capitalist class in the making need symbolic capital, but they need “solid” symbolic capital, i.e., not cheap parody ready for sale.
The hierarchical ranking of universities undoubtedly facilitates exchange between financial and cultural capital.
But at the very same time as different types of capital are exchangeable, each capital must maintain minimum autonomy. Thus, in order to be acceptable to the general public,
hierarchy must be based on “merit” to some extent.
Universities also have to maintain a balance. For example elite universities in the US charge high fees but also provide generous scholarships. Scholarships attract good students to keep its ranking high which in turn justifies high fees.
In China at least until the very recent time, socially produced hierarchy in higher education has significant moral connotations. For example, lecturers and students from top universities are expected to be more vocal in criticizing the status quo, and the state have to be more careful in
dealing with professors from these institutions. In a largely authoritarian and politically conservative system, this status provide the institutions with special clout to be more independent, critical, daring in thinking alternatives, and sometimes more eccentric in behavior.
People rank the universities high to counteract the state power and private economic interest, no matter how symbolically.
New Battles :
Hierarchy itself may not be a problem. The issue is what kind of hierarchy prevails. Our goals should be, apart from continuing the historical progress of destabilizing and “softening” hierarchy in general, making the hegemonic hierarchy more ethical.
In Asia as well as elsewhere, states have been active in domesticating and incorporating the institutions that are high in hierarchy. The corporate world may have similar desires, although their efforts are less orchestrated and their relations to universities less clear. But, both the
state and the economic establishment need seemingly independent universities for the purpose of legitimation.
(Say, the state occasionally needs some “independent scholars” to back their views, and financial institutes also like donating money to “independent” learning institutes.) The contradictions internal to the project of legitimation provide important space for actions.
Furthermore, the interests of the state and of the capital do not always fit well, and playing one against the other can be another strategy.
I cannot quite imagine autonomous universities in practical sense. As Mao Zedong repeatedly reminded us, intellectuals are a piece of feather who cannot exist without someone else’s skin. We need others for our material survival. But perhaps we can fight for a more “autonomous” evaluation system with strong moral and ethical concerns.
Another important battle field is pre-university education. I am not too worried about the corporatization or privatization of universities as I believe that that will not go too far. Even state bureaucrats and diehard capitalists would frown upon universities that have no
intellectual or ideological teeth at all.
What is much more dangerous, for China, is the on-going process of privatization and hierarchization in secondary education.
As it is less easy for money to infiltrate into higher education, well-off families start the race early. Parents spend thousands of US dollars to send children to good primary and high schools and even kindergartens. (In Beijing, top kindergartens literally charge thousands of US
dollars for a seat.)
In Japan, elite private universities such as Keio and Waseda set up their own so-called “escalator” system including kindergartens, primary and secondary schools. Children from wealthy families buy the expensive ticket to enter the escalator on the ground floor,
which take them to the top universities in the future with certain “merits.” Thus social inequality is produced and reproduced without upsetting the “merit”-based hierarchy
of universities. In China, except those who are desperate to consolidate their newly acquired financial assets into firm class status, most people want to escape from the frenzied
competition in which children became the main victims. Thus there is social base for mobilization to fight against this trend. Among other things, top universities may be able to do something, even symbolically, to counteract the education industry.
_______________________________________________
edufactory mailing list
edufactory@listcultures.org
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/edufactory_listcultures.org
I find this post very interesting because it critiques the question "what is the agenda of edu-factory".
Hierarchies have always been an integral part of non Western societies but the Western world in the last 400 years has had very specific agendas in categorizing non Western societies, for political and business purposes.
This extends to non Western education, non Western values, non Western cultural mores, non Western elites and non Western society at large.
Western universities, education models and education institutions of the Oxbridge variety have played along with that agenda and portrayed themselves as physical / virtual sites and locations for a "disinterested search for knowledge and rational critique", riding on the back of what are self defined as "Western cultural values" of freedom, discussion, open debate, sound models of higher education, vis a vis, non Western hierarchies in knowledge and education.
Globalization is now seeing the business models of many such educational institutions clutching for ways and means to retain their global influence. So often, the Western educational fringe raises the questions of corporatism, wage rates, exclusion etc.
This whole model of discussing cleavages in education is suspect, because it presumes the continued domination of Western cultural values and educational institutions.
I sometimes feel, 400 years of domination over the world is enough, is it not. Let others also talk.
