TU NO ESTAS SOLO EN ESTE MUNDO. YOU ARE NOT ALONE SI TE HA GUSTADO UN ARTICULO, COMPARTELO

Monday, November 28, 2011

The world went blue for diabetes

The world went blue for diabetes

Inline Image

On 14 November, millions once again united around the world to produce a powerful display of advocacy and awareness for the 366 million people currently living with diabetes and the many more at risk, firmly promoting the message that action on diabetes is required NOW.

A debt of gratitude is owed to the more than 200 member associations of the International Diabetes Federation in over 160 countries and the thousands of other dedicated organizations and individuals that organised events and joined together to make the day a special one.

The pictures and reports that we have received and which continue to come in tell the story of a remarkable shared experience, the global diabetes community uniting around the blue circle - the global symbol of diabetes - and going blue for diabetes. Here are some of the highlights:

See how the global diabetes community went blue for diabetes on 14 November:

Please continue to send your pictures, event information and videos to wdd@idf.org.


 

Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

Individualism and the Industrial Revolution

Individualism and the Industrial Revolution

Mises Daily: Monday, November 28, 2011 by

A
A

Liberals stressed the importance of the individual. The 19th-century liberals already considered the development of the individual the most important thing. "Individual and individualism" was the progressive and liberal slogan. Reactionaries had already attacked this position at the beginning of the 19th century.

The rationalists and liberals of the 18th century pointed out that what was needed was good laws. Ancient customs that could not be justified by rationality should be abandoned. The only justification for a law was whether or not it was liable to promote the public social welfare. In many countries the liberals and rationalists asked for written constitutions, the codification of laws, and for new laws which would permit the development of the faculties of every individual.

A reaction to this idea developed, especially in Germany where the jurist and legal historian Friedrich Karl von Savigny (1779–1861) was active. Savigny declared that laws cannot be written by men; laws are developed in some mystical way by the soul of the whole unit. It isn't the individual that thinks — it is the nation or a social entity which uses the individual only for the expression of its own thoughts. This idea was very much emphasized by Marx and the Marxists. In this regard the Marxists were not followers of Hegel, whose main idea of historical evolution was an evolution toward freedom of the individual.

From the viewpoint of Marx and Engels, the individual was a negligible thing in the eyes of the nation. Marx and Engels denied that the individual played a role in historical evolution. According to them, history goes its own way. The material productive forces go their own way, developing independently of the wills of individuals. And historical events come with the inevitability of a law of nature. The material productive forces work like a director in an opera; they must have a substitute available in case of a problem, as the opera director must have a substitute if the singer gets sick. According to this idea, Napoleon and Dante, for instance, were unimportant — if they had not appeared to take their own special place in history, someone else would have appeared on stage to fill their shoes.

To understand certain words, you must understand the German language. From the 17th century on, considerable effort was spent in fighting the use of Latin words and in eliminating them from the German language. In many cases a foreign word remained although there was also a German expression with the same meaning. The two words began as synonyms, but in the course of history, they acquired different meanings. For instance, take the word Umwälzung, the literal German translation of the Latin word revolution. In the Latin word there was no sense of fighting. Thus, there evolved two meanings for the word "revolution" — one by violence, and the other meaning a gradual revolution like the "Industrial Revolution." However, Marx uses the German word Revolution not only for violent revolutions such as the French or Russian revolutions, but also for the gradual Industrial Revolution.

Incidentally, the term Industrial Revolution was introduced by Arnold Toynbee (1852–1883). Marxists say that "What furthers the overthrow of capitalism is not revolution — look at the Industrial Revolution."

Marx assigned a special meaning to slavery, serfdom, and other systems of bondage. It was necessary, he said, for the workers to be free in order for the exploiter to exploit them. This idea came from the interpretation he gave to the situation of the feudal lord who had to care for his workers even when they weren't working. Marx interpreted the liberal changes that developed as freeing the exploiter of the responsibility for the lives of the workers. Marx didn't see that the liberal movement was directed at the abolition of inequality under law, as between serf and lord.

Karl Marx believed that capital accumulation was an obstacle. In his eyes, the only explanation for wealth accumulation was that somebody had robbed somebody else. For Karl Marx the whole Industrial Revolution simply consisted of the exploitation of the workers by the capitalists. According to him, the situation of the workers became worse with the coming of capitalism. The difference between their situation and that of slaves and serfs was only that the capitalist had no obligation to care for workers who were no longer exploitable, while the lord was bound to care for slaves and serfs. This is another of the insoluble contradictions in the Marxian system. Yet it is accepted by many economists today without realizing of what this contradiction consists.

According to Marx, capitalism is a necessary and inevitable stage in the history of mankind leading men from primitive conditions to the millennium of socialism. If capitalism is a necessary and inevitable step on the road to socialism, then one cannot consistently claim, from the point of view of Marx, that what the capitalist does is ethically and morally bad. Therefore, why does Marx attack the capitalists?

Marx says part of production is appropriated by the capitalists and withheld from the workers. According to Marx, this is very bad. The consequence is that the workers are no longer in a position to consume the whole production produced. A part of what they have produced, therefore, remains unconsumed; there is "underconsumption." For this reason, because there is underconsumption, economic depressions occur regularly. This is the Marxian underconsumption theory of depressions. Yet Marx contradicts this theory elsewhere.

Marxian writers do not explain why production proceeds from simpler to more and more complicated methods.

Nor did Marx mention the following fact: About 1700, the population of Great Britain was about 5.5 million; by the middle of 1700, the population was 6.5 million, about 500,000 of whom were simply destitute. The whole economic system had produced a "surplus" population. The surplus population problem appeared earlier in Great Britain than on continental Europe. This happened, first of all, because Great Britain was an island and so was not subject to invasion by foreign armies, which helped to reduce the populations in Europe. The wars in Great Britain were civil wars, which were bad, but they stopped. And then this outlet for the surplus population disappeared, so the numbers of surplus people grew. In Europe the situation was different; for one thing, the opportunity to work in agriculture was more favorable than in England.

