Posted by Editors in
International Economics, US Domestic and Cultural Issues on Wednesday, October 4. 2006
Due to pressure from Midwest farmers and agribusinesses, the United States has imposed a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff to prevent Americans from importing sugar ethanol from Brazil, writes Thomas Friedman in the NY Times (subscribers only):
Yes, you read all this right. We tax imported sugar ethanol, which could finance our poor friends, but we don't tax imported crude oil, which definitely finances our rich enemies. We'd rather power anti-Americans with our energy purchases than promote antipoverty.
However, he also mentions that the Brazilian government is considering the expansion of the ethanol industry, which "could destroy the cerrado, the Brazilian savannah, another incredibly species-rich area" like the Amazon. "No wonder environmental activists are holding a conference in Germany this fall about the impact of biofuels. I could see some groups one day calling for an ethanol boycott - a la genetically modified foods - if they feel biofuels are raping the environment." Friedman, however, thinks ethanol can be promoted and the environment protected at the same time, if all involved parties sit down early.
Posted by Editors in
US Domestic and Cultural Issues on Thursday, September 28. 2006
The Economist's columnist Lexington highly recommends a new book about an old problem: "The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates" by Daniel Golden (Amazon.com, Amazon.de):
Mr Golden shows that elite universities do everything in their power to admit the children of privilege. If they cannot get them in through the front door by relaxing their standards, then they smuggle them in through the back. No less than 60% of the places in elite universities are given to candidates who have some sort of extra “hook”, from rich or alumni parents to "sporting prowess". The number of whites who benefit from this affirmative action is far greater than the number of blacks. (...)
Social inequality is rising at a time when the escalators of social mobility are slowing (America has lower levels of social mobility than most European countries). The returns on higher education are rising: the median earnings in 2000 of Americans with a bachelor's degree or higher were about double those of high-school leavers. But elite universities are becoming more socially exclusive. (...)
Two groups of people overwhelmingly bear the burden of these policies -- Asian-Americans and poor whites.
The above quote -- including the comparison with Europe on social mobility in the brackets -- is from the review in the respected British The Economist. (HT: Don)
Daniel Golden was awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for his "series of stories that exposed huge college admissions advantages enjoyed by some privileged white students", available for free at the Wall Street Journal.
UPDATE: Check out the response from Mad Minerva, an Asian-American grad student.
Posted by Editors in
International Economics, US Foreign Policy on Thursday, August 24. 2006
Foreign Policy Magazine writes:
Each year the Center for Global Development and FOREIGN POLICY look past the rhetoric to measure how rich-country governments are helping or hurting poor countries. How much aid are they giving? How high are their trade barriers against imports such as cotton from Mali or sugar from Brazil? Are they working to slow global warming? Are they making the world’s sea lanes safe for global trade?
The Netherlands wins this year's competition, followed by Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Germany ranks at the 9th place and the United States at the 13th. Japan lost again.
The British Times two months ago, that little has improved since last year's G8 summit on Africa and the Make Poverty History campaign due to leadership failures and aid cuts:
Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, is to chair an international group set up by Tony Blair to monitor pledges made to help Africa at last year’s G8 summit, the Prime Minister will announce today. Bob Geldof, the Live8 organiser, and President Obasanjo of Nigeria will also be on the Africa Progress Panel, which will be funded by Bill Gates.
The Atlantic Review wrote about the magnitude of poverty and a popular myth:
Around 29,000 under-fives die every day from causes that are easily prevented, such as diarrhoeal dehydration, acute respiratory infections, measles and malaria. According to a poll, most Americans believe that the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.
Related post: Fair trade and more aid.
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
International Economics on Tuesday, July 25. 2006
Bruce Stokes, journalism fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States, has written a feature article about Germany's economy for the National Review. He considers economic growth in Germany to be important for the United States:
Washington knows that Americans also need a successful German economy. As the largest European economy, Germany can be, and has been, the economic engine that leads all of Europe into faster growth rates and thus bolsters U.S. exports. Except for Germany's disagreement with the United States on Iraq, Berlin has been a reliable partner in Washington's European and global foreign-policy initiatives. And, looking forward, "Germany is the only dependable U.S. partner for the next 15 years," asserted Deutsche Bank's Walter. But the growing divergence in economic performance between Europe and the United States is rapidly eroding the economic conditions that have nurtured trans-Atlantic political relations and fostered U.S.-European joint leadership of the world economy.
