Earth, Climate, Poverty

(reposting earlier version)

Since the creation of earth, there have been several mass extinctions of living species. Human beings, which came to exist in the very late stage of earth’s evolution, have undergone numerous crises. Among them, an old article of Time magazine asserted that, “Climate Change” is the most dire crisis of human existence since the beginning of human civilization. Climate change is believed to be more dangerous than any wars, natural disasters, and/or epidemics throughout history

Since the late 2008, we have undergone the most severe economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s: crisis with health care system and the meltdowns of housing and financial sector. These are tragic social, political problems that we have encountered cyclically but can be solved depending on what kind of politicians voters chose to put in power. But none of these problems are as fundamental as the current challenge posed by “the Crisis of Climate Change.”

Sadly, poor people always seem to be the targets of natural or man-made disasters or any kind of misfortunes. For example, recent political history showed that health care crisis, housing market meltdown, recession and unemployment hit the less privileged, poor people hardest while the rich always seem to find ways to avoid any kind misfortunes. Even “Global Warming” is expected to hit the poorest people in poor or developing countries or those in the United States of America instead of rich people, rich countries.

The future victims of climate change will include not only those poor people in Asia or Africa but also the American poors who live in poor rural areas or disindustrializing US cities and towns. Now they are suffering from job losses and fewer jobs available due to their declining home town industrial bases and growing poverty. Their problems are not only increasing poverty, hunger, and homelessness but also their inability to cope with drastic weather changes including heat waves, droughts, flooding, water shortage, spread of diseases and so on that will drive them to near or actual death.

There have been severe criticism that rich developed and developing countries have caused “Global Warming” in the chorological order of industrial revolutions; the phases of industrialization ofWestern Europe, the United States, China, and India have been directly related to their amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, causing extreme weather changes and general warming of global climate. However, it is most poor people in the most poor countries in the world who have suffered and will suffer from the direst consequences of “Global Warming” without their part of contribution to or awareness of the phenomenon. These people have endured, will endure their small countries to disappear under rising sea levels, their farmlands or pastures to dry out or flooded due to severe frequent droughts or floods, and/or loss of their properties or lives or starvation due to more frequent tornadoes, droughts, floods, hurricanes. In the meantime, the responsible countries of these warming disasters have not taken their share of cleaning up these messes to curb, reverse “the speed of climate warming.”

International, multilateral negotiations of political issues, no matter whether it is about trade or climate issues, have always been slow-moving, often dissolving into endless arguments with few effective agreements. It’s countries’ national policies that can be quickly agreed upon within shorter time into smaller scale action plans while waiting for the progress of multilateral talks. In this regard, I respect people who relentlessly tackle on “Climate Issues” or any kinds of efforts to curb and reverse Climate Change. And it is important to raise future generation that are environmentally smart and natural problem-solvers of environmental problems, unlike their parents’ generations.

Regarding “Federal Reserve ‘Will Be Gone’ In 25 Years, Top Financial Mind Predicts, Despite Geithner’s Vote Of Confidence”

Regarding Dr. Nassim Taleb’s criticism of the government’s bailout of financial sector:
“This transformation from private debt … to public debt” is “bad” from a risk standpoint and “immoral” from an ethical standpoint.” (Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/30/nassim-taleb-federal-reserve-will-be-gone_n_746109.html)

Dr. Taleb may be true that making financial sector’s debt as public debt through government bailout of the sector doesn’t sound right from risk and ethical standpoints.

However, from the standpoints of national economic security and anti-Possible 2nd Great Depression, bailingout financial sector was inevitable, necessary evil, not for the love of greedy financiers (who will live happily ever after, with or without bailout, with their accumulated wealth hidden in their backyard) but for the love of country and the majority of population who would have actually bore the devastating aftershock, real costs of collapsing financial sectors if there had not been government bailout. To achieve bigger goals, maybe we should sacrifice smaller goals if they are conflicting each other and cannot be achieved all together.

It seems to be a matter of right priority setting; I believe, national economic security and preventing second great depression domestically and internationally should be in higher order than risks and ethics in the hierarchy of national priority. Save big chunk first and solve smaller problems one by one.

Fed may or may not exist in next a few decades if it keeps mis-estimating its costs and benefits and continue misjudgement.