The old economic system in England couldn't cope with the surplus population. The surplus people were mostly very bad people — beggars and robbers and thieves and prostitutes. They were supported by various institutions, the poor laws,[1] and the charity of the communities. Some were impressed into the army and navy for service abroad. There were also superfluous people in agriculture. The existing system of guilds and other monopolies in the processing industries made the expansion of industry impossible.

In those precapitalist ages, there was a sharp division between the classes of society who could afford new shoes and new clothes, and those who could not. The processing industries produced by and large for the upper classes. Those who could not afford new clothes wore hand-me-downs. There was then a very considerable trade in secondhand clothes — a trade which disappeared almost completely when modern industry began to produce also for the lower classes. If capitalism had not provided the means of sustenance for these "surplus" people, they would have died from starvation. Smallpox accounted for many deaths in precapitalist times; it has now been practically wiped out. Improvements in medicine are also a product of capitalism.

What Marx called the great catastrophe of the Industrial Revolution was not a catastrophe at all; it brought about a tremendous improvement in the conditions of the people. Many survived who wouldn't have survived otherwise. It is not true, as Marx said, that the improvements in technology are available only to the exploiters and that the masses are living in a state much worse than on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. Everything the Marxists say about exploitation is absolutely wrong! Lies! In fact, capitalism made it possible for many persons to survive who wouldn't have otherwise. And today many people, or most people, live at a much higher standard of living than that at which their ancestors lived 100 or 200 years ago.

During the 18th century, there appeared a number of eminent authors — the best known was Adam Smith (1723–1790) — who pleaded for freedom of trade. And they argued against monopoly, against the guilds, and against privileges given by the king and Parliament. Secondly, some ingenious individuals, almost without any savings and capital, began to organize starving paupers for production, not in factories but outside the factories, and not for the upper classes only. These newly organized producers began to make simple goods precisely for the great masses. This was the great change that took place; this was the Industrial Revolution. And this Industrial Revolution made more food and other goods available so that the population rose. Nobody saw less of what really was going on than Karl Marx. By the eve of the Second World War, the population had increased so much that there were 60 million Englishmen.

You can't compare the United States with England. The United States began almost as a country of modern capitalism. But we may say by and large that out of eight people living today in the countries of Western civilization, seven are alive only because of the Industrial Revolution. Are you personally sure that you are the one out of eight who would have lived even in the absence of the Industrial Revolution? If you are not sure, stop and consider the consequences of the Industrial Revolution.

The interpretation given by Marx to the Industrial Revolution is applied also to the interpretation of the "superstructure." Marx said the "material productive forces," the tools and machines, produce the "production relations," the social structure, property rights, and so forth, which produce the "superstructure," the philosophy, art, and religion. The "superstructure," said Marx, depends on the class situation of the individuals, i.e., whether he is a poet, painter, and so on. Marx interpreted everything that happened in the spiritual life of the nation from this point of view. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) was called a philosopher of the owners of common stock and bonds. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) was called the philosopher of big business. For every change in ideology, for every change in music, art, novel writing, play writing, the Marxians had an immediate interpretation. Every new book was explained by the "superstructure" of that particular day. Every book was assigned an adjective — "bourgeois" or "proletarian." The bourgeoisie were considered an undifferentiated reactionary mass.

Don't think it is possible for a man to practice all his life a certain ideology without believing in it. The use of the term "mature capitalism" shows how fully persons, who don't think of themselves as Marxian in any way, have been influenced by Marx. Mr. and Mrs. Hammond, in fact almost all historians, have accepted the Marxian interpretation of the Industrial Revolution.[2] The one exception is Ashton.[3]

"Everything the Marxists say about exploitation is absolutely wrong! Lies! In fact, capitalism made it possible for many persons to survive who wouldn't have otherwise."

Karl Marx, in the second part of his career, was not an interventionist; he was in favor of laissez-faire. Because he expected the breakdown of capitalism and the substitution of socialism to come from the full maturity of capitalism, he was in favor of letting capitalism develop. In this regard he was, in his writings and in his books, a supporter of economic freedom.

Marx believed that interventionist measures were unfavorable because they delayed the coming of socialism. Labor unions recommended interventions and, therefore, Marx was opposed to them. Labor unions don't produce anything anyway and it would have been impossible to raise wage rates if producers had not actually produced more.

Marx claimed interventions hurt the interests of the workers. The German socialists voted against [Otto von] Bismarck's social reforms that he instituted circa 1881 (Marx died in 1883). And in this country the Communists were against the New Deal. Of course, the real reason for their opposition to the government in power was very different. No opposition party wants to assign so much power to another party. In drafting socialist programs, everybody assumes tacitly that he himself will be the planner or the dictator, or that the planner or dictator will be intellectually completely dependent on him and that the planner or dictator will be his handyman. No one wants to be a single member in the planning scheme of somebody else.

These ideas of planning go back to Plato's treatise on the form of the commonwealth. Plato was very outspoken. He planned a system ruled exclusively by philosophers. He wanted to eliminate all individual rights and decisions. Nobody should go anywhere, rest, sleep, eat, drink, wash, unless he was told to do so. Plato wanted to reduce persons to the status of pawns in his plan. What is needed is a dictator who appoints a philosopher as a kind of prime minister or president of the central board of production management. The program of all such consistent socialists — Plato and Hitler, for instance — planned also for the production of future socialists, the breeding and education of future members of society.

During the 2,300 years since Plato, very little opposition has been registered to his ideas. Not even by Kant. The psychological bias in favor of socialism must be taken into consideration in discussing Marxian ideas. This is not limited to those who call themselves Marxian.