The American Institute of Contemporary German Studies provides Bruce Stokes' in-depth article about many problems of Germany's economy as a pdf file. While Stokes argues that Germany's labor and economic reforms, although significant, have so far delivered only meager returns and that more needs to be done to remedy this situation, the Energy Banker Jérôme Guillet (European Tribune) is skeptical whether more of the same sort of reforms will help. The historian Tony Judt argues in The Globalist:
If anything, the rush of many contemporary commentators and public figures, particularly in the United States, to ignore the political origins of the welfare state reflects poorly on their understanding of Europe's difficult past. (...) The liberal welfare states of Europe were not built as a vision of a utopian future. They were built [after WWII] as a barrier to Europe's 20th century -- as it had just been experienced. In this context, bear in mind that most of the men who built the welfare states in Europe were not young social democrats. Most of the people actually implementing this program after 1945 in Western Europe were Christian Democrats — or liberals rather than socialists of any kind.
Is the US system better? After a decrease of poverty in the late 90s, "the number of Americans living in poverty has risen each year Bush has been president, increasing to 37 million in 2004 from 31.6 million in 2000. Overall, 12.7 percent of the nation's population lives in poverty, which for a family of four means an income less than $20,000 a year." writes the Washington Post.
Is poverty more accepted in the US? According to the same article in the Post, "poverty forced its way to the top of President Bush's agenda in the confusing days after Hurricane Katrina," but:
As it happened, poverty's turn in the presidential limelight was brief. Bush has talked little about the issue since the immediate crisis passed, while pursuing policies that his liberal critics say will hurt the poor. He has publicly mentioned domestic poverty six times since giving back-to-back speeches on the issue in September. Domestic poverty did not come up in his State of the Union address in January, and his most recent budget included no new initiatives directed at the poor. (...)
"The Bush administration has shown a total lack of leadership on this issue," said former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, who has made a new war on poverty his signature issue as he travels the country in preparation for an expected 2008 presidential bid. [HT: Edit Copy]
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Wednesday, March 22. 2006
 Popular German magazines such as Der Spiegel frequently put US critical pictures on their cover. Critical reporting about the world's sole superpower is necessary, but statements like "Torture in the Name of Freedom" (as seen on a recent Spiegel cover) appear to be malicious distortions to sell more copies rather than critical, ethical journalism. (More at Medienkritik)
The German media (e.g. Die Welt) reported that Salon.com published more Abu Ghraib torture pictures. Bild published some pictures.
 Those responsible for the torture in Abu Ghraib have done great harm to their victims, their families and the US reputation in the world. The number of insurgent attacks increased dramatically after the Abu Ghraib scandal first became public. The torturers and the high ranking officers who failed to maintain discipline in Abu Ghraib have unintentionally aided the US enemies.
Continue reading "Why is Abu Ghraib a cover story again, but not Darfur?"
Posted by Editors in
Fulbright on Saturday, March 4. 2006
The Atlantic Review started a directory of Fulbrighters working for good causes like peace and mutual understanding, poverty eradication, public health, disaster relief, environmental protection, human rights, fighting discriminations:
Medge Owen, M.D., established the NGO Kybele to promote safe childbirth and neonatal resuscitation worldwide through medical education partnerships. We present her reports about Kybele's work in Turkey, in Croatia and in Ghana.
Steffen Schmuck-Soldan promotes saving energy and money at the same time.
Ann Jordan and Beatriz Fernandez Carrillo work against trafficking in persons.
David Furman brought art to an impoverished community in Peru.
Dariusz Jemielniak supports continuing education for English teachers in Poland.
José Alberto Ramirez promotes alternative dispute resolution in Venezuela.
The Oregon Alumni started a Native Speakers Program at a German highschool.
Stephan Münch volunteers his free time for the better integration of people with intellectual disabilities.
And Rolf Brinkmann is committed to various forms of sustainable development.
Introductions to all these projects in the directory of Fulbrighters working for good causes.
