Europe
He who pays for the pipelines calls the tune
Originally from The Economist July.18th, 2009
Summary:
In the past, the gas pipelines have been through Russia to Europe. It is dangerous since there’s overlap of political interest and economic profits. However, there may be other alternations in the future--- new pipelines going through Turkey, the Nabucco line.
The gas source of Nabucco line is not definite; Iraq promised to supply half; Turkmenistan may offer, since there’s pressure form EU and America.
Other pipelines (not through Russia) are developing too. However, Russia also signed a contract with Nigeria and planned new pipelines. Yet the company which planned to build these lines, the biggest gas company in Russia, is corruptive and in bad financial position. Furthermore, its new pipelines may violate EU anti-monopoly rules.
Actually, there are two energy companies, one of Germany, another of France, that were fined due to their violation of this rule. The EU commission emphasizes on energy-market liberalization, and it’s a better way to energy security than the pipelines.
My opinion:
The position of oil pipelines is important, since these pipelines will be strategic points in wars. Moreover, these pipelines s also represent economic and political interests. These pipelines are important---also dangerous in many ways.
However, when it comes to anti-monopoly of energy, these pipelines may not have useful ways since one oil company can have many lines.
Thus, reading this article, what I’m interested in is not only energy liberalization but also the energy-related influence of these pipelines. Will oil prices be influenced by this? How about the political relations influenced by this?
Energy-market liberalization is hard to succeed. When it comes true, there may be other better energy resources.
2009年7月25日 星期六
The Economist's Digest28
Leaders
What went wrong with economics?
Originally from The Economist July.18th, 2009
Summary:
In the past, most economic crises didn’t challenge the economics itself. Economics was taken as gospel. However, after these two years---the financial crisis, economics is not honored as before. It’s in doubt. Even some people in Europe started to doubt economic liberalism, and it’s false and dangerous.
There are three main criticisms: that macro and financial economists helped cause the crisis, that they failed to spot it, and that they don’t know how to fix it. The first is half right. Actually, macroeconomists are careless of asset bubbles this time. On the other hand, some important economic theories---like the inefficiency of the market---were ignored or distorted in Wall Street.
Actually, almost all the economists failed to previse how bad the consequence would be, even though some of them felt something wrong before the crisis. The central banks believe the imperfection of economy by human nature, yet financial officers don’t do so--- their economic model ignoring it, thus causing the disaster.
This financial crisis has changed economics a lot, and economists and financial professors should know more about each other’s field. Economists are social scientists, trying to understand the world changed by the financial crisis.
My opinion:
This time economic theories are confronted with big problems and good chances. Many financial workers blame economists for this financial crisis. However, it’s ridiculous, like irresponsible politicians blaming each other for a co-committed crime.
Don’t be silly; monetary policies can’t solve all the problems as money can’t solve all the problems. Those who plays the money game too much will be flushed our by cash flow. Money sometimes can control people’s mind---it is where its power lies. However, the most powerful tool is our own mind---don’t forget!
What went wrong with economics?
Originally from The Economist July.18th, 2009
Summary:
In the past, most economic crises didn’t challenge the economics itself. Economics was taken as gospel. However, after these two years---the financial crisis, economics is not honored as before. It’s in doubt. Even some people in Europe started to doubt economic liberalism, and it’s false and dangerous.
There are three main criticisms: that macro and financial economists helped cause the crisis, that they failed to spot it, and that they don’t know how to fix it. The first is half right. Actually, macroeconomists are careless of asset bubbles this time. On the other hand, some important economic theories---like the inefficiency of the market---were ignored or distorted in Wall Street.
Actually, almost all the economists failed to previse how bad the consequence would be, even though some of them felt something wrong before the crisis. The central banks believe the imperfection of economy by human nature, yet financial officers don’t do so--- their economic model ignoring it, thus causing the disaster.
This financial crisis has changed economics a lot, and economists and financial professors should know more about each other’s field. Economists are social scientists, trying to understand the world changed by the financial crisis.
My opinion:
This time economic theories are confronted with big problems and good chances. Many financial workers blame economists for this financial crisis. However, it’s ridiculous, like irresponsible politicians blaming each other for a co-committed crime.
Don’t be silly; monetary policies can’t solve all the problems as money can’t solve all the problems. Those who plays the money game too much will be flushed our by cash flow. Money sometimes can control people’s mind---it is where its power lies. However, the most powerful tool is our own mind---don’t forget!
2009年7月16日 星期四
The Eonomist's Digest27
International
New sins, new virtues
Originally from The Economist July.11th, 2009
Summary:
As globalization, technology and economic problems emerge; religious leaders like the Pope and Dalai Lama start to think these global problems and start to talk humans as a whole instead of the old, individual way.
The Pope talks about scientific progress problems, mental-health problems, human responsibility for the earth…etc. Other moral leaders also worry about climate change. Annual reports from the Pope have a great influence on the Catholic; the issue of this year, however, was delayed because the Vatican’s thinkers want to catch up with the world’s step. Even though Pope’s Annual reports (encyclicals) talk about new things this year, the Pope still insists on his original value----he doesn’t fawn on the modern material culture.
Now in the encyclicals, they connect religious idea to the development in the modern world. They still emphasize on the Catholic virtues, mentioning without it the society will only serve for private interest.
The Pope also proposes that an overhaul of global organizations. He talks about the ugly side of global organizations, and also lament for the Iraq war. The Pope also says that the origin of these years’ economic crises is the confusion of happiness with prosperity; he says we can’t solve all the social problems through economic activity.
Other religious leaders worry about climate change and our environment. Dalai Lama worries about global warming; Islamic scholars worry about water resources, hygiene, and rainforests. Many of these religious leaders have taken their actions, many of which are Islamic scholars, instead of the Vatican leader.
My opinion:
It’s easy to understand why climate change worries religious leaders----it’s about the human existence in the world! Actually, the only thing that the Pope can do is talking, but it’s not his fault----it’s the historical effect. In the past, the Pope’s power is over the kings’ in western world. Thus, people started to rip him off it.
However, it’s not the case in Islamic world. Religious leaders still have their “real” power in their countries, and they can do more things to the world. The western (especially Catholic) countries should contemplate on this phenomenon. I don’t know whether it’s good or bad.
New sins, new virtues
Originally from The Economist July.11th, 2009
Summary:
As globalization, technology and economic problems emerge; religious leaders like the Pope and Dalai Lama start to think these global problems and start to talk humans as a whole instead of the old, individual way.
The Pope talks about scientific progress problems, mental-health problems, human responsibility for the earth…etc. Other moral leaders also worry about climate change. Annual reports from the Pope have a great influence on the Catholic; the issue of this year, however, was delayed because the Vatican’s thinkers want to catch up with the world’s step. Even though Pope’s Annual reports (encyclicals) talk about new things this year, the Pope still insists on his original value----he doesn’t fawn on the modern material culture.
Now in the encyclicals, they connect religious idea to the development in the modern world. They still emphasize on the Catholic virtues, mentioning without it the society will only serve for private interest.
The Pope also proposes that an overhaul of global organizations. He talks about the ugly side of global organizations, and also lament for the Iraq war. The Pope also says that the origin of these years’ economic crises is the confusion of happiness with prosperity; he says we can’t solve all the social problems through economic activity.
Other religious leaders worry about climate change and our environment. Dalai Lama worries about global warming; Islamic scholars worry about water resources, hygiene, and rainforests. Many of these religious leaders have taken their actions, many of which are Islamic scholars, instead of the Vatican leader.
My opinion:
It’s easy to understand why climate change worries religious leaders----it’s about the human existence in the world! Actually, the only thing that the Pope can do is talking, but it’s not his fault----it’s the historical effect. In the past, the Pope’s power is over the kings’ in western world. Thus, people started to rip him off it.
However, it’s not the case in Islamic world. Religious leaders still have their “real” power in their countries, and they can do more things to the world. The western (especially Catholic) countries should contemplate on this phenomenon. I don’t know whether it’s good or bad.