Marxians deny that there is such a thing as the search for knowledge for the sake of knowledge alone. But they are not consistent in this case either, for they say one of the purposes of the socialist state is to eliminate such a search for knowledge. It is an insult, they say, for persons to study things that are useless.

Now I want to discuss the meaning of the ideological distortion of truths. Class consciousness is not developed in the beginning, but it must inevitably come. Marx developed his doctrine of ideology because he realized he couldn't answer the criticisms raised against socialism. His answer was, "What you say is not true. It is only ideology. What a man thinks, so long as we do not have a classless society, is necessarily a class ideology — that is, it is based on a false consciousness." Without any further explanation, Marx assumed that such an ideology was useful to the class and to the members of the class that developed it. Such ideas had for their goal the pursuit of the aims of their class.

Marx and Engels appeared and developed the class ideas of the proletariat. Therefore, from this time on the doctrine of the bourgeoisie is absolutely useless. Perhaps one may say that the bourgeoisie needed this explanation to solve a bad conscience. But why should they have a bad conscience if their existence is necessary? And it is necessary, according to Marxian doctrine, for without the bourgeoisie, capitalism cannot develop. And until capitalism is "mature," there cannot be any socialism.

According to Marx, bourgeois economics, sometimes called "apologetics for bourgeois production," aided them, the bourgeoisie. The Marxians could have said that the thought the bourgeoisie gave to this bad bourgeois theory justified, in their eyes, as well as in the eyes of the exploited, the capitalist mode of production, thus making it possible for the system to exist. But this would have been a very un-Marxist explanation. First of all, according to Marxian doctrine, no justification is needed for the bourgeois system of production; the bourgeoisie exploit because it is their business to exploit, just as it is the business of the microbes to exploit. The bourgeoisie don't need any justification. Their class consciousness shows them that they have to do this; it is the capitalist's nature to exploit.

A Russian friend of Marx wrote him that the task of the socialists must be to help the bourgeoisie exploit better and Marx replied that that was not necessary. Marx then wrote a short note saying that Russia could reach socialism without going through the capitalist stage. The next morning he must have realized that, if he admitted that one country could skip one of the inevitable stages, this would destroy his whole theory. So he didn't send the note. Engels, who was not so bright, discovered this piece of paper in the desk of Karl Marx, copied it in his own handwriting, and sent his copy to Vera Zasulich (1849–1919), who was famous in Russia because she had attempted to assassinate the police commissioner in St. Petersburg and been acquitted by the jury — she had a good defense counsel. This woman published Marx's note, and it became one of the great assets of the Bolshevik Party.

The capitalist system is a system in which promotion is precisely according to merit. If people do not get ahead, there is bitterness in their minds. They are reluctant to admit that they do not advance because of their lack of intelligence. They take their lack of advancement out on society. Many blame society and turn to socialism.

This tendency is especially strong in the ranks of intellectuals. Because professionals treat each other as equals, the less capable professionals consider themselves "superior" to nonprofessionals and feel they deserve more recognition than they receive. Envy plays an important role. There is a philosophical predisposition among persons to be dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs. There is dissatisfaction, also, with political conditions. If you are dissatisfied, you ask what other kind of state can be considered.

Marx had "antitalent" — i.e., a lack of talent. He was influenced by Hegel and Feuerbach, especially by Feuerbach's critique of Christianity. Marx admitted that the exploitation doctrine was taken from an anonymous pamphlet published in the 1820s. His economics were distortions taken over from [David] Ricardo (1772–1823).[4]

Marx was economically ignorant; he didn't realize that there can be doubts concerning the best means of production to be applied. The big question is, how shall we use the available scarce factors of production. Marx assumed that what has to be done is obvious. He didn't realize that the future is always uncertain, that it is the job of every businessman to provide for the unknown future. In the capitalist system, the workers and technologists obey the entrepreneur. Under socialism, they will obey the socialist official. Marx didn't take into consideration the fact that there is a difference between saying what has to be done and doing what somebody else has said must be done. The socialist state is necessarily a police state.

The withering away of the state was just Marx's attempt to avoid answering the question about what would happen under socialism. Under socialism, the convicts will know that they are being punished for the benefit of the whole society.

Notes

[1] English legislation relating to public assistance for the poor, dating from the Elizabethan era and amended in 1834 in order to institute nationally supervised uniform relief.

[2] J.L. and Barbara Hammond, authors of the trilogy The Village Labourer (1911), The Town Labourer (1917), and The Skilled Labourer (1919).

[3] T.S. Ashton, The Industrial Revolution 1760-1830 (London: Oxford University Press, 1998 [1948, 1961]).

[4] On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (London: John Murray, 1821 [1817]).

[5] Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, III (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, Chicago, 1909), pp. 17, 530–677ff.

[6] Ibid., p. 696.


Fuente:

Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Thanksgiving and Marginal Utility

Thanksgiving and Marginal Utility

Mises Daily: Thursday, November 24, 2011 by

A
A
Thank you!

[LewRockwell.com, 2005]

O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever (Psalm 136:1–3)

This phrase appears in many of the psalms, but when you find the same phrase three times in a row, you can safely conclude that the writer was trying to make a point, and he thought the point was important. I know of no passage in the Bible where any other phrase appears three times in succession.

Thanksgiving Day is an old tradition in the United States. Although it was not the first such thanksgiving feast, the holiday had its origins in Plymouth Colony, in the fall of 1621, when the Pilgrims who had survived the first year invited Chief Massasoit to a feast, and he showed up with 90 braves and five deer. The feast lasted three days.

There had been a thanksgiving day of prayer and a feast in Maine in 1607. The tiny colony was abandoned a year later. There had also been a thanksgiving service in Jamestown in 1610, but it did not involve a feast.

