Državne i međunarodne Donorsko-Razvojne Agencije (od sad samo DORA), njih 48, ocjenjeno i rangirano je u pet dimenzija koje bi karakterizirale idealnu agenciju, kad bi tako nešto postojalo - fragmentacija, selektivnost, neefektivni kanali pomoći i trošak. Same DORAe su suglasne o nužnosti kvalitete u ta četiri elementa, kao i petog, vjerojatno najvažnijeg: transparentnost.

Transparentnost agencije daje uvid u njenu operaciju, alokaciju/operaciju pomoći (i.e. gdje novac odlazi), njene troškove, postignute ciljeve i naravno pristupačnost svih tih informacija javnosti. One agencije koje su dobile niske ocjene za transparentnost ne izvještavaju dobro gdje novac odlazi – u koje zemlje, koje sektore. Transparentnost je vidljiva i koliko kvalitetno agencije odgovaraju na upite javnosti telefonom, emailom - upravo jedan od načina kojim su Easterly i Pfutze tražili podatake. Gotovo sve UN-ove agencije su ovdje rangirane kao najlošije.

Fragmentacija daje uvid u stupanj specijalizacije pojedine agencije. Znamo da je veća specijalizacija bolja - donosi veću produktivnost i niže troškove - kako za državne agencije i privatne kompanije, tako i za DORAe. Unatoč tome, DORAe su relativno fragmentirane sa previše zemalja, previše sektora, previše projekata u pojedinoj zemlji. Fragmentacija po projektu, previše donora u jednom projektu, je isto nepoželjna.

Selektivnost, jednostavno govori kamo se pomoć upućuje i što DORAe (ne)izbjegavaju. Korumpirane, diktatorske zemlje i zemlje koje nisu siromašne (poput Hrvatske) vs. uistinu siromašne zemlje na dnu prihodovne tablice. Primjerice, Svjetska Banka ima urede u svakoj od middle-income zemalja poput Hrvatske ili egzotičnijih poput Brazila. No nema urede i administraciju u zemljama kojim najviše treba pomoć, poput Centralne Afričke Republike ili Chada.

Kriterij neefektivnih kanala vanjske pomoći gleda tipove pomoći (u hrani ili u tehničkoj pomoći) i koliko je uvjeta povezano uz vanjski pomoć. Tri tipa pomoći se smatraju lošim i DORAe bi se tih trebale kloniti  – pomoć sa uvjetom obavezne reciprocitetne kupovine od donatora, pomoć u hrani i tehnička pomoć.

Elementom troškova pokušali su dati uvid u administrativne/operativne troškove DORAa u odnosu na fond vanjske pomoći, te omjer pomoći po zaposleniku. Imati visoki omjer (>100%) operativnih troškova prema pomoći je nepoželjno. Ukazuje da agencija troši više na administrativne troškove nego što daje u vanjskoj pomoći - što izgleda besmisleno. UN agencija za razvoj (UNDP) je jedna od najgorih u tom pogledu. No, iako je mjerenje troškova bitno, autori napominju da su podaci u radu od nedovoljnog povjerenja, ponajviše zbog šire nedostupnosti podataka o troškovima. (Opet zbog slabe transparentnosti i odgovornosti većine DORA, pogotovo multinacionalnih poput UN.)

Uzimajući konsenzus DORAa oko ovih elemenata najbolje prakse kao standard, Easterly i Pfutze su analizirali i ocjenili koliko se one drže tih deklariranih načela, tj. koliko su blizu tom standardu.

Unatoč određenim subjektivnim mjerenjima (koje autori priznaju) i hendikepu nedovoljno kvalitetnih podataka, Easterly i Pfutze su rangirali DORAe. Autori priznaju da su zaključci pomalo i paradokslani - dostupni podaci su loši; pokazatelji o praksi DORA, na osnovu tih podataka, su slabi.

Ja sam napravio slike djelova tablice, gdje su vidljive najbolje i najgore agencije. Najbolja je, malo ironično pošto Easterly skoro najviše nju kritizira, ispala International Development Association (dio Svjetske Banke). Druga je Britanska agencija, treća, četvrta, peta su sve multilateralne razvojne banke. Naglasak na banke jer upravo one proizlaze kao najbliže najboljim praksama u distribuciji pomoći.

"The broad pattern that emerges from our evidence is that development banks tend to be closest to best practices for aid, the UN agencies perform the worst on these dimensions, and bilaterals are spread out all along in between."

Tri agencije na dnu su UNWFP, UNHCR i Global Environmental Facility. Možda se i vama kao i meni čini da je uključivanje UNHCRa kao humanitarne a ne razvojne agencije malo neprimjereno, pa sa razlogom Nicholas van Praag, glasnogovornik UNHCR prosvjeduje o ishodu. Ipak, UN je institucija pod najvećim političkim utjecajima i najmanje odgovorne itkome o ishodu svojih programa.