2009年7月14日 星期二
The Eonomist's Digest26
Leaders
Beijing's nightmare
Originally from The Economist July.11th, 2009
Summary:
After the disbandment of the Soviet Union, it seems strange that the People's Republic of China still has these autonomous region like Xinjiang. However, the Chinese government had never thought of these problems of ethnic-Turkic Muslins before. The riots in Xinjiang's capital this week has caused over 150 deaths. It is a shame of the Chinese government, and also is a the most serious bloody event after the 1989 Tianamen Square protests. It also made the China's president, Hu Jintao, skip his G8 meeting. The riot calls the idea into question---China's idea that its people will always happily trade freedom for prosperity.
The Uighurs' bad situation is like that of Tibetans: unfairness. From the riots we know that modernization doesn't soothe the hate of Uighurstan to the Chinese government. Eventhough the Uighur has no such a famous leader in western world like Tibet's Dalai Lama, this threat may cause a bigger problem to the Chinese government----the hatred from the rest of the Islamic world.
The riots were ignited by the false accusation of two Urumqi workers, and the Han Chinese people also suffer from the riots. What's worse is that the Uighurstan in Xinjiang think they are colonized. On the other hand, China's censorship made this thing worse by leaking out little information of the two accused workers; the people think of the worst case. Learnt from the riots in Lhasa, the Chinese government let foreign media to Xinjiang and censor them. Then China will deal with these things with suppression.
Is this sustainable? Except for Tibetans and Uighurs, there are many other uneven threats in China like this. Using repression, this riot may not be a big threat to China's territory. However, without harmony, the regime will be harder to survive.
My opinion:
There's a rumor telling that if China can't make its economic growth up to 8% of their GDp last year, there will be revolutions. This riot in Xinjiang seems to be a political and racial one, but its essence is economic and living one.
Why I say so? Let's see. The Uighur people in China ca have more children than the Han Chinese, but they don't have enough resources---even living necessities to feed their children. The economic weakness of aborigines is also a common problem in Taiwan and U.S. However, both of the countries have a different solution from the Chinese one. At least they don't use military forces now.
It's not sure that China's repression can last long. Racial problems should be dealt with respect; the Chinese government shouldn't take this revolt as a political rebellion, eventhough it doesn't meet the Communists' need.
Beijing's nightmare
Originally from The Economist July.11th, 2009
Summary:
After the disbandment of the Soviet Union, it seems strange that the People's Republic of China still has these autonomous region like Xinjiang. However, the Chinese government had never thought of these problems of ethnic-Turkic Muslins before. The riots in Xinjiang's capital this week has caused over 150 deaths. It is a shame of the Chinese government, and also is a the most serious bloody event after the 1989 Tianamen Square protests. It also made the China's president, Hu Jintao, skip his G8 meeting. The riot calls the idea into question---China's idea that its people will always happily trade freedom for prosperity.
The Uighurs' bad situation is like that of Tibetans: unfairness. From the riots we know that modernization doesn't soothe the hate of Uighurstan to the Chinese government. Eventhough the Uighur has no such a famous leader in western world like Tibet's Dalai Lama, this threat may cause a bigger problem to the Chinese government----the hatred from the rest of the Islamic world.
The riots were ignited by the false accusation of two Urumqi workers, and the Han Chinese people also suffer from the riots. What's worse is that the Uighurstan in Xinjiang think they are colonized. On the other hand, China's censorship made this thing worse by leaking out little information of the two accused workers; the people think of the worst case. Learnt from the riots in Lhasa, the Chinese government let foreign media to Xinjiang and censor them. Then China will deal with these things with suppression.
Is this sustainable? Except for Tibetans and Uighurs, there are many other uneven threats in China like this. Using repression, this riot may not be a big threat to China's territory. However, without harmony, the regime will be harder to survive.
My opinion:
There's a rumor telling that if China can't make its economic growth up to 8% of their GDp last year, there will be revolutions. This riot in Xinjiang seems to be a political and racial one, but its essence is economic and living one.
Why I say so? Let's see. The Uighur people in China ca have more children than the Han Chinese, but they don't have enough resources---even living necessities to feed their children. The economic weakness of aborigines is also a common problem in Taiwan and U.S. However, both of the countries have a different solution from the Chinese one. At least they don't use military forces now.
It's not sure that China's repression can last long. Racial problems should be dealt with respect; the Chinese government shouldn't take this revolt as a political rebellion, eventhough it doesn't meet the Communists' need.