Posted by Editors in
International Economics on Friday, June 17. 2005
After the G8 debt relief agreement the German media often mentioned the relatively small amount of US development aid. The US currently spends 0.16 percent of its national income for aid, while Germany for example spends 0.28 percent. The Center for Global Development (CGD) and the Foreign Policy Magazine (FP), however, remind us that "helping poor countries is about more than giving money—it's about taking responsibility for policies that affect those less fortunate." The 2004 CGD/FP Commitment to Development Index "ranks 21 rich nations on how their aid, trade, investment, migration, environment, security, and technology policies help poor countries."
The United States has a slightly better score than Germany! Denmark and the Netherlands earn the top spots. Sweden, Australia, the UK and Australia rank better than the US and Germany. Japan finishes last.
Posted by Editors in
International Economics on Friday, June 17. 2005
According to the Boston Globe:Every month, more than 150,000 children die from malaria alone. Each year, AIDS kills 3 million worldwide, a number equal to 10 times the tsunami toll. President Bush, Chancellor Schroeder and their G8 colleagues will meet in Edinburgh from July 6-8, 2005. The Make Poverty History campaign demands not only more debt relief than the G8 finance ministers have promised,  but also more and better aid as well as trade justice. The Guardian describes how cultural advice from financial guru Warren Buffett helped Bono to enliste support for this campaign in the US. A Foreign Policy article by President Bush's deputy assistant secretary of the treasury from 2000 to 2002, describes how US trade barriers hurt poor countries more than the US aid helps them, how aid played a key role in development in the past and why US security would benefit from alleviating poverty. Following are abstracts of both articles.
Continue reading "To alleviate extreme poverty the G8 have to make international trade more fair and increase aid"
Posted by Editors in
International Economics on Thursday, June 9. 2005
According to UNICEF, "around 29,000 under-fives die every day from causes that are easily prevented, such as diarrhoeal dehydration, acute respiratory infections, measles and malaria." The international campaign "Make Poverty History" calls on the G8 to deliver a historic deal for the world's poorest people at their Africa Summit in Edinburgh from July 6-8, 2005. The G8 is a cornerstone of the transatlantic alliance since it consists of eight of the most powerful European and North American countries (as well as Japan). At their annual summits the Heads of Government of this small and mighty group discuss global economic issues and set an international agenda. As host of this year's summit Tony Blair decided to put the focus on Africa: In 2000, the international community set itself eight goals to achieve by 2015. The UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) include targets on eradicating extreme poverty, combating HIV and AIDS and malaria, and ensuring that every child receives primary education. The UN Millennium Review Summit in 2005 will consider progress towards the MDGs. We already know that we need to do much more if we are to meet the MDGs in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is one of the reasons why UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has said that Africa will be a priority of the G8 Summit in Gleneagles. The Atlantic Review believes that the G8 leaders need to be pressured to intensify the war on poverty. The international "Make Poverty History" aka "white band" campaign explains how you can help and how this ambitious goal can be achieved and financed. Visit the German, US, or international homepage.
The New York Times writes
According to a poll, most Americans believe that the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent. As Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist in charge of the United Nations' Millennium Project, put it so well, the notion that there is a flood of American aid going to Africa "is one of our great national myths." The United States currently gives just 0.16 percent of its national income to help poor countries,  despite signing a United Nations declaration three years ago in which rich countries agreed to increase their aid to 0.7 percent by 2015. Since then, Britain, France and Germany have all announced plans for how to get to 0.7 percent; America has not. The piddling amount Mr. Bush announced yesterday is not even 0.007 percent. What is 0.7 percent of the American economy? About $80 billion. That is about the amount the Senate just approved for additional military spending, mostly in Iraq. It's not remotely close to the $140 billion corporate tax cut last year.
|
or 
:
Latest Comments
George W. Bush’s sentence-by-sentence speaking skills are deteriorating. Apparently, [...]
Pamela about FT: "Speed of European Response Leaves US Trailing"
I want to do a quick drive-by and say thank you Kerneuropaer. You gave me the clue I [...]
Don S about FT: "Speed of European Response Leaves US Trailing"
How.... unilteral of you. What you are saying is that in systems where many [...]
Zyme about FT: "Speed of European Response Leaves US Trailing"
Basically you could say that we are full of trust as long as we are full in control [...]
Don S about FT: "Speed of European Response Leaves US Trailing"
What? You mean they're not going to open that 8-star hotel after all! Such a loss [...]
Don S about Financial Crisis: "Trans-Atlantic Sniping"
SC, I know and love the Ozarks. I've even been to Rolla once or twice when I lived in [...]