Ako ja nisam dovoljno naglasio loš ishod UNovih agencija, možda blog Real Time Economics je -UN Stinks. Uz to, RTE donosi reakcije rangiranih agencija - dobrih i loših.

Nadalje, kao što Easterly odgovara, iako je neka statistika u radu vjerojatno kriva, takva mora biti s obzirom na neadekvatne podatke ponuđene javnosti/istraživačima od samih agencija. Želite bolje rezultate, omogućite bolji uvid u praksu vanjske pomoći, je poruka. Problem je naravno da više podataka bi potencijalno otkrilo još gore stanje od sadašnjeg. Uglavnom, razlozi za ovakve ishode su ostavljeni za buduća istraživanja i revizije uz, valjda, kvalitetnije i opsežnije podatke.

Zaključak rada:

"Our findings on aid best practice tend to confirm a number of long-standing complaints about foreign aid. The aid effort is remarkably splintered ito many small efforts across all dimensions-number of donors giving aid, number of countries receiving aid from each donor, and number of sectors in which each donor operates. A lot of aid still goes to corrupt and autocratic countries, and to countries other than those with the lowest income. Aid tzing, the use of food aid-in-kind, and the heavy use of tehnical assistance continue to persis in many aid agencies, despite decades of complaints about these channels being ineffective. In addition, some agencies have remarkably high overhead costs."

The best diet to lose weight is poverty.

It sounds so ironic, but when you focus your eyes on the last word “poverty”, only then you can understand the tragic meaning of “diet.” Please turn back to that sentence again. And focus on that word again. Breathe that word. Imagine it. Imagine misery. Imagine the worst hunger you had. When you open the fridge and you cannot find even water in it. When the daily value is probably 1000 calories; when you go to sleep in the evening, hoping that you will fall asleep sooner so that maybe hunger would be gone. When you think not of types of food like most of us do when you feel like you are hungry, but you desire to eat anything. I mean anything eatable.

Here, compare this: “Ahh…I wish I would have a piece of cheesecake. Or maybe a chicken noodle soup.” with this “I am hungry.” Do you see the difference? One is desire, while another is a desperate cry for food. Yes, even hunger can cry. And the interesting thing is that with hunger you do not feel the headaches, the growling of your stomach, and the continuously salivating mouth. There is even something worse than hunger: being a student. A broke student.

Most of the scientists would probably say that food and water are one of the basic elements that everyone needs. You can live without books, shelter. But you cannot live without food. They say “Try and die.“ I will say that you can die even sooner. The fundamentals needs have changed. People are more dependent on having shelter, on having education and on having something to worry about. And when you don’t have these you are already dead. Of course I understand that this does not apply to everyone. These were the thoughts that occur to me lately- only some of the few thoughts.

Some other things that I want to mention are related to lies. To the inability of many people to tell the truth. And it is not the truth like the one that a child tries to hide from the mother. It is like a truth filled with misery, but which is hidden by luxury. In order for you to understand what I mean, please read the following fictional dialogue:

User 1: “Hey hi. How are you doing? I heard that you are in US. Is it good there? People tell me that it is good.”

User 2: “Good. Everything is easy. You have to work sometimes. But the school is quite easy.”

And so this dialogue continues on the same tone, concealing the truth. Even I sometimes conceal the truth or more correctly I try not to show it directly. Like here:

User 1: “Hey hi. How are you doing? I heard that you are in US. Is it good there? People tell me that it is good.”

User 2: “If you want to know about US, I don’t know what to tell you. Everything, the good and the bad, is dependent on you. But if you ask my opinion. It is more bad then good.”

User 1: “I don’t get what you mean by that.”

User 2: “Well…let me explain you. When you go to US, you might think that you will find there the American Dream. That you will get a good education, and probably a good job after you graduate. That life would be as easy as the smoke of a Colombian cigar. But unfortunately everything is not that easy. Leave the hope behind. It is all struggles. But remember that struggles toughen you. Maybe”

As a last thought and as a last advice I can say that I learned this: “Question not what is in the middle, but when it is in the limits of good and bad.”

According to the report:

In 2004, 36.6 million people—or 12.6 percent of the U.S. population—were poor. The “poverty gap”—the amount of additional income required to remove all Americans from poverty—was $105.6 billion. Poverty rates were highest for African Americans, Hispanics, women, and persons under 25. Without government benefits, 61 million people would be poor. Social Security and other social insurance programs remove 21 million people from poverty. Means tested programs remove 3 million people from poverty. If food and housing assistance were counted as income for poverty purposes, an additional 7.6 million people would be counted as not poor.

Full report: Poverty Facts, 2004

Regarding the "hotel" where he briefly had a room in the bowels of Paris:

There were eccentric characters in the hotel. The Paris slums are a gathering-place for eccentric people---people who have fallen into solitary, half-mad grooves of life and given up trying to be normal or decent. Poverty frees them from ordinary standards of behaviour, just as money frees people from work. Some of the lodgers in our hotel lived lives that were curious beyond words.

