President Hosni Mubarak steps down?

[Pešadija]

Ehm. I thought the various arab revolutions were the point of this thread, but, dear costard, I share the passionate hate of these basic loopholes exploited in the west by the people in the finance and stock brokerage sector.

And, to be truthful, between the awful state of the people in developing countries and the denied economic stability in the supposedly developed countries, I find the latter more jarring exactly because we, relatively educated people (politically and economically), seem unable to defend ourselves against the predations of those ******* neomanchesterian vultures.

Sorry for the rant.

BTW, hasn't this thread gotten quite political, in spite of forum rules?

[dieseltaylor]

At present, China holds 41% of the world’s stockpiles of primary grains but consumes just 21% of the global supply, according to data compiled by High Frequency, citing the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s monthly global supply and demand estimates.

Broken down further, China holds a third of the world’s wheat stockpiles, but consumes only 17% of total supply.

In an interview, Mr. Weinberg said Chinese hoarding wouldn’t be of great concern if grain production were at “normal” levels. But floods in Australia, and dry weather in other parts of the world, including in Canada and China, are squeezing supply and brings Beijing’s practices into focus.

“The fact that we are seeing a shortage of grain production in a number of places at once makes this subject a little more politically charged than it otherwise might be,” Mr. Weinberg said. “The Chinese are not causing prices to go up by doing this. The real problem is that it looks as if there will be shortfall of supply from a number of different regions. That’s the biggest factor at work. The hoarding is just an aggravating concern.”

Mr. Kostal said Chinese hoarding has gone on for some time, and it is how Beijing and other Asian economies manage food prices. China, the world’s largest wheat grower, dips into the grain inventory in the event of a sudden price hike, in an effort dampen political and social dissent over higher costs for food.

Mr. Kostal said upward price pressure on wheat would remain in place for at least another four months until countries can buy grain from the 2011 crop. In addition, Russia may loosen controls on grain exports, imposed last year, if output returns to more normal levels after dry weather.

Based on Mr. Weinberg’s research, global grain stockpiles will total 82 days of consumption by the end of the current crop year, which is just below the 50-year average of 86 days. But exclude China from the equation and there are enough stockpiles for only 63 days of consumption, which is “very low” by historical norms.

http://www.canada.com/business/fp/China+grain+hoard+concerns+helps+lift+wheat/4281642/story.html

However the physical hoarding is not necessarily a cause of higher prices as anyone can buy futures to increase the price for all.

[Wicky]

Egypt exports food to European supermarkets - During the troubles the rural farmers were on the side of Mubarak (stabiity and maintaining exports?)

http://www.just-food.com/analysis/egypt-crisis-sparks-food-supply-jitters-in-europe_id114136.aspx 4 Feb 2011

"Within Egypt, as protests paralyse Cairo, many currently fear widespread food shortages. The escalation of the demonstrations last Friday (Jan 28) and the subsequent cut-off of Internet and mobile phone services, plus the imposition of a curfew led Egyptians into panic buying of staples. But six days later, food is still being supplied to the capital, with little price speculation.

"Some prices are going up and some prices are staying the same," explained a Cairo mother-of-three to just-food, with some vendors taking advantage, but many keeping prices stable. Indeed, the manager of the New Market food store in Mounira, a neighbourhood in downtown Cairo, said: "There is no change in prices. The things that are running out right now are rice, macaroni, and vegetable oil – the staples. We have enough of these to resupply till the beginning of next week."

[costard]

...

And, to be truthful, between the awful state of the people in developing countries and the denied economic stability in the supposedly developed countries, I find the latter more jarring exactly because we, relatively educated people (politically and economically), seem unable to defend ourselves against the predations of those ******* neomanchesterian vultures.

Sorry for the rant.

BTW, hasn't this thread gotten quite political, in spite of forum rules?

Moon has the power to shut down any thread he's not particularly intererested in. If we don't descend to calling each other names and manage to keep the observations factual, it is probable the thread will survive. Besides, at what point does any discussion of values or global events not touch on politics? I figure we're in the hands of the judiciary, we might as well make it worth their while reading the evidence. Also,

1.The thread has the word President in it's title, it's bound to be political.

2. I figure by this time everyone hates all politicians equally, so any vilification of one or another is unlikey to cause lasting damage to any reader.

We did have the means to defend ourselves: they were present in the laws that were deliberately and progressively repealed or subverted in the interests of the people now sitting at the top. Glass-Steagall is the most obvious, perhaps. Corruption has become far more accepted in the west than when I was a child: then, it was a sin against the rest of the community (and the economic and moral damage it causes was understood). Now, it is expected behaviour and is far more rarely prosecuted to an outcome acceptable to the victims (an instance of both the corruption and it's downstream effects).