The first official Thanksgiving Day was celebrated on June 29, 1676 in Charlestown, Massachusetts, across the Charles River from Boston. But Gov. Jonathan Belcher had issued similar proclamations in Massachusetts in 1730 and in New Jersey in 1749. George Washington proclaimed a day of thanksgiving on October 23, 1789, to be celebrated on Thursday, November 27. In 1863, Abraham Lincoln officially restored it as a wartime measure. The holiday then became an American tradition. It became law in 1941.

Lincoln was a strange contradiction religiously. He was a religious skeptic, yet he invoked the rhetoric of the King James Bible — accurately — on many occasions. His political rhetoric, which had been deeply influenced by his reading of the King James, was often masterful. For example, when he spoke of the cemetery of the Gettysburg battlefield as "this hallowed ground," using the King James word for holy, as in "hallowed be thy name," he was seeking to infuse the battle of Gettysburg with sacred meaning — a use of religious terminology that was as morally abhorrent as it was rhetorically successful. It is the sacraments that are sacred, not monuments to man's bloody destructiveness. In that same year, 1863, he used biblical themes in his October 3 Thanksgiving Day proclamation.

It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord.

He went on, in the tradition of a Puritan Jeremiad sermon, to attribute the calamity of the Civil War to the nation's sins, conveniently ignoring the biggest contributing sin of all in the coming of that war: his own steadfast determination to collect the national tariff in Southern ports.

In his proclamation, he made an important and accurate theological point.

We have been the recipients of the choisest bounties of heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.

But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.

This observation leads to the same question that Moses raised long before Lincoln's proclamation: Why is it that men become less thankful as their blessings increase?

Less than a decade after Lincoln's proclamation, three economists came up with the theoretical insight that provides an answer.

Marginal Utility Theory

In the early 1870s, Carl Menger, William Stanley Jevons, and Leon Walras simultaneously and independently discovered the principle of marginal utility. Their discovery transformed economic analysis.

They observed that value, like beauty, is subjectively determined. Value is imputed — a familiar Calvinist theological concept — to scarce resources by the acting individual. Other things remaining equal, including tastes, the individual imputes less value to each additional unit of any good that he receives as income. This is the principle of marginal utility.

This can be put another way. We can say that each additional unit of any resource that a person receives as income satisfies a value that is lower on that individual's subjective scale of value. He satisfied the next-higher value with the previous unit of income.

This provides a preliminary solution to the original question. I call this solution the declining marginal utility of thankfulness. People look at the value of what they have just received as income, and they are less impressed than they were with the previous unit of income. They focus on the immediate — "What have you done for me lately?" — rather than the aggregate level of their existing capital. They conclude, "What's past is past; what matters most is whatever comes next."

Modern economic theory discounts the past to zero. The past is gone; it is not a matter of human action. Whatever you spent to achieve your present condition in life is no longer a matter of human action. The economist calls this lost world "sunk costs."

There is a major problem in thinking this way. It is the problem of saying "thank you." The child is taught to say "thank you." He is not told to do this because, by saying "thank you," he is more likely to get another gift in the future. He is taught to say "thank you" as a matter of politeness.

I am sure that there is some University of Chicago-trained economist out there who is ready to explain etiquette as a matter of self-interest: "getting more in the future for a minimal expenditure of scarce economic resources." And, I must admit, people who never say "thank you" do tend to receive fewer gifts. Or, as Moses put it,

And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. (Deuteronomy 8:17–18)

But Moses added an "or else" clause: "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish" (verse 19). Gary Becker would no doubt put it differently, but the point regarding reduced future income is the same: lower. Maybe way, way lower.

The problem is, we look to the present, not to the past. We look at the marginal unit — the unit of economic decision-making — and not at the aggregate that we have accumulated. We assume that whatever we already possess is well-deserved — merited, we might say — and then we focus our attention on that next, hoped-for "util" of income.

As economic actors, we should recognize that the reason why we are allocating our latest unit of income to a satisfaction that is lower on our value scale is because we already possess so much. We are awash in wealth. We are the beneficiaries of a social order based on private ownership and free exchange, a social order that has made middle-class people rich beyond the wildest dreams of kings a century and a half ago. Or, as P.J. O'Rourke has observed, "if you think that, in the past, there was some golden age of pleasure and plenty … let me say one single word: 'dentistry.'"

About half of the Pilgrims who arrived in Plymouth in 1620 were dead a year later. The Indians really did save the colony by showing the first winter's survivors what to plant and how to plant it in the spring of 1621. The Pilgrims really did rejoice at that festival. They were lucky — graced, they would have said — to be alive.

So are we. Ludwig von Mises wrote in Human Action (VIII:8) that social Darwinism was wrong. The principle of the survival of the fittest does not apply to the free market social order. The free market's division of labor has enabled millions of people to survive — today, billions — who would otherwise have perished.

So, give thanks to God today, even if your only god is the free market. You did not obtain all that you possess all by yourself. The might of your hands did not secure it for you. A little humility is in order on this one day of the year. Yes, even if you earned a PhD at the University of Chicago.

Fuente:

Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Gobierno presenta nueva propuesta en Educación y traslada lobby al Senado

Gobierno presenta nueva propuesta en Educación y traslada lobby al Senado

Ministro Bulnes entregó ayer al senador Andrés Zaldívar un texto con 13 puntos en el que se mejora la oferta hecha la semana pasada.

por D. Muñoz y J.M. Wilson
Ampliar

Mientras en el hemiciclo del Senado se debatía el proyecto que otorga un salvataje financiero a colegios afectados por el conflicto estudiantil, en una pequeña sala contigua, el grupo de negociadores de la oposición para el Presupuesto 2012 sostuvo, durante la tarde de ayer, un reservado encuentro.

La cita tenía como finalidad analizar la última oferta del gobierno para destrabar los recursos para el Ministerio de Educación, rechazada durante la madrugada por la Cámara de Diputados.