He doesn't shy away from a thorough discussion of the bugs, the boredom, the hunger, and the abject discomfort of poverty. Still:

When you are approaching poverty, you make one discovery which outweighs some of the others. You discover boredom and mean complications and the beginnings of hunger, but you also discover the great redeeming feature of poverty: the fact that it annihilates the future. . . . And there is another feeling that is a great consolation in poverty. I believe everyone who has been hard up has experienced it. It is a feeling of relief, almost of pleasure, at knowing yourself at last genuinely down and out. You have talked so often of going to the dogs---and well, here are the dogs, and you have reached them, and you can stand it.

Have you ever noticed that when you were actually, as Trent Reznor would say, "down in it," things weren't as petrifying as they were when you were considering the worst from a relatively comfortable height? Have you ever experienced something you never thought you could cope with, and found that you managed to carry on in spite of it all? Maybe this is because, frankly, you were too busy getting by to worry about other people's opinions, or certain conventions, or the kind of existential angst you're normally prone to wallowing in. Choices are taken away from you in such instances, and the world suddenly zooms in on just a few small concerns, whether they are finding a place to stay, digging for change so you can buy some Ramen, or touching base with the friends who can keep you sane.

When I think of the incidents in my own life I've gotten through, I should draw from them as a well of deep, abiding strength instead of viewing them as failures or black spots on my life's report card. Because you know what? I got through it all. And so have you. In a way I feel sorry for people who haven't been down in it. I wonder if they're more frightened than I am of the abyss, having never known it well.

All that cheerful nonsense being said, here's a Pulp video. Because, let's face it, in the end I'm pretty sure I have a lot more in common with the insufferable (and naive?) girl from Saint Martin's College than I do with the narrator of "Common People," so I should probably just shut my trap. It's very important to be able to make fun of yourself, comrades!

The press release for the Commission for Rural Communities latest report.

Search: students 'shallow and narrow-minded'
Comment: Daniel Jones asks for modern love stories from students: let's hope he prints some gay ones. (His regular column doesn't give us much hope.)

Search: westside piers gay
Comment: The sex may have been exciting, the documentary not so much.

Search: gay sex shit sandwich
Comment: What Roger Cohen typically tries to feed us on the opinion page of The Times (except for the gay-sex part).

Search: russian blue photography
Comment: We like to think we have some experience in this.

Search: the rainmaker with burt lancaster
Comment: They don't make 'em like that anymore.

Search: gay daddy bears
Comment: Henry James, anyone?

Search: gay mans opion on big boobs
Comment: Someone once threatened to rub her big boobs all over us, but in a friendly way.

Search: i'm in the mood for love superbowl
Comment: In some ways, the best Super Bowl ever.

Search: gay buildings in washington heights
Comment: We wish there was more here in the way of luxury condominiums.

Search: gay modelling agency
Comment: Do you really think the world wouldn't be a better place with Janice Dickinson as president of the United States?

Search: ferraro endorsement clinton
Comment: We endorsed Geraldine first and then Barack.

Search: bob mould vs grant hart
Comment: Can anyone be said to have won?

Search: poverty gay outcast
Comment: We scratch out an existence on the high cliffs of Washington Heights.

The state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector (NCEUS) said most of those living on below 20 rupees (50 US cents) per day were from the informal labor sector with no job or social security, living in abject poverty.

"For most of them, conditions of work are utterly deplorable and livelihood options extremely few," said the report, entitled "Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganized Sector".

"Such a sordid picture co-exists uneasily with a shining India that has successfully confronted the challenge of globalization powered by economic competition both within the country and across the world."

Around 26 percent of India's population lives below the poverty line, which is defined as 12 rupees per day.

Economic liberalization since the early 1990s has created a 300 million-strong middle class and led to an average annual economic growth of 8.6 percent over the last four years, but millions of the country's poor remain untouched by the boom.

According to the report, based on data from 2004-2005, 92 percent of India's total workforce of 457 million were employed as agricultural laborers and farmers, or in jobs such as working in quarries, brick kilns or as street vendors.

The report said the majority of those working and living under "miserable conditions" were lower castes, tribal people and Muslims and the most disadvantaged of these were women, migrant workers and children.

"This is the other world which can be characterized as the India of the Common People, constituting more than three-fourths of the population and consisting of all those whom the growth has, by and large, bypassed," said the report.

The NCEUS report, which was presented to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh , recommends the government provide social security benefits such as maternity and medical expenses as well as pensions to people working in the Unorganized sector.