So when one raises the issue in terms that Xiang Biao has raised, it immediately strikes some forgotten chords in people like me - brown from the outside, white from the inside.
Xiang Bao - "Institutionalized education in most part of the human society seems intrinsically hierarchical"
That it need not be so, is a purely Western idea of the last 400 years.
So I feel it would be good to see the numbers of people who have traditionally been in higher education in previous times and the numbers who are now seeking entry into so called "democratic / liberal institutes of Westernized higher education".
-- However, we should not deny that educational hierarchy is also widely recognized, respected and sometimes even celebrated by the larger society. --
As Xiang Bao goes on to discuss the numbers entering education in Asia, maybe we need some comparative analysis with the numbers in Europe and America and how these scale up in comparison with overall population. He has suggested the numbers from Far East.
I would be very interested in similar data regarding other Asian countries.
But somehow the colonial agendas would never make this a fashionable topic for study, and Indian TV shows are well known for advertising one or two scholarships to Oxbridge.
Imagine, Indian media gets British professors to conduct third rate quiz shows and millions of students go through rounds and rounds of elimination to emerge as victors.
What for ? For a one or two seats in Oxbridge !! From a pool of millions of aspirants.
Needless to say, among the millions other who are left out, a few thousands force their skeptical middle class parents to shelve out money and foreign currency for "paid education and degrees", convincing their sceptical parents that after their education they will be given residence / work permits in EU and America and will not be thrown back to native countries.
So, the competition for marketing and corporate funds for attracting this few thousands of Chinese and Indian students becomes an industry by itself.
Native students in Western countries, who see themselves as disinterested pristine academics, feel, suddenly shortchanged by the struggle for Chinese and Indian students, by the managers and corporate staff, marketeers and racketeers, of Western universities, which they think are "their own" by definition and by birth.
Regards,
Nagarjuna
------------------
The social production of hierarchy, and what we can do about it : Notes from Asia
Here is Xiang Biao scheduled contribution.
The social production of hierarchy, and what we can do about
it: Notes from Asia
XIANG Biao
Institutionalized education in most part of the human society seems intrinsically hierarchical. One is supposed to progress from a “lower” level of learning to the “higher”; “average” kids study in mediocre schools, and the “outstanding” go to top colleges; and finally, “degree” is by definition hierarchical. Recent discussions on higher education have focused on the
governmentalization /corporatization (roughly meaning tightened administrative management in order to make university managerially accountable) and the marketization of universities. This essay explores the logic of hierarchy making in a larger, societal context. It is beyond dispute
that established institutions have deeply vested interest in maintaining exclusive and hierarchical systems, and it is also true that hierarchy, particularly in the form of the
ranking tally, is imposed top down by the establishment.
However, we should not deny that educational hierarchy is also widely recognized, respected and sometimes even celebrated by the larger society. Nor should we reduce the public acceptance to merely an example of false consciousness. Most people know much better than us (university nerds) how to deal with the world. There are ethnical and moral dimensions to the socially produced
hierarchy. Instead of aiming to eradicate hierarchy altogether (which cannot be a feasible agenda despite the ideological appeal), this post wishes to explore room in the social process of hierarchy making which may enable realistic action agendas.
Precarious Hierarchy and the Ethnics of Hierarchy :
In the modern time in general, higher education become less exclusive, and educational hierarchy become much less absolute. In colonial Asia, for example, formal English education had such a magic power that it directly contributed to the creation of the institution of modern
dowry in India. It is also safe to say that, in Asia at least, higher education become less hierarchical in the so-called neoliberal era. (I use neoliberal era with some reluctance. By this term I am referring to the period starting at the end of 1970s for China, the beginning of
1990s for India, the early 1990s for Japan, and the late 1990s for South Korea).
China launched a new, unprecedented round of university expansion in 1998. The number of newly admitted students jumped from 1.08 million in 1998 to 2.5 million in 2001. By 2007, the planed intake reached 5.67 million!
Similar to Japan and South Korea, entering universities is no longer a crucial life event—it is not difficult to get in, and furthermore getting in does not guarantee good job prospects. Students have more freedom in choosing universities according to location, subject or campus “culture” instead of a single system of hierarchical evaluation.
But hierarchy certainly does not go away. Universities become ever more concerned about hierarchical ranking.
Shanghai Jiaotong University produces one of the best known tallies in the world. This reflects the fact that previously fixed hierarchy is replaced by more dynamic and unstable
differentiation. Hierarchy is in struggle. This also suggests that the process of hierarchy making becomes more public, or social, than before when it was declared by the state or established by tradition.
Underlying the new project of hierarchy making in the higher education is a unmistakable capitalist logic. The higher rank a university secures, the higher tuition fees it
charges. But the opposite is untrue. In general, students cannot enter a high-rank university simply by paying more fees. There is a limit to capitalism.
A curious example is the mushrooming MBA courses in China. On the one hand, no other institutions are more conscious than the MBA programs about hierarchical ranking which directly determine the fees they charge. On the other hand, most of the MBA students, particularly those enrolled in the elite institutes in China, had work experiences and many are self employed, and thus the ranking does not mean much for them in the material sense (say, compared to other students who may need a strong university brand for looking for jobs).
When I asked an entrepreneur (incidentally, a Taiwanese) why he applied for an expensive MBA course in Shanghai, he gave me three reasons: good teachers, the reputation of the course (“it sounds good”), and the opportunity to prove that, after
working for many years, he is still able to pass tough examinations. The Chinese capitalist class in the making need symbolic capital, but they need “solid” symbolic capital, i.e., not cheap parody ready for sale.
The hierarchical ranking of universities undoubtedly facilitates exchange between financial and cultural capital.
But at the very same time as different types of capital are exchangeable, each capital must maintain minimum autonomy. Thus, in order to be acceptable to the general public,
hierarchy must be based on “merit” to some extent.
Universities also have to maintain a balance. For example elite universities in the US charge high fees but also provide generous scholarships. Scholarships attract good students to keep its ranking high which in turn justifies high fees.
In China at least until the very recent time, socially produced hierarchy in higher education has significant moral connotations. For example, lecturers and students from top universities are expected to be more vocal in criticizing the status quo, and the state have to be more careful in
dealing with professors from these institutions. In a largely authoritarian and politically conservative system, this status provide the institutions with special clout to be more independent, critical, daring in thinking alternatives, and sometimes more eccentric in behavior.
People rank the universities high to counteract the state power and private economic interest, no matter how symbolically.
New Battles :
Hierarchy itself may not be a problem. The issue is what kind of hierarchy prevails. Our goals should be, apart from continuing the historical progress of destabilizing and “softening” hierarchy in general, making the hegemonic hierarchy more ethical.
In Asia as well as elsewhere, states have been active in domesticating and incorporating the institutions that are high in hierarchy. The corporate world may have similar desires, although their efforts are less orchestrated and their relations to universities less clear. But, both the
state and the economic establishment need seemingly independent universities for the purpose of legitimation.
(Say, the state occasionally needs some “independent scholars” to back their views, and financial institutes also like donating money to “independent” learning institutes.) The contradictions internal to the project of legitimation provide important space for actions.
Furthermore, the interests of the state and of the capital do not always fit well, and playing one against the other can be another strategy.
I cannot quite imagine autonomous universities in practical sense. As Mao Zedong repeatedly reminded us, intellectuals are a piece of feather who cannot exist without someone else’s skin. We need others for our material survival. But perhaps we can fight for a more “autonomous” evaluation system with strong moral and ethical concerns.
Another important battle field is pre-university education. I am not too worried about the corporatization or privatization of universities as I believe that that will not go too far. Even state bureaucrats and diehard capitalists would frown upon universities that have no
intellectual or ideological teeth at all.
What is much more dangerous, for China, is the on-going process of privatization and hierarchization in secondary education.
As it is less easy for money to infiltrate into higher education, well-off families start the race early. Parents spend thousands of US dollars to send children to good primary and high schools and even kindergartens. (In Beijing, top kindergartens literally charge thousands of US
dollars for a seat.)
In Japan, elite private universities such as Keio and Waseda set up their own so-called “escalator” system including kindergartens, primary and secondary schools. Children from wealthy families buy the expensive ticket to enter the escalator on the ground floor,
which take them to the top universities in the future with certain “merits.” Thus social inequality is produced and reproduced without upsetting the “merit”-based hierarchy
of universities. In China, except those who are desperate to consolidate their newly acquired financial assets into firm class status, most people want to escape from the frenzied
competition in which children became the main victims. Thus there is social base for mobilization to fight against this trend. Among other things, top universities may be able to do something, even symbolically, to counteract the education industry.
_______________________________________________
edufactory mailing list
edufactory@listcultures.org
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/edufactory_listcultures.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)