El texto de 13 puntos, al cual tuvo acceso La Tercera (ver nota aparte), había sido entregado horas antes por el ministro Felipe Bulnes al jefe de la bancada DC, Andrés Zaldívar, con miras a la votación del erario prevista para hoy en la Cámara Alta.

El último ofrecimiento, sin embargo, no contempla un cálculo global de los nuevos recursos comprometidos, por lo que los negociadores opositores, que exigen una inyección adicional de US$ 1.000 millones, mandataron a sus equipos técnicos para cuantificar las medidas. En todo caso, según fuentes oficialistas, la nueva oferta de La Moneda ascendería a cerca de US$ 460 millones extra para educación, superando en más de US$ 100 millones lo contemplado en la propuesta hecha a la oposición el jueves de la semana pasada.

Aunque el nuevo documento incluía mejoras leves respecto al planteamiento hecho previamente, sectores de la Concertación valoraban anoche la inclusión de ciertas definiciones conceptuales, como en la fijación de aranceles de casas de estudio y la administración de los créditos (para lo cual se propone la creación de una agencia única). Además de elevar los recursos en becas, la propuesta establece un alza en subvención preescolar y entregaba mayores fondos a universidades estatales y regionales.

En el oficialismo afirman que, luego de la dura ofensiva desplegada en la Cámara de Diputados, la oferta formalizada ayer busca dar un plan de salida a la oposición de cara a las votaciones en el Senado. Según señalan, si bien La Moneda mantendrá abierto el diálogo hasta el último día de la tramitación del Presupuesto, la entregada ayer a la oposición será la última propuesta con compromiso de nuevos recursos.

A juicio de los análisis gubernamentales, la oposición dejó a sus senadores con escazo margen de acción luego del rechazo a la partida del Mineduc en la Cámara, por cuanto ahora está obligada a aprobar el Presupuesto en la Cámara Alta, si quiere aspirar a una comisión mixta. La tesis compartida ayer por ministros y parlamentarios del bloque oficialista apunta a que la Concertación no está en condiciones de pagar los costos de un rechazo definitivo de los recursos para educación.

Los escenarios que se barajan en la oposición y el gobierno son, básicamente, cuatro. Primero, llegar a acuerdo en el Senado. Segundo, forzar una comisión mixta para seguir negociando. Tercero, que la oposición rechace completamente los recursos para obligar al gobierno a enviar un veto aditivo. Y cuarto, que la Concertación dé los votos para salvar los dineros de Educación, pero dejando en claro su molestia por una oferta insuficiente.

Durante la mañana y pasado el mediodía, Bulnes, quien desde temprano se instaló en la sala de ministros del Senado, sostuvo conversaciones con senadores opositores, entre ellos, Zaldívar. Luego de ello, el ministro se reunió con los independientes Carlos Bianchi y Carlos Cantero, a quienes también entregó la última propuesta.

Poco más tarde, Bulnes y el titular de la Segpres, Cristián Larroulet, almorzaron con senadores oficialistas, a quienes transmitieron una visión optimista frente al escenario que podría configurarse en lo que resta de la tramitación.

En ese marco, el gobierno redobló la presión a los parlamentarios opositores. A primera hora, el ministro de Hacienda, Felipe Larraín, señaló que el aumento del presu- puesto educacional -en comparación con el 2011- ascendería a más de US$ 1.000 millones. Horas después, Bulnes reforzó el mismo mensaje.

Preescolar: Adelanta cobertura a más vulnerables

ULTIMA PROPUESTA

Se propone acelerar la meta de cobertura de pre kinder, para llegar al año 2014 (y no al 2018) a atender el 100% de los niños del 40% más vulnerable.

Se propone alcanzar cobertura universal al año 2016 en prekinder y kinder para los alumnos del 60% más vulnerable.

Se propone incrementar en 10.000 vacantes por cada año para el 2013, 2014 y 2015 la atención de sala cuna y jardín infantil.

Se propone incrementar los recursos para poder atender a más niños cuyas madres lo requieran por su trabajo en extensión horaria. Los puntos anteriores implican recursos adicionales por US$ 61 millones.

Incremento de 10% de subvención NT1 y NT2: + US$ 25 mil, por lo tanto, el incremento de recursos para educación preescolar sería de US$ 86 millones.

MODIFICACIONES

Las nuevas modificaciones presentadas por el gobierno aceleran la incorporación a la educación preescolar de los niños provenientes de los sectores más vulnerables.

Destaca el hecho que adelanta el compromiso de lograr la universalidad para prekinder del 2018 al 2014.

Esto es importante porque, en la actualidad, hay 80 mil niños matriculados en sala cuna, lo que corresponde a sólo el 20% de los niños en edad preescolar. Aún quedan 330 mil niños sin cobertura.

La nueva propuesta cumple el compromiso firmado por el gobierno en 2011, respecto de universalizar la cobertura de kinder para los dos primeros quintiles al 2014 y establece alcanzar el 60% más vulnerable el 2016. Esta última fue una prioridad que estaba en el programa Chile Crece Contigo, que se lanzó durante el gobierno de Michelle Bachelet.

Educación Escolar: Aumento del 6,4% al 8%

ULTIMA PROPUESTA

Crecimiento subvención escolar

- Crecimiento el 2012 del 8% en vez del 6,4% contemplado en el Presupuesto: US$ 102 millones. 2 Aumentar la subvención SEP para 5to. y 6to. (de 2/3 a 3/3): US$ 60 millones. 3Aumentar 5% subvención ruralidad: US$ 10 millones. 4 Incremento 10% subvención NT1 y NT2: US$ 25 mil.

Incremento en gasto Educación Media Técnico- Profesional

- Recuperar niveles reales de Presupuesto en equipamiento del 2010 y mantener ese nivel para 2013 y 2014: US$ 16 millones. 2 Se propone aumento adicional: US$ 4 millones para capacitación.