Reference: Reuters

Evo, čisto da vam malo pokvarim raspoloženje ako ste još u blagdanskom mentalitetu, ali i da malo mućnete glavom. Dok je većina nas uživala u galonima piva (i vina) za ove blagdane, to nažalost nije praksa svugdje u svijetu. Sigurno nisu uživali u Zimbabveu gdje jedno pivo košta $1 milijun Zimbaveanskih dolara, tj. upravo onoliko prikazano na slici. Po službenom Mugabeovom tečaju to je negdje oko US$33. Naravno, službena stopa kao i da ne postoji osim za brzo bogaćenje onih koji imaju pristup velikim količinama gotovine. Po cijeni dolara na crnom tržištu to pivo je u Studenom bilo oko $1, a danas je već manje od c25 zahvaljujući najvišoj hyperinflaciji na svijetu. Ne zna se točno kolika je - Mugabeova centralna banka drži službenu stopu na 7 982% godišnje (i ponosno je pokazuje na internetu!!), no realna stop hyperinflacije je oko 15 000% godišnje po procjenama nezavisnih stručnjaka. Uzrok hyperinflaciji i katastrofi života u nekad relativno bogatoj zemlji po Afričkim standardima je pomahnitalo printanje novca od strane vladajućeg diktatora. Da li su naši vladajući '90tih uništili svoju zemlju? Da li smo mogli proći gore? Da li mi živimo u uništenoj/osiromašenoj zemlji?

    Da je Hrvatska socijalna politika neracionalna je poznato i razumljivo svima onima koji su moralli ili moraju se "baviti" njome i onima koji samo vide i čitaju razne priče. No ne treba misliti da je na zapadu silno bolje. Relativno jest naravno, ali država i birokracija rade greške, nisu efikasni (procedure predugo traju). Točno je da aktivna i fleksibilna socijalna politika nedostaje Hrvatskoj, ali je krivo i mutno isticanje da se za socijalu troši malo. Tj. Stubbs kaže da se za najugroženije izdaje malo, tek 24% BDPa. "Malo" "previše" i slični opisi su subjektivne prirode i ne dokazuju vrijednost i zaslužnost potrošnje. Socijalna Zaštita čini 39% proračuna i najviša je stavka državne potrošnje. Sve to možda i nije puno i u rangu je ostalih europskih zemalja, ali o adekvatnosti veličine potrošnje na neki socijalni program ne može se odgovoriti samo na principu koliko se troši i odlika tog programa. Što ako privatni sektor i tržište može efikasnije (uz manji društveni trošak) ponuditi socijalnu uslugu iste kvalitete? Za Hrvatsku gdje, kaže gosp. Stubbs, imamo velikih problema sa podacima i skrivenim troškovima, odgovor i radovi na tom pitanju bi bili ogroman korak.
No, ni odgovor na to pitanje ne zadovoljava ono glavno, koliko je točno previše ili premalo za socijalu? Troškovi uistinu jesu skriveni, jer krivo je trošak socijale mjeriti samo u veličini potrošnje na istu. Troškovi su i ekonomski. Ekonomski trošak mjeri, slično kao i oportunitetni trošak, koliko bi određeni input vrijedio u sljedećoj najboljoj upotrebi, tj. koliko gubimo ne proizvodnjom nečeg alternativnog. Ekonomski trošak tako reflektira izgubljenu mogućnost. Pošto se socijalna potrošnja financira iz prikupljenog poreza, ekonomski trošak mjeri kako prikupljanje poreza iskrivljuje i umanjuje ekonomski korisno ponašanje i aktivnosti. Tako da realni trošak socijalne potrošnje, mjeren kroz trošak prikupljanja poreza, uključuje sva iskrivljenja u distribciji potrošnje, alokaciji štednje, ponudi rada, investicija kompanija. Prema tome, kad mislimo o pravim troškovima socijale moramo misliti (i mjeriti!) kako distorzije poreza utječu na ponudu i potražnju dobara, usluga i faktora proizvodnje. Različite porezne stope na različite vrste aktivnosti koje stvaraju prihod često iskrivljuju ekonomske odluke i tako pridonose manjem ukupnom prihodu.

    I da ne zaboravimo, socijala ne ulazi u BDP, mjeru bogatstva naroda. Socijalna potrošnja je ništa drugo već transfer već postojećeg prihoda između određenih društvenih grupa; zato se zovu transferi jeli, ne razmjenjuju se za dobra i usluge. Gosp. Stubbs je u pravo da najviše dobivaju najglasniji, umirovljenici i branitelji, što možda nije optimalno, ali je sastavni dio demokracije. Hrvatska država preraspoređuje oko 45% BDPa, više od drugih zemalja istočne i centralne Europe sa prosjekom 38%. Prosječna potrošnja zemalja istočne i centralne europe je 40% dok Hrvatske 50%. (vidi graf)