One more thing: it wasn't just the JP Morgans and Goldman Sachs that brought this on. The people who bought houses in the knowledge that they were taking a punt on the future value so that they could achieve quick wealth were displaying the same impatience and ignorance as our leadership. The same goes for those who borrowed against their houses to play the stock market - a working knowledge of statistics and probability, history and current affairs is all required to succeed at the game (if the game is any good).

[Pešadija]

Yes, the middle-to-low class that tries to exploit the fallacies of the system for short-term returns and beat the bigwigs at their own game is NOT a sight I like.

[Michael Emrys]

Yes' date=' the middle-to-low class that tries to exploit the fallacies of the system for short-term returns and beat the bigwigs at their own game is NOT a sight I like.[/quote']

Nor I to tell the truth. And as long at the fallacies go uncorrected, they will continue to attract both big and little wigs.

I think some of the psychology is the same as that attracting people to the lottery. Everybody knows that is it an inherently unjust system in that millions of people are every day losing money on the minuscule hope that they will be the big winner. But that hope is such a powerful force that they will pay to experience if if only for a brief moment.

Michael

[Pešadija]

To refresh this thing, whaddya guys think of Lybia? It is the fiercest and most fiercely repressed of the various rebellions!

Before the news I was actually asking myself "how will ol' Muammar fare?"; especially after the bat**** insane things he did in his recent visit to Italy and his equally megalomaniac friend.

[abneo3sierra]

My prediction is before the end of 2011..the end of the current governments in Libya, Jordan, and Bahrain, and before the end of 2012 add Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Not at all sure that would be good, as many times a known bad, is easier to deal with than a possible worse.

[Pešadija]

I dunno. All in all, I think there's always some uncertainty to deal with in the great void that the future is, known bads or not. I, for one, wish those peoples the best of luck in their tentative steps towards self-determination.

[abneo3sierra]

Oh, I wish them the best also. My only worry is that there are also very well organized groups in each case, ready to step in to become even worse. Democracy won't be solved by having one fair election, it needs to have many, and it needs to have people willing to give it a chance, and NOT riot in the streets every time they don't get their way, but instead make their voices heard at the ballot box. And it needs people in power, who will be willing to give that power back, when it is their turn to step down, which is probably the hardest ingredient to find.

[Pešadija]

Bah, they'll eventually figure out how mundane that democracy thingy they've been fussing about really is, political parties of ineffectual blabbermouths of every political spectrum will crop up rapidly, and they'll get up to speed with the west.

[abneo3sierra]

Bah, they'll eventually figure out how mundane that democracy thingy they've been fussing about really is, political parties of ineffectual blabbermouths of every political spectrum will crop up rapidly, and they'll get up to speed with the west.

haha, quite true

[Affentitten]

I don't think Gadaffi will depart as meekly as Mubarak. On a superficial level the political mechansims are similar between the two countries in terms of how the varying elites are managed. However things are a lot more rpressive in Libya and I expect that even if the Brother Leader were ousted, Gadaffi 2.0 would step in. He'd just be a General or an Air Marshall instead of a Colonel.

[abneo3sierra]

I don't think Gadaffi will depart as meekly as Mubarak. On a superficial level the political mechansims are similar between the two countries in terms of how the varying elites are managed. However things are a lot more rpressive in Libya and I expect that even if the Brother Leader were ousted, Gadaffi 2.0 would step in. He'd just be a General or an Air Marshall instead of a Colonel.

Exactly what I meant by not being sure if it was a good thing...some countries just seem destined for "more of the same" somehow...

[costard]

Well, if I were a cynical depressive (read: realist) I'd argue that we'll see more repression backed by the military. The level of repression will be determined by the over-arching culture of the military in question: if it sees itself as coming from the general populace and having a mission to serve the populace of the nation (i.e. it fights for a symbol: a flag), it'll prove less harsh in dealing with the unhappy masses ("harsh" is extremely relative here). Where the military is selected from distinct ethnic groups (for example, the desert tribes in Libya (Bedouin?)) with strong hierarchies based in feudal relationships, we'll see a stronger military presence in the solution: less regard paid to the commonwealth and more to the maintenance of power structures.

I don't think the west is prepared to put a "peace-keeping force" in each and every middle-eastern/north-african nation: a pity, because it could be argued that this is precisely the situation the US pledged to address (militarily) when it started down this road with the invasion of Iraq. It could be that we're seeing the final refutation of that strategy and it's effectiveness.

Other foreign aided solutions include shipments of food to stem price rises and panic behaviour, but it has been shown (i.e. proven through inspection) that unless the people of the suffering nation are prepared and capable of helping themselves, all you manage to do is promote the status quo (e.g. the Untied Nations Aid programs in sub-saharan Africa). Unfortunately, other solutions usually require a deal of investment and time in cultivating international relationships: bringing the putative leaders of the nation in question to an understanding of how to get it to work (else you require on the happenstance of a revolution capable of putting high quality, competent individuals into power structures prepared to back them - about one in several trillion, I'd guess, of that happening). One of the great truths of the exercise of WJunior's new paradigm was that he systematically trashed decades of work in the diplomatic sphere. A fairly constant theme coming through from the older generation (from his parents, for example) was about the waste and destruction happening to their lives' work. The perception of WJunior's team was that they didn't work anywhere as near as hard as their parents and they didn't have anything like the intellectual capability: the conclusion to be drawn was obvious to anyone who actually had an education and could think.