Incremento en infraestructura escolar

- Recuperar niveles reales del presupuesto en liceos tradicionales del 2010. Implica US$ 19 millones.

Transparencia

- Exigir que establecimientos que reciben aportes del Estado publiquen su información financiera.

MODIFICACIONES

A nivel de Concertación destacan que se comprometa una ley para incrementar la subvención escolar de un 6,4% a 8%, especificando las partidas destinadas a la Subvención Escolar Preferencial y a la Subvención vinculada a Ruralidad.

Un punto importante a nivel de equidad es que las Becas de Excelencia Académica (BEA), que benefician al 5% mejor de cada generación, ahora favorecerá al 7,5% mejor de los colegios municipales y subvencionados. En cifras reales, hoy se estima que 5.000 alumnos son beneficiados por las BEA y quedan fuera 5.000. El incremento de becas aumentará en unos 2.500 los alumnos beneficiados.

El proyecto de transparencia propuesto involucra a todos los que reciben recursos públicos, incluye al 40% de colegios que existen en el país y que son subvencionados: 4.100 colegios de más de 10 mil.

Educación Superior: 5% aumento en aportes basalesUltima propuesta

ULTIMA PROPUESTA

Transparencia: Mientras entre en operación la Superintendencia de Educación Superior, las universidades privadas con aportes del Estado deberán, antes del 30 de junio: remitir al Mineduc sus estados financieros del 2011 y un listado actualizado de sus socios.

Incremento aportes basales. Aporte Fiscal Directo. Crecimiento del 5% real el 2012 y siguientes, permitiendo así duplicar nominalmente el AFD en 10 años, de US$ 325 millones a US$ 650 millones. Tiene un costo de 17 millones al 2012.

Creación de aportes basales para universidades estatales. US$ 25 millones el 2012, creciendo 5% anual después.

Creación de fondo de apoyo a la Educación Superior Regional: Creado en Presupuesto de 2012 se incrementarán de US$ 5 millones a US$ 10 millones. Estos recursos serán destinados a instituciones del Cruch.

Crédito con Aval del Estado contingente al ingreso: Contingencia al 10% de ingresos, 20 años y tasa del 2% real anual a partir del año 2012.

Creación de becas al quintil 3. Se propone becar desde el 2012 a todos los estudiantes que estén estudiando o que ingresen a estudiar a instituciones del Cruch con una beca equivalente al 50% del arancel de referencia de 2012, llegando la beca al 100% de dicho arancel de referencia el 2013. ($ 1.800.000). Se propone becar desde 2012 a todos los estudiantes que ingresen a estudian en universidades privadas, CFT e institutos profesionales, con montos equivalentes al 50% de las becas que hoy reciben (Beca Juan Gómez Millas, Beca Nuevo Milenio) y el año 2013 alcanzar una beca equivalente al 100% de ellas.

Ampliación de beca de excelencia académica: para estudiantes del 7,5% de mejor resultado en su establecimiento. Se hará extensiva a 10% a partir del 2013. Costo: US$ 6 millones el 2012.

MODIFICACIONES

El incremento de los aportes basales a las universidades era una de las principales demandas de la oposición, de los líderes estudiantiles y de los rectores. Las filas opositoras solicitaban un aumento de 10% de Aporte Fiscal Directo para el 2012, con el objetivo de enfrentar la actual crisis, y de 5% para los años sucesivos. La propuesta del Ejecutivo entregada la semana pasada concedía ya un 5% de aumento en el AFD para el próximo año, comprometiendo la misma cifra para los próximos 10 años, con el objetivo de duplicar su actual monto. Ahora, además, aumenta los recursos de aportes basales para universidades estatales, en general, a US$ 25 millones .

Tanto la oposición como el movimiento estudiantil habían levantado críticas al Crédito con Aval del Estado, a quien responsabilizan del sobreendeudamiento del sistema. En su última oferta, el Ejecutivo formaliza una propuesta que ya había esbozado la semana pasada, para crear un sistema de créditos que vincula su pago a los niveles de ingreso de los egresados, como ocurre en el caso del Fondo Solidario, y establece un plazo de caducidad.

Frente a la demanda de que el Estado se haga cargo de la administración de todo el sistema de créditos y becas, el gobierno se abre en su última propuesta a que una entidad estatal se haga cargo de la administración en el caso de los créditos.

El documento entregado ayer precisa el mecanismo mediante el cual operará la gradualidad con la que se pretende ampliar la cobertura de las becas hasta el 60% de los estudiantes más vulnerables.

Los recursos que están en juego

Alrededor de $ 2,75 billones, que significan un 46% del presupuesto total del Mineduc, se encuentran en juego en la tramitación presupuestaria. Sin embargo, debido a la magnitud del monto y sus implicancias, en el oficialismo creen que es poco probable que se rechace.

Además de afectar las ayudas estudiantiles, la medida dejería sin sueldo a los trabajadores a honorarios y a contrata de todos los servicios dependientes. Y cortaría el financiamiento a instituciones bajo el presupuesto de la Dibam, como el Museo de la Memoria, la Fundación Frei, la Fundación de la Solidaridad Salvador Allende y el Parque Villa Grimaldi.


Fuente:

Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

Monday, November 21, 2011

Department of Agriculture

Department of Agriculture

 

The Department of Agriculture provides an array of subsidy programs for farmers and imposes extensive regulations on agricultural markets. It operates food assistance programs, such as the food stamp and school lunch programs, and it administers many subsidy programs for rural parts of the nation. The Forest Service also forms part of the Department of Agriculture.

The department will spend $152 billion in 2011, or more than $1,200 for every U.S. household. It operates about 235 subsidy programs and employs 98,000 workers in about 7,000 offices across the country.


Timeline of Government Growth

  • See this timeline for key events in the department's growth.

Reading Room

Cato Experts

Spending Cuts Summary

Downsize This!