    U vrlo siromašnim zemljama, cilj je podići dohotke iznad granice siromaštva od $1-2 na dan i stvoriti sistem koji će to održati i nadalje povećati. U zemljama u razvoju, koje su izašle iz teškog siromaštva cilj je isto smanjiti siromaštvo i udio onih što Stubbs i ostali zovu "najugroženiji." Broj takvih ovisi o prosječnom BDP po stanovniku i levelu nejednakosti u društvu. Države poput Nigerije znamo da imaju relativno visoki BDP/stanovniku, no zbog u isto vrijeme ekstremne nejednakosti u društvu, imaju visok udio siromaštva. Da bi to ispravili, treba rasti i smanjiti nejednakosti u isto vrijeme. Gosp. Stubbs je u pravu utoliko što kaže da rast BDPa nije dovoljan i da ne osigurava bolje mogućnosti automatski, ali u krivu što ga stavlja iza socijalne politike i zapravo prema riječima u intervju moglo bi se zaključiti da potpuno umanjuje važnost rasta. Rast je onaj koji će smanjiti siromaštvo i "najugroženije" u ekonomiji, no da li će to biti automatski ovisi o vezi sa nejednakošću u društvu. Ukoliko rast BDPa nema utjecaj na nejednakost, što u Europi nema, u prosjeku je dobar za siromašne i najugroženije. Veza između rasta BDPa i siromaštva je izrazito negativa. Posljednjih par desetljeća, a ponajviše nakon pada socijalističkih i planskih ekonomija, naglasak je prvenstveno bio na rastu BDPa kao mjeri smanjenja siromaštva, manje na samoj redistribuciji kroz socijalu. Po najjednostavnijem objašnjenju, rast ekonomije omogućava veće porezne prihode kroz više novostvorenih radnih mjesta, kroz povećanje kupovne moći i štednje. Viši rast stvara više radnih mjesta nego što se izgubi i omogućava rast plaća, što je najbolja socijalna politika.

    Primjetite kako novinarka postavlja "trik" pitanje (da li namjerno illi slučajno ne znam) o tome što će trpiti: sigurnost ili ekonomija. Krivo je reći sigurnost i krivo je odvajati jedno od drugoga i pretpostavljati da postoji ili sigurnost ili rast ekonomije. Niti jedna država ili vlada sa bilo kakvom socijalnom politikom ne može garantirati, a kamoli priskrbiti sigurnost. Bolje je reći zaštita, uostalom tako se i zove u proračunu. Zaštita znači socijalnu mrežu koja će vas uloviti i spasiti od iznenadnih šokova van vaših utjecaja (gubitka posla i time prihoda). No taj spas je i privremeni i kao takav ne može stvarati ovisnost. Mreža kao mreža ne može držati sve veće količine koje u nju upadnu, a nikada ne izađu. Na kraju će puknuti. Socijalna naknada za izgubljeni prihod može biti do 80% tog prihoda i trajati godinu dana, ali ne može biti besplatna. Kao što Sanja Crnković Pozajić kaže, nezaposleni bi tu naknadu trebali odraditi. U Kanadi primjerice traže da aktivno provedete određeni broj sati na tjedan tražeći posao i to dokumentirate. Ovisno o vašoj stručnoj spremi, ne možete odbijati ponude za posao jer gubite pravo na naknadu. Primarni zadatak socijale je prema tome stvaranje mogućnosti, osposobljavanje i postavljanje nazad u radnu snagu ili poduzetništvo. Bezgranična i čista redistribucija, privremena umirovljenja su politički dobra, ali malo koristi čini otpuštenima, 45 godišnjim umirovljenicima i čitavom društvu.

    Isticanje da Albanija raste 7-8% na godinu, a Njemačka samo 1% i još uvijek je život bolji u Njemačkoj je pak krajnje blesavo. (Sorry) Mislim da već i vrapci znaju da siromašne i relativno slabo razvijene ekonomije rastu brže. Naravno da taj inicijali brži rast ne omogućava odmah bolji životni standard, ali je najsigurniji i najbolji put ka tome. Učinak konvergencije, zbog kojeg slabije razvijene ekonomije rastu brže od razvijenih sa istim investicijama, isto ima posljedicu da smanji nejednakosti među državama/regijama. Bez ubrzanog rasta, to bi bilo nemoguće. Hrvati rade duže od razvijenih europljana jer imaju manju produktivnost. Sa većom produktivnošću i prihodi će biti veći. To je imperativ u svakoj ekonomiji, ne samo našoj.