[abneo3sierra]

With regards to the first part of what you said, putting a military presence on the ground in any of these nations..I agree..a non-starter. I do believe BushJR's policy was, at it's heart, correct though, but it mostly seems that after getting the right words, and the right ideas...the execution was mediocre, from an optimist's viewpoint, and subpar probably from everyone else's viewpoints. Military action cannot solve this type of problem, but it can have a proper place, backed by the carrot (of the carrot and stick approach).

Ron

[costard]

With all due respect, the execution was ****ing atrocious from my viewpoint.

[Michael Emrys]

Oh, I wish them the best also. My only worry is that there are also very well organized groups in each case, ready to step in to become even worse. Democracy won't be solved by having one fair election, it needs to have many, and it needs to have people willing to give it a chance, and NOT riot in the streets every time they don't get their way, but instead make their voices heard at the ballot box. And it needs people in power, who will be willing to give that power back, when it is their turn to step down, which is probably the hardest ingredient to find.

Couldn't agree with you more. One thing you didn't write but I expect you are aware of is that for democracy to work, people have to be willing to compromise, give up something to the other guy so that nobody is too disgruntled. That doesn't come easy as it depends on recognizing that "the other guy" has rights too, and that seems to be a hard lesson for humans to learn.

Michael

[abneo3sierra]

Yes, agreed..compromise= "the lost art" I think

[abneo3sierra]

With all due respect, the execution was ****ing atrocious from my viewpoint.

Initially, it was actually incredibly good, militarily...better results than the German blitzes of 1939-1941.

After the initial military success, there was nothing to fill the suddenly empty political sphere of Iraq...and while to some, myself included, a world with no politicians at all sounds like heaven..what usually happens is that someone steps in to fill the void, and 9/10 times, the people most ready to fill up that empty "politician" spot, are even worse.

So the initial military "blitz"= incredibly well executed, however, almost so well, that it planted the seeds for the followup to have trouble.Then, the followup came, and there was trouble...nobody really rebuilding infrastructure, etc. Nobody really enforcing laws, except military units which are, despite many attempts, not really trained for the "after the war" issues,nor should they be, in my opinion.

Then came Bush's 'surge' that did work quite well, my only complaint being that it should have happened in the beginning. This was executed well enough that one of it's biggest opponents, current US President Obama, decided to take credit for its success, despite having viciously opposed it from its inception. It succeeded well enough to put Iraq back into play as an independent nation, one with problems still, but really, don't we all have them?

[Pešadija]

The thing is, I'm also a realist, but a thing here makes me think the outcome will be better than "more of the same". You know what that is? The SHEER SCALE of these revolts. It's the whole status quo of the arab 60s-70s and beyond collapsing.

If the revolts had kept to a country, sliding back in authoritarianism would be more probable. But! These revolts constantly fan each other. Their mutual survival strenghtens them. If, let's say, Egypt backslid, the people would be like "what? Why did our neighbors in Tunisia get to keep the new order and we don't?".

It's foquismo at its finest, as theorized by the bearded dude on t-shirts. But in a fine 21st century edition.

As for NATO presence, I think it always comes with pros and cons.

Pro - A powerful security force

Con - It always pisses off lots of people, despite its merits

As hard as these peoples have it rebelling, isn't it good that their freedom should come without a single Nato soldier dying?

[abneo3sierra]

As to the foquismo..the bearded dude on T-shirts WAS "more of the same", a quite horrible creature,really.

But on the other part of the topic, yes, very good that very few (soldier or civilian) has had to die, a few have, and that is sad, but in the scheme of overall change, if the result is freedom, then a few is an acceptable price for that to come about.

[Pešadija]

And that, with all that will happen, is my point of points!

But for some reason doomsayers are more vocal.

And I was being ironical about chancho, no need to illustrate his demerits to me.

[dieseltaylor]

There does seem to be an assumption here that democracy is inherently a good thing. And the US system the best, which it manifestly is not.

Is there not a case for saying a society can have any type it wants provided it gives order and stability, and is not corrupt.

[Pešadija]

I am European, and, despite searching for friendly relationships with the transoceanic denizens, I never said the American system was the best (no offense to you, abneo!).

As for the validity of democracy... it's like growing up. Not easy, not fun, but you gotta do it. You wish others did things for you, and you just suffered a mild yoke, but that does not seem like a developed human being. Like Kant said, you gotta have the guts to use your brains and stand up for yourself, and get off your pampered buttocks.

Maybe a bit paraphrased.