  • Agricultural Subsidies. The department provides up to $30 billion annually to farmers of corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, wheat, and other crops. It also aids farmers with research, loan, and insurance programs.
  • Agricultural Regulations and Trade Barriers. The government regulates domestic markets for products such as sugar and milk, and it imposes trade restrictions on various farm products.
  • Rural Subsidies. The department operates a range of subsidy programs for businesses and individuals living in rural areas.
  • Food Subsidies. Most of the department's budget goes toward food subsidies, including the food stamp and school lunch programs.
  • Forest Service. The Forest Service oversees 193 million acres of forests and provides subsidies to businesses and state governments.

"Cato is on the right track with its proposals to downsize the USDA. Many of the department's programs originated in the Great Depression and are completely out of date and no longer needed, if they ever were. Downsizing the USDA would help move American agriculture into the 21st century."

- John R. Norton, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, 1985-1986


Fuente:

Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

Can the Underground Economy Save Europe?

Can the Underground Economy Save Europe?

Mises Daily: Monday, November 21, 2011 by

A
A
"The growth of unofficial employment is an entrepreneurial response to unnecessarily rigid labor markets and excess regulation."

As the old saying goes, the more expensive you are to fire, the more expensive you are to hire. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the European continent.

Even with the United States' lengthening of unemployment insurance benefits at the wake of this crisis, the benefits for the standard down-on-his-luck American pale in comparison to those of the average European. Upon job separation the average Frenchman can expect to see more than half of his salary extended in the form of unemployment benefits. Many European workers see these benefits extended for two to three years after their termination, with some countries extending benefits indefinitely.

Spells of unemployment are consequently prolonged on the European continent. Strict laws governing the separation of employees from companies (a nice way to say, "You're fired") lower the rate of job separation in these countries. Unfortunately, these laws also decrease the rate of job finding, resulting in the prolonged unemployment durations evident.

This problem of unemployed masses was no more than an unfortunate consequence of a well-developed social-welfare system during the boom years. Government coffers were plush to pay out hefty benefits. As the crisis wears on, this unfortunate side effect is increasingly turning into an oncoming train wreck as government deficits widen and welfare payments strain already tenuous state finances.

Decreasing benefits may be unfortunate to those relying on them, but such cuts are inevitable. Already some countries have enacted measures to try to bring these unsustainable systems closer to sustainability. The retirement age has been extended to reduce social-security payments, and unemployment benefits have been cut. People have responded with protests, trying to maintain the standard of living that they fought so hard to achieve over the past decades. Unfortunately, not all things desirable are feasible — Europe's plush welfare system is a case in point.

Fortunately there is a silver lining. In most European countries, and especially in the crisis-stricken periphery, large underground economies exist. While Spain's official unemployment rate is pegged around 20 percent, a substantial portion of its workers are indeed employed, if only outside official statistics. As I outline in a new collection I've edited, Institutions in Crisis: European Perspectives on the Recession, the underground economies of Europe's periphery provide ample (if not always desirable) opportunities for employment. While the Greek economy has the largest underground estimated at 25.2 percent of GDP, the PIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) average 21.7 percent of their economic activity hidden from the official statistics. For comparison, 14.7 percent of German, and 7.8 percent of American output is estimated to be confined to the underground.

If substantial masses of officially unemployed workers can take solace in knowing that there exist large underground venues for their efforts, we may do well to outline the reasons why this unofficial option exists. Hans Sennholz, in his work The Underground Economy, lists four main categories of underground economy activity:

  1. that portion evading taxes,
  2. that portion violating laws or production standards,
  3. production from transfer beneficiaries barred from otherwise partaking in pecuniary-enhancing activities (welfare recipients for example), and
  4. production from illegal aliens.

While many people assume that the underground economy consists purely of tax evaders and drug dealers, we see that only two of the categories above allow for these groups. That is not to say that underground workers in the other categories do not evade taxes or sell elicit substances. It is to say that the main reason for their involvement outside of the official economy is neither of those reasons.

Europe's underground economies have seen much growth over the past 30 years, especially since this crisis began. In some ways the growth of unofficial employment is an entrepreneurial response to unnecessarily rigid labor markets and excess regulation. Evidence suggests that industry in at least two of our prime culprits have benefited from the expansion of the underground economy. Growing underground economy employment has allowed Italian and Spanish firms to expand and contract production more easily to market demands.

There is an increased emphasis on reallocating the underground economy into the official one as Europe's crisis progresses. The most commonly advocated method involves more frequent tax audits and heavier fines to incentivize entrepreneurs to report their full incomes to the official authorities. The problem with such a solution is that it ignores the core reason why the underground economy exists — and may very well strengthen its existence.

Entrepreneurs operate in the unofficial economy for two main reasons: taxes make official transactions unprofitable, or regulations make them unfeasible. Threats of increased monetary fines do nothing to alleviate the former reason, while only a reduction in the web of rules and regulations will reduce the latter.

Increased fines and audits will undoubtedly reduce the size of the underground economy. Entrepreneurs, even underground ones, will respond to the increased costs and risks by reducing the scope of their activities. This reduction will not translate into an increase in official market activity. Only by easing the regulatory and tax burden facing entrepreneurs will more of them be willing to operate in the official economy.

Instead of viewing Europe's underground economies as bad things, policy makers would do well to start viewing them for what they are: an important signal that old interventionist policies have failed. If one views large underground economies as inherently bad, one must also deem the policies that breed their existence to be bad.

 

Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

lawyerschile: The Goldman Rule: Don't Let This Puppet Master Pull Your Strings

The Goldman Rule: Don't Let This Puppet Master Pull Your Strings

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein was really on a roll speaking at an investment conference in New York last week.

Among other things, he said there's no way we can conclude that a slowdown in banking and trading businesses is "secular, rather than cyclical."