    Vlade i političari u svijetu su shvatili u zadnjih 20 godina da je najbolja socijalna politika zapravo ekonomski rast. Ti pogledi su tentativno vidljivi i kod naših političara danas. Počinje se odavati "priznanje" da nema riješenja socijalnim problemima umirovljenika i branitelja bez većeg ekonomskog rasta. Da li netko u javnosti vjeruje da bi i jedna od obećanih, planiranih projekata i programa bilo koje Vlade bio moguć bez ekonomskog rasta? No, i dalje se ponajviše radi o socijalnim programima i ciljevima redistributivne prirode, nasuprot programima ostvarivanja mogućnosti i time većeg rasta prihoda. Tu mislim da je Paul Stubbs u pravu i da upravo na to misli kad kaže da postoje neracionalnosti u našem sustavu; da je 40% umirovljenika ispod 65 godina, da radno sposobni branitelji su poslani doma i ne moraju više raditi. Druga neracionalnost po Stubbs-u su silna umirovljenja 1990tih koja su za cilja imala samo kupovati socijalni mir i glasove. Nažalost, "korigiranje" te situacije nema. Hrabar bi bio onaj političar koji bi to tražio, ali ne bi bio političar dugo. Neka gosp. Stubbs proba, kad je već "preživio" Iron Lady. Kad se pasta za zube jednom istisne van, teško ju je više vratiti unutra. Osim samih neracionalnosti zbog loših, političkih poteza, Hrvatsko društvo ima teški sindrom demografskog deficita. Po tome smo slični i Japanu i Kini u isto vrijeme. Japansko stanovništvo je već staro, ali bogato. No problem je tko će održati i rasti to bogatstvo i obećane mirovine (socijalna davanja!) sada kad ima sve manje radno sposobnih mladih. U Japanu, 2030. očekuju da će mirovinski sustav imati 2 radnika za svakog umirovljenika. Hrvatska već danas ima 1.43 radnika po umirovljeniku, a nismo ni blizu Japanskog BDPa po stanovniku. Kina je, nasuprot nama, siromašna, ali mlada zemlja. Bogatiji smo od Kine, rastemo sporije, što je i za očekivati ali imamo i starije stanovništvo poput Japana. Izazov za Kinu je da se obogati prije nego njeno stanovništvo ostari. Što je za nas izazov kad smo već stari, a nismo bogati? Socijala?

Ja bi se držao Stubbs-ove zemljakinje koja kaže: "A large income is the best recipe for hapiness I ever heard of."

Jane Austen

CBS Story

Evidence of gang culture and gang activity in the military is increasing so much an FBI report calls it "a threat to law enforcement and national security." The signs are chilling: Marines in gang attire on Paris Island; paratroopers flashing gang hand signs at a nightclub near Ft. Bragg; infantrymen showing-off gang tattoos at Ft. Hood.

"It's obvious that many of these people do not give up their gang affiliations," said Hunter Glass, a retired police detective in Fayetteville, North Carolina, the home of Ft. Bragg and the 82nd Airborne. He monitors gang activity at the base and across the military.

"If we weren't in the middle of fighting a war, yes, I think the military would have a lot more control over this issue," Glass said. "But with a war going on, I think it's very difficult to do."

Gang activity clues are appearing in Iraq and Afghanistan, too. Gang graffiti is sprayed on blast walls – even on Humvees. Kilroy – the doodle made famous by U.S. soldiers in World War II – is here, but so is the star emblem of the Gangster Disciples.

Gangs Using Military For Training, Experts Say

"When individuals go into the military, they are taught how to use weapons, defensive tactics, and the use of a lot of sophisticated techniques," said LaRae Quy, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. "They take that back on the streets with them. This is a legitimate concern for law enforcement."

The rise in gang activity coincides with the increase in recruits with records. Since 2003, 125,000 recruits with criminal histories have been granted what are known as "moral waivers" for felonies including robbery and assault.

Sub-cultures abound within larger societies. The military, prisons, cities, neighborhoods spawn small groups who survive with the tools available to them. Gangs are the natural tribal inclinations for humans who feel threatened and angry at the wealth and respect outside their reach. Yes, the military will rehabilitate a great number of gang members, but those who have really bad experiences will take their training back to their gangs. They will continue to prey upon the same citizens, but this time with military, leadership, battlefield experience and blood on their hands. Gangs are our domestic terrorists, and our recruiting wavers allow us to train them better ways to kill.

Update:  I just had to borrow this cartoon from BrainsandEggs, it fits my point!

• Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards today sent a letter to President Bush challenging the president to join him on a tour of places in America that are too often ignored and to talk to Americans who are working hard, but still living in poverty. Yesterday, Edwards concluded a three-day, eight-state "Road to One America" tour to shine a bright spotlight on the issue of poverty in America.

July 19, 2007 President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20400

Dear Mr. President:

Earlier this week, I went on a journey that started in New Orleans, went through the Mississippi Delta, Memphis, Cleveland, Youngstown, Pittsburgh, Virginia and ended in Prestonsburg, Kentucky. At every stop, I met with incredible people who are working hard every day and still living in poverty. I did it to try to help the rest of the country hear the voices of people who are often forgotten -- people living in poverty and on the losing end of economic unfairness. I did it to show that we can solve these problems and there is hope.

Mr. President, that what's true leaders do, they lead with big, bold ideas that actually solve problems. They do not wait to be told about problems that stare them in the face, they never follow, and they should never have to wait for a convenient time to address the incredible challenges that face so many hard-working families in this nation.

As you approach your final days in office, you have a chance to finally stand up and lead on this important issue. However, unless you choose to lead and start helping solve poverty in America, the next 550 days of your presidency will all but ensure that the 37 million Americans who wake up in poverty today will only grow. If you choose to do nothing on poverty, the next 550 days of your presidency will only ensure that the more than 5 million Americans who have fallen into poverty during your presidency will only grow.

But it's not too late to change course. It's never too late to do the right thing and lead.

So today, I am writing to challenge you to come with me and visit the places in America that are too often ignored -- places like Marks, Mississippi, West Helena, Arkansas, Wise, Virginia and Whitesburg, Kentucky -- and expose yourself to the harsh realities of poverty in America, and how much worse American families are under your presidency. Go to the cities and towns where I have gone. See and talk to the good and decent Americans with amazing character who struggle with incredible poverty. Incredible poverty, Mr. President, which has only worsened every day over the last 7 years because of the failure of your leadership and the terrible effects your policies have had on millions of families. And see how the people of New Orleans are still struggling nearly two years after Hurricane Katrina, and see how your administration's indifference to this problem has only made the problem worse.

I can only hope that if you stop and listen to the stories of the men and women who work hard and are paid poverty wages -- and sometimes even cheated out of those -- without health care or decent schools for their children, I believe you will agree with me that America must act and it must act now.

Poverty is not an intractable problem. There are solutions that work. We can reward work and create opportunity with lower taxes for working families, stronger unions, more job and affordable housing opportunities, better schools and stronger families.

Poverty is not a New Orleans problem, a Pittsburgh problem or an Appalachia problem. It is an American problem. And it's America's responsibility. And America needs a president who will lead on this issue, not turn his back on 37 million forgotten Americans.

The 37 million Americans living in poverty and the hundreds of millions of others who know in their hearts that America can do better deserve a president who will lead on this issue.

Mr. President, don't wait for the next hurricane. The time to act is now.

Sincerely,

John Edwards

Many said they find it hypocritical that Edwards, a wealthy man, is peaking out for the poor. For those critics all I have to say is, you don’t know your history. The Roosevelt’s, Teddy, Franklin and Eleanor all helped the poor. The Kennedy’s continually help the poor. The wealth and privilege of these two families can not be disputed and are far beyond John Edwards’s wealth. To me criticizing any candidate or public servant who chooses to help the poor is criticizing the poor as not being worthy of help.

The cons in some of his plan would cost the tax payers; however, we are paying for a war that in one month would eradicate poverty. It's time we get our priorities straight.

Edwards' proposals to fight poverty:

John Edwards calls for a national effort to cut poverty by a third, lifting 12 million Americans out of poverty by 2016, and to end poverty by 2036, rescuing 37 million people. Here are some of his proposals:

1. Create a million public "stepping-stone jobs" for workers who can't find work after looking for six months. The idea is to help people learn workplace discipline and prepare them for the job market. The minimum-wage jobs would last 12 months. Workers would have to stay off drugs, not commit any crimes and pay child support.

Pro: Could help move unemployed people into the permanent job market.

Con: These would be make-work jobs. If the jobs were valuable, they would already exist.

2. Raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $9.50 per hour by 2012.

Pro: Would help 15 million low-wage workers earn more income.

Con: Some businesses may hire fewer workers if they must pay workers more.

3. Cut taxes for low-income workers by tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit to $1,236 per year for single adults.

Pro: The proposal would give 4 million low-income workers an average tax cut of $750 per year, helping lift them out of poverty.

Con: Cost to taxpayers.

4. Pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow workers to form a union by signing cards saying they favor a union, rather than by a formal election.

Pro: The Edwards campaign points to studies showing that union workers earn

28 percent more than non-union workers. Unions claim that companies often use intimidation tactics to fight union votes.

Con: Many businesses don't like unions and say the proposal is less democratic than current law. Companies say the change would make it easier for unions to intimidate workers into signing cards.

5. Help low-income workers save with "work bonds" that provide a tax credit. The credit would match wages up to $500 per year and be directly deposited in individual savings accounts.

Pro: Would help low-income workers save money.

Con: Cost to taxpayers.

6. Pass a federal predatory lending law to prevent deceptive terms and abusive interest rates, capping them at 36 percent.

Pro: Helps protect homeowners from losing their houses through questionable practices.

Con: These loans exist because there's a market for them.

7. Pay the first year of college for low-income students when students agree to work part-time and keep their grades up.

Pro: Helps boost college attendance among people from less-educated families.

Con: Cost to taxpayers.

    Evo sada par zanimljivosti. Kao što je B!K već pisao o Castrovoj kritici korištenja šećerne repe i općenito hrane za gorivo, ja malo proširujem taj događaj. The Economist je šokantno napisao i «heretički» se složio sa Castrom (što ja mislim da se nije dogodilo ikada prije). Cijeli tekst nećete moći pročitati na siteu Economist ako niste pretplatnik, ali zato ga možete ovdje. ;)

    Novi broj utjecajnog Foreign Affairs kritizira proizvodnju etanola iz kukuruza, jer bi mogao 'izgladniti' siromašne. Svakako si sačuvajte članak dok je još besplatan online. Dva profesora sa Sveučilišta Minnesota objašnjavaju kako "ludilo" za etanolom potražuje sve više i više kukruza za proizvodnju. Visoke cijene nafte (benzina) čine jeftiniji etanol konkurentnim izvorom energije. Takva enormna potražnja zbog etanola dovest će inventar kukuruza do najnižih levela ove godine, iako je 2006 jedna od rekordnih godina po urodu. Naravno, u prehrambenoj industriji dolazi do šoka potražnje. Cijena bušela kukuruza je bila rekordnih $4.38 u Ožujku, najviša u zadnjih 10 godina. Profesori kažu "To možda zvuči kao nirvana za proizvođaće kukuruza, ali teško da je za potrošaće, pogotovo u siromašnim zemljanja u razvoju, koje će biti pogođene dvostrukim šokom ako cijene hrane i nafte ostanu visoke." Za očekivati je da će nafta ostati skuplja. Visoke cijene kukuruza će nagnati poljoprivrednike da siju više kukuruza i tako će cijena s vremenom pasti donekle, no sije se manje riže i pšenice što će kao posljedicu imati manju ponudu i veće cijene. Najviše će patiti one siromašne zemlje koje su ovisne o uvoz nafte i pate od deficita hrane. Po procjenama UN FAO većina od 82 zemlje sa deficitom hrane uvozi naftu. Svakako pročitajte tekst jer sadži mnoštvo informacija! Koje su to zemlje sa deficitom hrane i problemom gladi pogledajte na ovoj interaktivnoj karti.

    Zašto se etanolu i kukuruzu ne piše dobro možete proćitati ovdje. Izgleda da Wall Street postaje skeptičan oko proizvodnje etanola. Visoke cijene kukuruza stavile su pritisak na dobit ADM, najvećeg proizvođaća etanola u Americi. ADM je rekao da je razlog visoke cijene kukuruza, a analitičari su skeptični zbog nadolazeće prevelike ponude u odnosu na potražnju etanola što će spustiti cijene. Glavni problem je nedostatak infrastrukture. Jučer se i UN zabrinuto oglasio po pitanju korištenja izvora hrane kao izvora energije. Visoke cijene hrane kao posljedica toga bi mogle nadoknaditi sve pozitivne efekte na klimatske promjene. Posebno se naglašava potencijalno negativni utjecaj na okoliš (prevelika potražnja za vodom i zemljom) i visoke cijene hrane. Opet cost-benefit analiza, no pitanje kakva. Taj izvještaj dolazi samo par dana nakon što su se "svi dogovorili" u Bangkoku da imamo sredstva i tehnologiju za spriješiti GZ.

    Nadalje, ako ste pratili šta od ekonomskih ili financijskih vijesti ovaj tjedan, vidjeli ste da je drugi najbogatiji čovijek na svijetu, one&only Warren Buffet održao svoju godišnju dioničarsku skupštinu. I imao je ponešto za reći po pitanju GZa, etanola i kukuruza. Charlie Munger, njegova desna ruka i dugogodišnji podpredsjednik kaže «Ja mislim da je pokretati automobile na kukuruz jedna od najglupljih ideja.» To je bio njegov odgovor na pitanje o cost-benefit analizi etanola. Rekao je da nema smisla podizati cijene hrane kako bi se uzgajao kukuruz za etanol. Isto vrijedi i za uzgajanje drugih kultura koje se mogu pretvoriti u etanol, primarno cassava u subsaharskoj Africi gdje je glavna hrana 200 milijuna ljudi i plamino ulje u Indoneziji. Za vidjeti je da li će visoke cijene tih roba potaknuti poljoprivrednike u tim zemljama da uzgajaju više, no imajmo na umu da podneblje nije uvijek naklono tim zemljama i poljoprivredi.

    Za kraj, u Bonnu se počelo raspravljati o novom protokolu koji bi zamjenio Kyoto koji ističe 2012. Valjda će ovaj biti bolja zamjena i realniji u smisli kako svijet funkcionira. Pratite ta i slična zbivanja na pristranom blogu IHT Business of Green, u izdanju 'lijevoga' New York Times. ;)

    Sljedeći post je definitivno o Hrvatskim "Gospodarskim Izborima 2007." Novih događaja ima po toj temi, a blog je ipak o tome u glavnom.