Robert Kuttner: Fiscal Folly

Dear Mr. JXJASON,

I believe we wish for the same thing, something good for the country. It’s just different wording.

Based on the solid understanding on the current situation, finding out the best strategies to get back to the healthy economy, that’s what we wish for, right?

We wish to set up the right policies that don’t allow the financial sector to drain this country’s resources, which should be used for building healthy industrial/manufacturing structure, healthy middle/low-income classes, and productive infrastructure, into feeding the top financiers’ fancy lifestyles. Fattening one (or a few) sector’s welfare while the rest of other sectors going anelexic doesn’t seem to be the profile of a healthy country. I am not saying we should suppress the financial sector unconditionally. Balance, fairness for all seem to be the key here.

In Response To:

JXJASON‘s Comment to Mikyung Lim

Mikyung Lim, I disagree with you The past can be undone. You just repeal the law that deregulated the financial industry. You cannot restore prosperity when the wealthy have stolen ( legally mind you) from the less wealthy.

If you Google – Phil Davis Seekingalpha – and read some of Phil’s articles you will learn how the financial industry has conned the average, middle class citizen.

Forbes publishes a list of the 400 richest people in the world. None of them live in 1,200 square foot homes, in middle class towns like, say Scranton, PA or Detroit, Michigan or thousands of other, poor communities in the US.

Finally, your analogy is nonsense. If one is sick, and broke, you cannot borrow more money. If someone doesn’t pay for your medical bills you will get sicker and, eventually die.

I am well educated with two degrees from two, Canadian Universities. Recently, the CEO from TD bank, explained why Canada did not have the same economic crisis as the US.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

US Self-Sufficiency, No Trade, Global Isolation / Protectionism, and Collective Sliding into Poorer US.

The night before Thanksgiving, there was one person’s comment to my Huffpost comment that insisted on the isolation of US economy from the world, protectionism, and the lie of globalization.  As there must be a lot of people who share the same opinion as this person’s, I want to clarify their misunderstanding as much as possible. The contents of the comment is listed as below:

danarothrock replied on Nov 25, 2009 at 16:55:50

“Tarrifs were not the main cause of the 1930s depression. The cause was the exact same financial casino gambling that brought us down this time. Hence, the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed in 1999.

America grew strong in isolation and protectionism. We produced almost everything we needed, except rum, coffee and bananas.

Globalization – “Flat Earth” – has been the theory that has destroyed the economy of this country and several other countries. We are on the losing end of every “Free Trade” agreement. We are trading jobs for foreign workers. The Ex-Im Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (two agencies of the US Treasury) are funding $billions every year for American companies to move overseas. 67% of American corporations have plans to increase offshore operations. Do some research on “protectionism”. “Globalization is a LIE.”

My Response was:

Although I am tired, sleepy now. I am still almost sure that “tariffs, protectionism” were the causes of Great Depression. That’s why, since then, there were  international multilateral negotiations to reduce tariffs worldwide and not to repeat the same bad experience of tariff imposition / protection. If you were not sleepy, please check the fact and let me know !

Regarding “America grew strong in isolation and protectionism,” this is the most “RIDICULOUS” statement that I have ever heard! You want to put this country in economic, political exile away from the rest of world and cut off its position of economic and political superpower in the world to degrade into poorer and poorer country? Let me guess. You must have never left your block of town to travel around and see the reality of the world.

What do we trade off by engaging in world trade?

LOSS :

Some labor-intensive manufacturing jobs as imports of those goods gain domestic market sales.

GAIN:

A. Gaining of export-related jobs (this is one reason of why the White House wish China to save US economy and unemployment problem through their purchase of US goods);

B. Cheaper imported goods make us be able to buy more goods, more foods, clothings, electronics, etc with same income. We feel richer when we can consume cheaper import goods; we feel poorer when cheap imports are not available and we have to buy more expensive domestically produced goods (please compare the numbers of grocery items that, with $100, we can buy from Wal-Mart (many of them cheap imports) and from a rather expensive grocery store. You will feel the difference of how much we can consume more or less with same income depending on whether cheaper imports are available to us or not.

Without cheap imports, we may save some jobs of ours or our fellow workers, but we altogether/collectively have to eat less food, wear less clothings and shoes, buy less toy…overall we will feel poorer without trade than when we have imports.

It would be a choice of what we prefer.