That alone was enough to make me laugh. But then he went on to address concerns about pending regulations that are coming as a result of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act.

"In our conversations with clients, they have expressed several concerns on the impact to their businesses," Blankfein said, making it clear that his firm will make client interests a theme of its arguments against the regulations. "What Goldman Sachs does for our clients is even more relevant and important."

Now that should make you laugh - if, of course, you're not too afraid.

The truth is that Goldman Sachs and the rest of the big banks on Wall Street - in the inimitable words of author Michael Lewis from his seminal book Liar's Poker - invariably "blow up" customers to make money for themselves.

Not only do they run roughshod over their customers (trading partners) and clients (banking relationships), the big banks manipulate markets, industries, economies and countries to fatten their already gigantic bonus pools and personal fortunes.

Now, I'm not singling out Goldman Sachs because it's the biggest and baddest bully on the block, which it is. I'm not blasting Goldman because I once idolized the firm - its culture, its talent, its sheer money-making prowess - and have seen its vision blinded by greed since going public in 1999. I'm not saying Goldman is the only self-serving, greedy, and pretentious firm on Wall Street. And, I'm certainly not calling out Lloyd Blankfein, whose extraordinary accomplishments as a trader are legendary, but whose leadership of Goldman has been marred by what might generously be described as "PR gaffes."

What I am doing is using Goldman as proof positive that Wall Street banks are bad news.

In fact, rather than seeing them rebound we would all be better off seeing them unwound.

From Wall Street to K Street - And Back

Let me start with the nexus of power and money in this country. That nexus resides exactly where Wall Street and Washington intersect. Each serves the other and the middle-class be damned.

You see, the "revolving door" metaphor that's so often used to describe the relationship between Wall Street and Washington isn't exactly accurate.

The reality is that there is no revolving door. There are no doors at all. It is more like one giant corridor where all the water cooler talk is about paying for campaigns, paying lobbyists, and paying bonuses.

There's a reason why Goldman Sachs is derisively referred to as "Government Sachs." The flow of executives and operatives between Goldman and Washington, and even other world governments and central banks for that matter, is legendary.

I can't point out all the connections - there are simply too many. But I will point out a few that you may not be aware of.

How about Robert Rubin - the former Goldman co-CEO who became Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration? From that post, Rubin squashed all regulations pertaining to derivatives, and ended Depression-era laws like the Glass-Steagall Act (which separated commercial banks from investment banks) so giant Citicorp could be formed by the merger of Travelers and Citibank. Rubin then went to Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), where he made some $119 million while leveraging the bank up with derivatives before it had to be bailed out.

Bailed out by whom? Bailed out by then Treasury Secretary Henry M. "Hank" Paulson, himself a former Goldman CEO.

And bailed out how? With the help of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose chairman was Steve Friedman, a former Goldman partner, still on Goldman's board.

That's the same Steve Friedman who bought $3 million worth of Goldman shares based on allegedly inside information he garnered at the Fed and from Goldman's board meetings, profited handsomely, and had to resign from the Fed board -- but not give any of his profits back.

And finally, Goldman itself had to be bailed out when it ran to the Fed on a Sunday in September 2008 to beg to be turned from an investment bank to a bank holding company so it could get Fed cash.

The Usual Suspects

There are innumerable connections and fascinating stories. So, I won't bore you with the one about Goldman arranging a currency swap at an apparently "fictitious" exchange rate for the government of Greece. Nor how that swap facilitated Greece hiding its debts to get into the Eurozone, so it could then borrow euros ad nauseam until it had to be bailed out - again and again.

I'm not going there. Because if I did I'd have to get into how precariously positioned the new "technocrats" -- who are supposed to save Italy with the help of the ECB -- actually are.

And who are they?

Well, there's Mario Draghi, the new president of the ECB. Super Mario, it turns out, was Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs International, and a member of the firm-wide management committee from 2002 to 2005. He claims to have not been responsible for the Greek currency swap, saying it was arranged before he went to Goldman. But he's never denied it.

That's comforting.

If he runs the ECB the same way Goldman runs its business, there might be some areas where transparency may not be the order of the day. And isn't that exactly what a central bank is supposed to be about?

If I had more time here I'd mention that Mario Monti, prime minister-designate of Italy, not only was a European Commissioner, but an international adviser to Goldman Sachs.

I'm just comforted to know that these old buddies are all still manipulating global finances for the betterment of our interests and the Goldman bonus pool this fiscal year or next.

Customer Service

I'm also not going to get into how Goldman set American International Group Inc. (NYSE: AIG) up to fail, or how the New York Fed made the firm whole on the credit default swaps it had written on AIG. Nor will I get into how Goldman board member Rajat Gupta allegedly passed along boardroom secrets to his friend and Goldman customer Raj Rajaratnam (now serving time for insider trading), or how the Justice Department is looking into how Goldman teed-up millions of investors and hit a hole in one when the mortgage market failed and they were short.

I'm only going to point to one small incident that proves Goldman really does have the interest of its clients at heart.

Back in 2007 Goldman constructed a little billion-dollar deal for a customer named John Paulson. Only the firm didn't tell its other customers, the ones to which it sold the Paulson deal known as Abacus 2007-AC1, that the deal was designed to fail.

Paulson made out like a bandit because he bet against the deal. Now that's good customer service.

Goldman didn't admit any wrongdoing and paid a paltry $550 million fine, which in terms of its 2009 earnings amounted to 15 days worth of register ringing.

So, let me get this right: Goldman, and the rest of its big bank brethren, are all about their customers. And they want their customers to go to bat for them with the regulators.

I suppose it was those nasty regulators that caused the whole credit crisis and the Great Recession in the first place.

And I guess that means that if Goldman, with the help of its customers, can get all those pesky regulators out of the way, we'd all finally be free to do business and live happily ever after - especially Goldman and the rest of big banks, of course.


 

Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile