Gordon Brown and the European Union

These idiots

These idiots don't know the first thing about capitalism, they are socialists who haven't got a clue what capitalism is supposed to do. The "Free Market" is not supposed to work AGAINST people, it is supposed to work FOR people.

The approach of "letting the market sort it out" is WRONG, for the market will only sort ITSELF out and has no social conscience.

We elect politicians for our own considerations, not to stand back, "do nothing", and let the free market pirates have their way, but to LIMIT and CONTROL their influences so what they do brings more benefit to OUR societies.

Making wealth is first and foremost to better ones own standard of life which THEN allows you to look after others who are poor.

If we are poor then the entire world will become poor, so it is imperative that we become wealthy so we can give to others.

Presently, the people are becoming poorer, the poor are going to die, and the rich are becoming richer.

The EU is alone in its quest in a so called "free market", which has barriers around it which prevent British, Italian, French or other workers working in "The Global Economy", which we're led by Gordon Brown to believe includes America, China and Russia et al.........It doesn't !

All the "free market" has produced is a "free ride" on Europe and it must stop.

Obama is set to deliver a "Big Bang" policy next week to save the US economy. ( He will seek to 'protect' the USA )

Putin has already said he wants nothing to do with the uni-polar structures which control economies, money and finance. He has already protected the Russian economy.

Since I don't see many European workers taking up contracts in China, then I can't see how we're in a "Global Economy", yet Brown gave £2 billion to China and another billion to India - WHY ?

Gordon Brown talks a load of bollox and no one is listening to him any more, so if you're reading this David Cameron, I'd like to know when you are going to say that Gordon Brown should be put out of our misery before he puts Britain on the scrap heap with the ludicrous pomposity he expelled in an empty room at Davos, TALKING about saving the world when other leaders were and are, saving their own economies.

As for David Cameron's speech at Davos, I would hope in this context, that he's talking about our economy as the free market. He indicates that capitalism must have the aim to improve peoples lives and not just the capitalists pockets. This "policy" is manifest in his stance on the European Union which would retain our veto over all legislation but it needs to go further with a policy to take us into EFTA.

The strikes occurring now over the Italian workers at the Total site are occurring because the Italian firm has been given a contract and decided to bring their own workforce to Britain. This has led to British workers not even being considered for employment and a flagrant breech of their rights to equal opportunity and resultant unemployment. This has happened as a result of the kind of capitalism we see in Europe, which has no moral or social consideration. It is a prime example of why capitalism on its own without a social aim, is "immoral", and David Cameron has already said he disagrees with it but not yet how he plans to tackle it.

The fact is, he will be elected as Prime Minister, and he will "seek" to change it, and the European Union will have to change or Britain will have to veto its decisions or leave. -Social interests, social responsibility and a reckoning that the true aim of capitalism is to promote better standards for all and not the irresponsible few is what he said, so now we have to hear "how".A firm here can't take its entire workforce to the USA, China or Russia which all quite rightly demand local 'jobs' are created. Perversely, what the EU does is tantamount to lunacy and this gives a compelling insight into how it fails to consider the social aspects of the political decisions it makes, which affect the lives of ordinary people all across Europe, but not in the USA, China or Russia.In the "globalised world", or more accurately in the "European economy", only the people suffer through EU policies which allow the jobs to be taken away by a foreign firm and be given to foreign workers whilst our skilled workers remain unemployed and without consideration for their own rights to equal opportunity.Brown is the only leader singing for globalisation !! Obama, and Putin are doing their own thing to save their own economies. Sarkozy will too, likewise others who have their own plans and Gordon Brown is alone on this.David Cameron MUST stand up for British jobs for British workers and advise the world that HE believes in capitalism, it is our party ideal not Labour's, and only he knows its true aims are to bring properity to all.

Thatcher would have made this very plain. Get on with it David - END the European mess they've created.

There is no point having British politicians if they are not acting in the interests of the people who elect them, and David Cameron must say Britain is his number one interest, remove us to EFTA and get on with running the British economy as Obama and Putin are getting on running theirs.

This 'globalisation' nonsense is complete rubbish, it's all in Gordon Brown's head, and it's doing a mass disservice to Britain and to British workers as no other country acts the way he'd have us believe. He's delusional.

Edit: 1st February 2009 -

Right, since I wrote this post I entered a rather long and tedious argument under the guise of 'debate' with some daft twat in Europe who calls himself a Conservative, and is an obvious cheerleader for the grand European plan of facking La-La Land, to create a "free market" which bears as much likeness to Thatcher's free market as my arse does to Britney Spears. i.e. ( Excuse my anger but this is important and it has to be said ).....It is fuck all like it !

Where did it all go wrong for Britain?

Let me explain. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, together with Mikhail Gorbachev, created 'detente'. This was the 'agreement' which led Russia to permit the Berlin Wall to fall peacefully. If you want my opinion on it, it was done with the help of Mikhail Gorbachev because there's no way in the USSR as it was at that time ( 1989 ), that a pin could have moved toward that wall without being drilled with a sub-machine gun so it stands to reason it was started by Gorbachev's supporters because he 'permitted it'. Right. Once you believe that it was an 'inspired operation' then you have to believe 'someone inspired it', and ask yourself whether you've yet found anyone in history who acclaims to be the perpetrator and the cause of breaking up the Berlin Wall. No? You mean you can't find anyone? - I thought so. So then you have to believe me then.

Margaret Thatcher and Reagan played this free market in Britain and in Europe and in America. Trade barriers were dropped, trade tariffs were agreed. The World Trade Organisation and the European Union, sat about and developed the plan to open doors to world trade. Hence Britain was over-run with investment, everything was privatised, financial regulations were relaxed, deregulated and revolutionised, and thus was born the "free market" which begat DEBT through easy credit and a home equity spiral which led to the boom we've all just experienced these last 20 years.

Enter Blair, Clinton and Brown, throw in a bit of George Bush, and you have a ficking catastrophic economic problem, not least because the system requires permanent growth in GDP which cannot be sustained indefinitely without an "enlarged trading area". Hence "enlargement", hence robbing territory from Russia whilst it was in a state of flux with Boris Yeltzin and then his protege Vladimir Putin who both grappled with internal problems, a new constitution and the extraordinary political dimensions which were born by the sudden changes brought by 'detent' under Mikhail Gorbechev and the new Russian Federation along with its constitution which clearly is a work of art and places Russian's with personal rights and freedoms which were never before seen. One of which is the right to labour, another is the right to have state protection anywhere in the world. Thus, Russia would be in breech of its constitution if it failed to protect South Ossetians'. Anyway, I digress. Where does the European Union come into this plan?

Okay, well in order to sell the global plan to the EU, there had to be a social dimension to it. Like everyone can travel, everyone is a European, everyone can work where they like and everyone can have a European Passport. Which of course sets the "Everyone can lose their sovereignty" plan in motion as a consequence, and everyone can go take a flying jump if they want "British Jobs for British Workers".

So this 'Italian Job' highlights the significance of where we are now.
It opens up the political question as to where the fuck are British people supposed to get jobs in Britain when immigration is welcomed by their government, laws are there to protect them rather than us, we don't have the right to be interviewed for these jobs, we have to traipse off around Europe with £60 a week Job Seekers Allowance like beggars, to find work, whilst Italians and other Europeans are sat in our country which suddenly belongs to everyone but us, and working here in Britain on jobs we British didn't know existed, were not told about or even considered or able to apply?........Sensible I guess if you happen to be roaming the streets of Italy looking for work instead of knocking two doors up at a British oil refinery with your cap in hand like a guy waiting to see the governor, where the personnel manager might be arsed to show his face, to ask whether you can be considered for one of the jobs he didn't tell you about and had no intention of inviting you along for an interview!!!

I ask what the social implications are here in respect to family break-up, lower education, poverty, higher crime, more prisons, more benefits for those out of work but still looking, higher demands on our services, environment and infrastructure, transport, roads, schools, hospitals, doctors surgeries, etc etc etc, not least a bigger queue at the dole office or at the recruitment agency when it comes to British people finding work.

How is the family affected by dad roaming around Europe looking for work ?

I can feel myself wondering who exactly amongst the trough eaters in parliament are actually looking after British interests. I can feel myself wondering if this is not all a box of soft soap we're being given in yet another ploy to win over the British public who are damned sick of being spun to by ideologues who haven't an ounce of interest in their interests.

Does anyone actually care?

Blair and Brown are a couple of nuggets. Fruitcakes even. They call themselves 'socialists'. NuLabour. What's New? - Is it that what we have here are a couple of socialist thicko's who can't understand what capitalist markets are supposed to do, or is it they're trying to bend them to their own design? - "We will share the proceeds of growth". Who to? - "An end to boom and bust". Who for? "We're in a global economy". Who's paying for it and who's in it? - Russia isn't, USA isn't, China or India and Africa, Australia or Canada or Japan isn't. Italy isn't because I never seen 400 Brits living on barges in Italy working at an energy plant where Italians live two doors up have not been asked to work?

If Gordon Brown says one more time that "We're in a global economy", I think I'll kick the front of my telly in or at least throw a shoe at the bastard because he doesn't know the first thing about capitalism, or the free market, or Mrs Thatcher's idea to keep your hand on the tiller of free enterprise with the Bank of England through an independent decision making parliament, and to back Britain with every fibre and muscle and sinew, and every thought and action, for she is British through and through, and knows what it means to develop wealth for the nation as opposed to "sharing the proceeds of growth" with everyone else BUT the people of Britain.

Obama to announce "Big Bang" economic policy -

US set for ‘big bang’ financial clean-up

By Krishna Guha in Washington

Financial Times: LINK

Published: January 30 2009 23:31 | Last updated: January 31 2009 00:19

The Obama administration is gearing up for a “big bang” announcement next week that will combine a bank clean-up with measures to reduce home foreclosures and probably steps to kick-start credit markets.

The plan will involve an overhaul of the troubled asset relief programme – the $700bn bail-out fund – including strict curbs on compensation at banks receiving public aid. The Tarp overhaul is intended to restore public confidence in what is a deeply unpopular programme and ensure that taxpayer money is not used to fund excessive pay, bonuses and dividends to shareholders.

“There will definitely be a cap of some sort on bonuses,” said a Wall Street executive who has taken part in talks with the authorities. “The political climate is such that there is a need to punish Wall Street.”

The announcement will follow Friday’s news that the US economy contracted at an annualised rate of 3.8 per cent in last year’s final quarter – less than analysts were expecting, but still the worst quarter since 1982. The fall was cushioned by ballooning inventories, which suggest the economy could shrink faster than expected in the first quarter.

The “big bang” approach reflects the belief of Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary, and Lawrence Summers, National Economic Council director, that the Bush administration was wrong to dribble out policy initiatives. Mr Geithner intends to present a “comprehensive” plan that policymakers hope will command market confidence.

Details of the financial overhaul are being finalised and have yet to be approved by President Barack Obama, but it may include both the purchase of toxic assets by a “bad bank” and insurance-style guarantees for problem assets remaining on bank balance sheets.

Anti-foreclosure efforts are likely to focus on subsidising programmes that reduce unsustainable monthly mortgage payments, though there may also be support for schemes that subsidise the partial writedown of loans that exceed the value of the home. Treasury may also unveil new efforts to revitalise dysfunctional securitisation markets.

Economic Protests across Europe

RIGA (Reuters) - Hundreds of youths destroyed police vehicles, smashed windows and looted stores in Latvia's capital Tuesday when an anti-government protest turned into a riot.
The violence, after a peaceful protest by thousands calling for early elections in a country which last year had to seek a multi-billion economic rescue deal, was the worst seen since the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991. Hundreds of protesters marched on the parliament of the EU and NATO nation. Some tried to storm the building but were dispersed by riot police using teargas and truncheons.

Bulgarians in anti-government protests clash with police
SOFIA, Bulgaria: Hundreds of protesters clashed with the police, smashed windows and damaged cars in the Bulgarian capital Wednesday when a rally against corruption and slow reforms in the face of economic crisis turned into a riot.
The violence broke out during a peaceful protest in front of Parliament of more than 2,000 people, including students, farmers and green activists, who said they were fed up with life in the European Union's poorest and most corrupt nation.

VILNIUS, Lithuania - Violent political protests sweeping parts of Eastern Europe spread Friday to Lithuania, where police fired rubber bullets and tear gas at a rock-throwing mob attacking Parliament.
Fifteen people were injured and more than 80 detained in several hours of street fighting between angry protesters and helmeted riot police.
The violence followed similar riots this week in Bulgaria and Latvia amid a wave of discontent over economic woes, difficult reforms and government corruption. In all three countries, peaceful anti-government rallies ended in vandalism and brawls with police.

Source:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2YGYT_4g-NE&NR=1

And in America -

By Carey Gillam - LINK

OVERLAND PARK, Kansas (Reuters) - It has been nearly a year since Todd Wilson last collected a paycheck. The Kansas computer salesman wasn't too worried at first, for he had a solid work history, decent savings, and a wife with a job.

But now, with unemployment on the rise all around him, such as the 8,000 new cuts announced this week by Overland Park, Kansas, based Sprint Nextel, competition for ever fewer jobs is growing -- and desperation is setting in.

"Anybody who is looking for a job now is feeling an economic tsunami," said 48-year-old Wilson, who says he has exhausted his family's savings and now spends most days searching for jobs at an area employment-assistance center. "It feels like all of a sudden, it has just fallen apart."

Far from Washington D.C., in communities across the United States, the talk of federal economic stimulus plans and bank bailouts offers only faint hope for help. Many workers say the ever-rising unemployment spells a long road of hardship ahead.

This week alone, U.S. companies including Sprint, Home Depot, Caterpillar, Texas Instruments and others announced they would cut more than 60,000 jobs.

On Tuesday, another 10,000 job cuts were announced. So far this month, more than 210,000 jobs are known to have been axed. And in a report due Thursday, claims for U.S. unemployment benefits by the newly jobless are expected soar above 500,000.

All that comes on top of 524,000 jobs lost in December and a spike in unemployment in all U.S. states that left the national unemployment rate at 7.2 percent, up from 6.8 percent in November, according to the Labor Department.

In all, more than 11 million U.S. workers are unemployed, a 48 percent jump from a year ago.

The numbers translate to roughly four job seekers for every one job opening in the United States, according to Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank. The grim job picture cuts across nearly every sector, she said.

"There are literally millions of workers unemployed with no hope of finding a new job," she said. "The queue is just too long."

Job losses contributed to a record low in U.S. consumer confidence this month, the Conference Board, a non-profit business research group in New York, said on Tuesday.

A new survey by the Society for Human Resource Management also found that nearly 75 percent of human resource professionals from U.S. companies were expecting deeper job cuts in the U.S. labor force in the next few months.

NO QUICK FIX?

Economists and workers alike say they see President Barack Obama's efforts to jolt the economy taking at least a year or more to jumpstart renewed hiring.

"With the right package, the economy will start growing in 2010 and the labor market will start picking up after that at some point," said Shierholz.

That is slight comfort to U.S. workers and small business owners who see their livelihoods eroding at a rapid pace.

"It's been less than four months since I got this job and I'm already worried about holding onto it," said Anna Chung, 30, who works at a small auto parts supplier in suburban Detroit, Michigan, where the state unemployment rate was 10.6 percent in December, reflecting the automobile industry's dismal fortunes. "I'm afraid I might be the next to go."

In Overland Park, where Sprint's world headquarters dominates the landscape of the upscale bedroom community near Kansas City, the layoffs have many reeling.

"Behind each number is a person and a family," said Tracey Osborne, president of the local chamber of commerce.

The mounting corporate job losses mean slowing sales for a range of service and support businesses. Tax revenues are falling and money for schools and social services is squeezed.

Kyle Witherspoon owns the sports bar directly across the street from Sprint's sprawling corporate headquarters, and for years has served a steady flow of Sprint employees. But he said sales have slowed due to the job cuts.

This week, he was busy booking going away parties for Sprint workers, he said, and bracing for more lost customers.

"When these people go now, it will have a huge impact," he said.

At the Mid-America Regional Council in Kansas City, chief economist Frank Lenk said for every corporate job lost, two more will be shed on average.

"This is a gloomy time," Lenk said. "People are feeling pretty uncertain about their financial security."

Computer programer Larry Martel understands uncertainty. He had been laid off for six months last year before landing work as a consultant at a Kansas City-area firm. Now Martel, 50, is just thankful to have a steady paycheck.

"There are people really hurting. It's everywhere you turn," said Martel. "It is probably going to get worse before it gets better."

Bulgarians demonstrate against government corruption and lack of democracy:

Protests in France and Greece

Protests in Mexico

BBC REPORT - LINK

Thousands of people in Mexico City have protested against what they say is the inadequate response by the government to growing economic problems in Mexico.

The protesters - most of them from rural areas - were angry at President Felipe Calderon's recent move to freeze the price of petrol but not diesel.

They said the costs of running farm machinery had become prohibitive.

The country's economy has also been hit by a fall in the amount of money sent home by Mexicans living abroad.

Remittances that Mexicans living abroad - mainly in the United States - have fallen for the first time since records began in 1995, the BBC's Stephen Gibbs in Mexico City says.

After oil, the money is the country's second largest source of foreign income, our correspondent says, although it represents less than 3% of Mexico's GDP.

David Cameron speaking at Davos

Speaking in Davos this afternoon David Cameron said:- "stand up for business because it's businesses, not governments or politicians, that create jobs, wealth and opportunity."

"It's businesses that drive innovation and choice, and help families achieve a higher standard of living for a lower cost."

He called on businesses to work within a stronger moral framework:

Quote:

"I think it’s time to update the free market orthodoxy that has dominated the past few decades. It’s time to assert a fundamental truth:, that markets are a means to an end not an end in themselves. Markets are there to serve our society, not to suck the joy out of it or trample over its values. So we must shape capitalism to suit the needs of society; not shape society to suit the needs of capitalism. That is what I mean by responsible business. Business helping to create a society that is fairer - and where opportunity is more equal. Business helping to create a society that is more family-friendly, where responsibility and power are decentralised, and where we value and build up the institutions of the public realm and civic society. So if markets, and capitalism, and the activities of individual businesses conflict with our vision of the good society and a better life if damage is being done to our environment, or if family life is being undermined we must not sit there and take it, going along with the old orthodoxy that nothing should be allowed to impede the pursuit of profit. We must speak out."

rugfish

I would hope in this context, that he's talking about our economy as the free market. He indicates that capitalism must have the aim to improve peoples lives and not just the capitalists pockets. This "policy" is manifest in his stance on the European Union which would retain our veto over all legislation but it needs to go further with a policy to take us into EFTA.

The strikes occurring now over the Italian workers at the Total site are occurring because the Italian firm has been given a contract and decided to bring their own workforce to Britain. This has led to British workers not even being considered for employment and a flagrant breech of their rights to equal opportunity and resultant unemployment.

This has happened as a result of the kind of capitalism we see in Europe, which has no moral or social consideration. It is a prime example of why capitalism on its own without a social aim, is "immoral", and David Cameron has already said he disagrees with it but not yet how he plans to tackle it.

The fact is, he will be elected as Prime Minister, and he will "seek" to change it, and the European Union will have to change or Britain will have to veto its decisions or leave. -

Social interests, social responsibility and a reckoning that the true aim of capitalism is to promote better standards for all and not the irresponsible few is what he said, so now we have to hear "how".

A firm here can't take its entire workforce to the USA, China or Russia which all quite rightly demand local 'jobs' are created. Perversely, what the EU does is tantamount to lunacy and this gives a compelling insight into how it fails to consider the social aspects of the political decisions it makes, which affect the lives of ordinary people all across Europe, but not in the USA, China or Russia.

In the "globalised world", or more accurately in the "European economy", only the people suffer through EU policies which allow the jobs to be taken away by a foreign firm and be given to foreign workers whilst our skilled workers remain unemployed and without consideration for their own rights to equal opportunity.

Brown is the only leader singing for globalisation !! Obama, and Putin are doing their own thing to save their own economies. Sarkozy will too, likewise others who have their own plans and Gordon Brown is alone on this.

David Cameron MUST stand up for British jobs for British workers and advise the world that HE believes in capitalism, it is our party ideal not Labour's, and only he knows its true aims are to bring opportunity and prosperity to all.

Thatcher would have made this very plain. Get on with it David - END the European mess they've created.

PUTIN - "Humankind to move away from a one-polar world structure of politics, economy and finance".

January 30, 2009, 13:04
Friday's press review
This Friday Russian newspapers discuss the results of the Davos forum.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/36634

ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA writes that in his unusually liberal speech in Davos Prime Minister Vladimir Putin confirmed his call for humankind to move away from a one-polar world structure of politics, economy and finance. The paper says that too many of those present, who were expecting a speech ‘in the Munich style’, thought the actual words pronounced by the Russian Prime minister appeared ‘mild, liberal and constructive.’

The paper says, answering questions from the media the next day, Vladimir Putin returned to his usual firm style, explaining some of the ideas expressed of the speech. The paper says the Prime Minister made clear that he draws a distinctive borderline between state support of the economy in crisis and the state’s excessive participation in the economy, especially in the circumstances when many companies wish to unload their financial troubles onto the state’s shoulders, which is unacceptable.

KOMSOMOLSKAYA PRAVDA says Vladimir Putin’s Davos speech contained Russia’s views on the economic crisis and Russia’s ideas and suggestions about fighting it, including the supremacy of the real economy over virtual financial instruments and a wider use of national currencies in international trade and economic cooperation.

The paper quotes Russian experts who say that so far the governments of the world’s leading nations are not following the own advice they have given to developing countries. The G20 spoke against protectionism, Davos speaks against protectionism, but in fact, the U.S., Europe, Russia are all taking some protectionist measures in their economies.

The expert interviewed by the paper also says: if the previous Davos forums were like master classes where the more successful economies taught the developing ones, now everyone is in shock. This is because the crisis that hit all was born in the U.S., the very country that used to teach everyone how to avoid crises.

The paper also notes that in Davos a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Bill Clinton took place. Judging by the time the meeting lasted – over an hour – the paper concludes that the Russian Prime Minister and the former U.S. President must have discussed matters of bilateral relations between the two nations, taking into consideration the well-known interest of Bill Clinton in Russian affairs and the fact that his wife, Hillary Clinton, has been appointed U.S. Secretary of State.

KOMMERSANT’s Andrey Kolesnikov writes that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin surprised the participants of the Davos forum with a liberal-toned speech, but on the next day ‘returned, as if he had never left’ to his usual strict and firm style when he talked to the international media.

VREMYA NOVOSTEI also notes the difference between the tone and style of Wednesday’s speech and Thursday’s meeting with international media and businessmen. The paper says that on Thursday, Vladimir Putin was his usual self: a tough and firm politician.

The paper notes that the Prime Minister used his firmest tone while responding to questions related to the fairness of business transactions between Russian and foreign companies in which foreigners took advantage of Russia’s problems – inevitable in a transitional economy.

Comment:
Bill Clinton tried to talk him round at Davros.

Obama didn't attend.

Gordon Brown wants a global solution.
Obama is doing his own thing with saving jobs.
Russia has already saved its jobs and America is following Russia.

Europe does nothing.
Britain does nothing.

Obama is mad as hell about US banks paying themselves bonuses with taxpayers money.

Europe and the UK say "nothing" and have protests occurring.

Without America or Russia, "WE" are NOT in a global economy so they shouldn't be acting like we are. They need to take action to save jobs like America and Russia.

Gordon Brown is talking Global Claptrap and he's "doing nothing" to save jobs, provide people with skills, or build our economy.

Brown is a damp squib and David Cameron HAS to tell people the truth about globalization. It is NOT working and it will never work without America and Russia.

Peter Lavelle'S BLOG January 28, 2009, 22:09
Davos, pragmatism, and Putin

You don’t have to like Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to appreciate his speech at Davos. He spoke the language of hard realities. Allow me to recap some of the most important points.

At the last Davos meeting, we were assured by American bankers that the international financial system is sound and we could expect a radiant future. Most of these same bankers failed to make an appearance at this year’s event.

The US dollar is still another pyramid scheme that makes the US rich at the expense of everyone else in the world. To avoid another global financial disaster, the world needs a number of reserve currencies that are valued and trusted. The greenback will never return to it past glory.

Accounting firms also need a major overhaul. For too long, major western corporations and accounting and rating firms have defied sensible market principles. This kind of cronyism has deprived the world of credit, transparency, and even hope.

Global energy relations need to do a major re-think. We need to end the “great energy game” based upon geopolitical advantage. Now we need a global energy architecture that takes energy politics out of the picture. This will be hard for Western energy companies to accept, but it is only rational given how Ukraine behaves when it comes to energy relations with Russia. And forget about the pipe dreams of building pipelines around Russia. Let’s make it simple – all should be involved in building new energy pipelines that benefit producers, transit countries, and consumers.

Governments should refrain from trade protectionism, added military expenditures, and aggressive foreign policies to deal with the economic slump. This is very difficult to avoid. Keep your eye on the US, Georgia, Israel, and other countries in this regard.

This is the shortlist. I can’t see how anyone can really disagree with Putin’s diagnosis and prognosis on how the world should move forward.

New Russian military bases scare NATO

January 30, 2009, 10:56
New Russian military bases scare NATO

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/36628

Russian plans to build military bases in the newly independent republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are causing concern in NATO. The alliance says it will express its opposition in talks with Russian officials.

Ochamchira facility in Abkhazia used to be one of the USSR's strategic Black Sea naval bases. In the mid-nineties the Russian government decided to shut it down.

Even though the base has been closed for more than a decade, the maintenance crews took care of the machines. The equipment there can still be used to repair ships.

Viktor Panov says he knows a lot about repairing Russian warships. A former Soviet warrant officer, he now takes care of cranes and slipways at the Ochamchira shipyard.

“This is our mechanisation,” he said. “Electro motors do not work, the redactor does not work, chain gear, and all of this runs just to lift the ship to the wall”.

Abkhazia is a small Caucasus republic that attempted to separate from Georgia after the fall of the Soviet Union. This move angered Tbilisi, so Georgian leaders sent troops into the breakaway region. A conflict ensued, killing thousands and forcing many to flee their homes.

According to international peace agreements, the Russian army and navy abandoned its bases in the region. Only joint CIS peacekeeping forces and United Nations observers were allowed to stay in Abkhazia.

In August 2008, following the conflict in South Ossetia, Russia recognized Abkhazia's independence and several Russian Black Sea Fleet warships arrived to patrol the republic's coast.

In September, an agreement on military cooperation was signed, making it possible for Russia to rebuild its military facilities there. It's expected that besides planes and warships, Russia will also send 3,700 troops to the republic. Some military analysts say Russia may benefit from this relocation, although other countries may object:

“This is very good that we will have a base in Abkhazia. This will allow us to move the remains of our Black Sea Fleet there when it is kicked out of Sevastopol in 2017. But this can barely be called a geopolitical breakthrough,” said military analyst Vladislav Shulgin. “Of course, Georgia will be against it. I think it will be the only country that will protest. As for Europe, it will respond flabbily.”

Meanwhile, Abkhazians themselves seem to be more optimistic. Murman Jopua, head of Ochamchira's administration, says it will make many people in this small community feel more secure.

“The fact that Great Russia recognized Abkhazia makes us feel completely safe, and the return of the Navy will give us great strength.”

Up Yours

British oil workers walked out from Total oil refinery today in protest at the company giving a contract to an Italian firm which then brought its own workers over. Meanwhile, unemployment in Britain reaches 2 million 'registered' unemployed, and the demonstrations are said to be happening again in refineries on Humberside and Teesside.

This is what the Italian workers thought of the protests.



Also in France today, over two million people took to the streets in protest about the government bailout to banks amid public sector cuts and redundancies which the demonstrators say is unfair to workers. The government there is said to be less concerned with its people and more concerned with the bankers who caused them to lose their jobs.

Professor Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank 1996 - 1999, after attending the Davros Economic Summit today, said that America's bailout was inadequate, the world has yet to see the start of the financial fallout, and that leaders are just waking up to how serious this problem actually is. He indicated that it is destined to become far worse than they imagine.

Meanwhile, no representatives attended from America, and UK Chancellor Alistair Darling and UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, both cancelled their trips to Davros saying they were either too busy or we're not required. Gordon Brown still intends to go to give his brief on the economy. It seems quite peculiar that a Global Economic crisis meeting is left unattended by both the United Kingdom and America?

Edit: Today, the BBC reports workers are gathering again in protest;

Hundreds of striking energy workers are holding a mass meeting over the use of foreign workers on a construction project at an oil refinery.

About 300 people have so far gathered at the Lindsey Oil Refinery in North Lincolnshire to protest against a £200m contract given to an Italian firm.

Unions said British staff should be doing the work.

Total, owners of the refinery at North Killingholme, said there would be "no direct redundancies" as a result.

At least 800 people demonstrated at the plant on Thursday.

Industry contractors walked out at sites in northern England and Scotland in support over the escalating protest, which began on Wednesday with a walk-out by Lindsey workers.

Unite union regional officer Bernard McAuley said workers had also been joined by trade unionists and supporters from across the UK

"They've come from all over the country," he said. "We reckon there were almost 1,000 people here.

"We've also had huge numbers of messages of support from people who are incensed by this decision. It's a total mockery.

"There are men here whose fathers and uncles have worked at this refinery, built this refinery from scratch. It's outrageous."

Humberside Police said numbers of protesters at the demonstration, which passed off peacefully, were nearer 800.

Employees at BP's Dimlington gas terminal in East Yorkshire and its chemical manufacturing plant in Saltend, Hull, also walked out in support of the Lindsey refinery workers.

Unofficial strike action was also taken by workers at Scottish Power's Longannet power station in Fife.

Total bosses said the Italian firm IREM, which employs a specialist workforce, had won the contract to construct the new HDS-3 unit at the Lindsey plant, after a tendering process.

In a statement, Total said: "We recognise the concerns of contractors but it is important to note that there will be no direct redundancies as a result of this contract being awarded.

"We have been a major local employer for 40 years and have always enjoyed a good relationship with our staff and contractors.

"We are disappointed they have taken this action and we hope the situation will be resolved as soon as possible and the contractors return to work."

It said its main refining operations on the 500-acre site remained unaffected by the action.

LINK

Control the Free Market

AIG executive sentenced to 4 years in prison
Jan. 27, 2009 10:18 AM
Associated Press

HARTFORD, Conn. - A former executive of American International Group Inc. has been sentenced to four years in prison in a fraud case that authorities say cost shareholders more than $500 million.

Christian Milton of Winnewood, Pa., declined to comment during a hearing in federal court on Tuesday in Hartford. He was ordered to report to prison March 25. His lawyers say they're working on an appeal.

Milton was convicted last year of conspiracy, securities fraud, mail fraud and making false statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The 58-year-old Milton had been AIG's vice president of reinsurance.

Prosecutors say the fraud involved executives from AIG and General Re Corp. propping up AIG's stock price and inflating reserves by $500 million.

I'm all for a free market but with control of banking - Nationalised, and also with a global corporation tax which evens it all out and does NOT allow tax havens.

Global Trade, free market - YES.
Being ripped off and left penniless by thieving capitalist bastards - NO.

Money is more powerful than politics.

Banks and financial institutions have the capacity to make poverty for people - Representatives of people should therefore control banks.

Money should be controlled GLOBALLY

Because money is exchanged globally, then every currency is open to fluctuations which cause "winner or loser" situations.

Movement of currency should be curtailed for this reason as otherwise it places millions of people in perpetual economic jeopardy.

ONE world currency would be the answer to this, or a global ban on currency speculation.

Corporation Tax should be by global agreement so as to remove the 'winner or loser' quotient which creates corporate power.

Currently, corporations close and move on to an advantaged tax area leaving losers ( millions out of work ), in their wake, whilst creating winners ( new jobs elsewhere ), at the cost to the taxpayers in both areas.

These would be my guidelines for controlling an otherwise free market.

If you think about the so called toxic assets a second, there should not be any.

What they're talking about are the American mortgages which were sold to people who could afford the initial rate of interest but could not afford them when the rate went higher. ( The rate was doubled by the likes of Fannie Mae which then claimed taxpayers money because their borrowers defaulted. ) - Still not "toxic", just bad selling on their part.........All the government simply had to do was to lower the interest rate back to what it was when it was affordable and commit money to that single problem by nationalising the assets of Fannie Mae. In effect, safeguarding the borrowers, safeguarding the wider economy from falling and safeguarding the event of economic collapse.

Instead, it bailed out the bankers and permitted them to go lashing money around again covering "their" losses and "their" bonus payments, not the interests of homeowners.

The "toxicity" was created by FRAUDULENT UNDERWRITING by the banks. The banks themselves should have paid the price by losing their businesses instead of homeowners losing their jobs and homes. The executives of the banks should have had their assets confiscated and they should have been jailed.

It is more than "incompetence", it is a Global Fraud. We are the ones who will lose as a result of it yet we've got the very people who caused it, trying to fix it instead of fixing mailbags in San Quentin.

Currency speculation should be stopped until they can work it all out.
Banks in trouble should be Nationalised and their liabilities should be written off - Globally.

Once the financial world itself is then settled again, and under global agreement, then the circulation of money can be controlled by global agreement and risks properly assessed for future borrowing.

If none of this is done then it will happen again and it matters not whether the UK is in or out of Europe as Global Decisions are required to fix it.

Meanwhile, SKY NEWS reports that Spanish police have arrested six people suspected of involvement in fraud totalling £420m on the London stock market, it is reported. The suspects were arrested in Madrid, Barcelona and the town of Elche in the southeast, a police statement said.

Police said the fraud began in 2003, and it's believed they carried out a scam whereby they bought shares and sold them - without ever owning the shares.

EVERY country ( on its own ) is "just pathetic and declining" and open to money scams like the above scam. No country in the world can operate in economic isolation, and that's why we are part of the global economy.

Creating a big protected trading area in Europe won't make a blind bit of difference because Europe NEEDS to use the American economy just as we do and just as America needs to use ours. We are all one and the same in that respect and that cannot ever be any different. Hence, we are in a globalised world economically and the rest of the world outside our western hemisphere, is in a different economic world.....they are in their own.

Because there is no global agreement, then as our population grows, we need more resources, but we don't have enough resources hence we NEED theirs. It isn't a case of whether we have a choice in the matter, it is essential that we share the resources or die.

To obtain those resources - oil, minerals and metals, - we can either invade those places and take them ( or we can use capitalism and a free market ), and persuade others to join in.

That would be what you'd call a uni-polar world, or the New World Order as to do that it would need global political agreement.

Russia will not agree because Russia puts its people before business unlike our capitalist countries which ignore their people.

Russia has not thrown millions of its citizens on to an unemployment list or repossessed their homes, and Russia had a business loan in operation ALREADY, which was given billions in October last year as extra support to maintain jobs.

We on the other hand have protected banks and bankers who caused the crash because we are capitalist pigs who don't care about our people probably. I mean that could be one reason I guess, or another one could be just that we're greedy, don't think about society, couldn't give a stuff as long as we're alright Jack and generally unsympathetic to anyone other than the fraudsters who ripped us all off. ( Stupid ) would sum it up I feel.

I can't see Russia agreeing with us for that reason so we'll end up repairing what we have and going on with the same crap until we crash again for another reason but it will always come back down to the fact we need resources we don't have and need to print money we don't have and can't afford, or go to war to take someone else's or slim the population by death in war so we don't consume so much.

It's all pretty straight forward really.
It all boils down to making it or taking it for we have no choice but to survive.
Yet we don't have sufficient resources and thus we either need capitalists or soldiers to go get them from others who do or we need to reach global agreements to share and control the natural resources, which we all as human beings need. - Grain, oil, metals, minerals, health, water, heat.

None of this requires 'political decisions' to see whether we have an immigration policy, or a penal code different to another, or whether we have laws here of any other kind. The "free market" can still operate, just not in those areas which sustain life of the human race as well as our mutual economic survival.

If we can do this, then we can agree anything.

http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/core/forms/Reforming_un.pdf

Global economic governance

Quote:
The painfully acquired awareness of the need for an international rules-based framework is what led to building the existing multilateral system, a system that has made important contributions to the unprecedented progress and economic growth that many countries have enjoyed since the end of the Second World War. Yet, the challenges of globalization today cannot adequately be handled by a system that was designed largely for the world of more than half a century ago. For a range of common problems the world has no formal institutional mechanism to ensure that voices representing all relevant domains are heard in the discussion, nor is there an instrument or procedure commonly agreed upon for deciding who does what. The Center aims to contribute to the discussion of how to fill the existing gaps in global economic governance.


It's not wholly my idea it's the idea of our leaders.
I have my own slant on it that's all which puts people in the program too.

Quote:

Key factors for inclusion in globalization
Although it is usually true that “one size does not fit all,” there is also the valid presumption that there are some policy-dependent factors that will make it more likely for people, communities and countries to engage successfully in the global market economy. Helping to identify those factors will also be a defining criteria for the Center’s future activities.

Papers include: "The Future of Migration": Irresistible Forces meet Immovable Ideas Lant Pritchett Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Center for Global Development.

Reforming Un

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Academic Work Other religion syllabus

Economics explained in 10 Easy Lessons for beginners. ( Humour )



Edit 29/01/2009

Last night on Newsnight, following the Davros meeting, Professor Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of The World Bank, said he advocated Nationalising Banks and pumping money into Public Spending Programs. i.e. To create WORK, and those people IN work will spend money. He also advocated Tax Cuts, and Business Loan Guarantees.

This is exactly what I've been saying myself. Tax Cuts, Public Works, nuclear power stations, high speed rail, social housing, and environmentally friendly auto production programs. In order to create work and also demand of supplies of resources of other economies which will benefit their economies as well as ours.

If that is coupled with strict controls on the exchange of currencies, and private investment is used in tandem with government spending, then that in itself would kick start investment and get the free market working again but with more emphasis on socially conscionable policies. The only other item to agree on would be a standard tax rate to avoid "winners or losers" when corporations decide to pick and choose the best country to place their business models, as taking away the disadvantages of one by a global business tax would remove this problem altogether.

I hasten to add that only non-viable banks would be nationalised and that in such circumstances, their liabilities would be written off. Thus they would not add to the national debt.

Reagan and Thatcher may well have opened up the theory here, but Milton Friedman and America began the monetarist policy in the 60's. We didn't adopt it until 1979 and then Europe adopted it under the Maastricht Treaty and the Basel Accord in 1988. Basel II was initiated in 2001 thru to 2004, and that's why we're all running on America's economic theory which is a bag of crap.

The theory requires constant growth - hence enlargement of the trading area is 'constantly' required to sustain it.

This is why they talk of amending Basel II, when what they really mean, is "we'll have to scrap it".

The actions they are taking now are Keynesian Economics to 'stabilize' the economy until they work out how to fix it and my guess is that Obama will be more likely to agree with it than Bush.

rugfish

Czech's tell the EU to back off

Pressure on Prague won't help ratify Lisbon, minister says -

ELITSA VUCHEVA
22.01.2009

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the Czech Republic is a "domestic democratic process," and external pressure aimed at speeding up the process is not helping, Czech deputy prime minister for European Affairs Alexandr Vondra has said. Mr Vondra - whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency - said he expected the Czech parliamentary committees to finish their work on the treaty "in the month of February and then [the treaty] will be passed to the vote of the house and also of the Senate."

He stressed that Prague should not be pressured to speed up the process, as "the quality of the decision is the most important," rather than the timing.

"We are a responsible country, but I think you should be aware that this is our domestic democratic process," Mr Vondra told MEPs in the constitutional affairs committee on Thursday (22 January).

"And any kind of pressure coming from outside is not helpful, I think. Give us a chance to go through that process," he added.

The Czech parliament was expected to ratify the Lisbon Treaty at the beginning of February, but this timetable has slipped.

The parliament's foreign committee on Wednesday interrupted its debate on the document without taking a position, adjourning until 15 February, Czech news agency CTK reports.

The committee's chairman, Jan Hamacek, said the February plenary vote on the Lisbon Treaty could be postponed too, according to CTK.

The Czech Republic, Ireland, Germany and Poland are the four remaining EU states yet to finalise ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

The Czechs' 'different type of mentality'

Meanwhile MEPs also cornered Mr Vondra about comments made by Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek in the Strasbourg plenary last week on the Lisbon Treaty.

At the time, Mr Topolanek said: "The Lisbon Treaty is in fact an average one. It is a little bit worse than [the Treaty of] Nice and little bit better than the future treaty."

But the premier was in fact referring to a traditional Czech joke in which one is asked: "How do you like this year?" and the reply is: "Worse than the previous but better than the next one," Mr Vondra explained.

The Czech mentality "is a bit of a different type of mentality if you compare to former imperial powers such as Spain or the UK," he added, encouraging MEPs to look into Czech history to better understand his country.

rugfish

What's up Me Lud?

Lords are in public uproar and faced with tight regulations to their conduct with lobbyists following an undercover report published recently by the Sunday Times, which uncovered 4 Lords who were each prepared to accept money to assist the efforts of lobbyists where they were seeking amendments to our laws. Life peers can apparently do no wrong, as presently they cannot be disciplined in any way or sacked from attending the House of Lords. Instead, they have carte blanche to act within their own sense of propriety and the 4 accused Lords see "nothing wrong" with what they were prepared to do and have done, in what is being described as having been prepared to receive money to change laws. How can be it be described any other way other than as a preparedness to accept bribery?

The Life Peerage Act 1958, give the Prime Minister the authority to create life peerages.

Here is the Act itself :-
Life Peerage Act 2

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

The BBC says that Pressure is growing for reform of the House of Lords to impose tougher rules on peers who do paid consultancy work.

Tony Wright, chairman of the Commons Public Administration Committee, says public faith in the political process would be diminished without change.

Lady Royall, the Leader of the House of Lords, has said she believes tougher sanctions are now necessary.

On Monday, two of the Labour peers at the centre of claims defended themselves in the House of Lords.

Mr Wright, said he believed Lords reform was vital and action needed to be taken within months, not years.

He believed there must be an "agreed framework" governing the relationship between lobbyists, Peers and MPs.

"Unless the public can see who is lobbying whom about what, this kind of story will influence people's perceptions of lobbyists and politicians across the board and for the worse," he said.

'Rigorous inquiry'

BBC political correspondent Norman Smith said with reports claiming paid consultancy work is carried out by roughly one in five of the 743 members of the House of Lords, the row was likely to have profound effects on how it operates in future.

On Monday, in the Lords, Lord Snape stood up to "refute" the Sunday Times claims while Lord Taylor of Blackburn apologised but said he felt he had followed the rules.

A recording was later released of Lord Taylor saying firms paid him up to £100,000 a year.

Earlier, Lords leader Lady Royall said a "rigorous" inquiry had already begun.

In a recording of a conversation with Lord Taylor, published on the Sunday Times website, Lord Taylor tells an undercover reporter: "Some companies that I work with would pay me £100,000 a year."

When the reporter questions it, he adds: "That's cheap for what I do for them. And other companies would pay me £25,000."

The newspaper alleges four Labour peers had offered to help make amendments for up to £120,000 - they have denied any wrongdoing.

'Tougher sanctions'

In a statement to the House of Lords, Lady Royall called the claims "deeply shocking". She pointed out that they were only allegations at this stage but said the claims had been "damaging not just to this House but to Parliament and politics".

She said the matter had been referred to the Lords Interests sub committee, which had already met and investigations were underway.

And she said she believed "tougher sanctions" were needed to deal with peers who broke the rules - currently they cannot be suspended or expelled - and she had written to the chairman of the committee of privileges to ask him to review the matter.

If the peers were found guilty of having broken the rules, they could be required to apologise on the floor of the Lords, but cannot be expelled from Parliament or stripped of their titles.

The Sunday Times said its reporters had posed as lobbyists acting for a foreign client, who was setting up a chain of shops in the UK and wanted an exemption from the Business Rates Supplements Bill.

If there is to be regulation on this, then it should include the ability to sanction along with the means to remove titles and disbar peers from the House of Lords. It's surely an anathema in the 21st century to gift what amounts to a job for life to anybody let alone the idea of a title for life regardless of their actions. It is certainly not a "common" thing to be given a job for life and to be heralded above the working man by 'uncommon' peers of the realm and such a thing brings into focus what our Lordships are all about. It's jobs for the boys plain and simple, and the better off's are soaking money by using their positions which have far greater influence than others, whilst 'common' people are being thrown out of work left right and center.

The idea that lobbyists can even approach these people quite defies my sense of fairness actually, since many people write to Lords and MP's in protest and many send petitions, yet these are simply ignored. Take the Lisbon Treaty for instance. Totally ignored was a petition to Her Majesty with 900,000 signatures calling for her to stop it. To be fair about it, many Lords did in fact argue against the Lisbon Treaty but not as a result of 'lobbying' and more as a result of their own recognition that it is unworthy as a democratic document.

I feel sad for those Lords who work damned hard and are not looking to earn vast amounts of money for their services to the country and will undoubtedly be blighted by this recent episode which smacks of corruption.

I do hope they get it sorted out and hopefully do away with life peerages altogether, but certainly they should be accountable, and open to disciplinary procedures like the rest of us. I'd prefer a 5 or 7 year peerage rather than a life peerage, which could take account of a need for a second chamber, by offering these places to those who have served our country first and foremost, and not for reason they happen to know the right person or have passed a brown envelope to someone else, or because of their sex or race which just happens to be politically correct for the day, or for any other arbitrary reason which happens to suit the political classes of the day. They should be butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers. They should be people from the military and civil services, academia, and sport and other civic groups who have reached attainment or high achievements in political life and never for reason of political expediency. People who are seen to have done service for their country without asking for reward. Alternately, we should have a second chamber of elected people who will actually represent the public of their own regions and obey rules in common with those who attend the House of Commons, for they are no different and certainly not with different colour blood to us.

Meanwhile, if these 4 have acted in a way which the general populace would find dishonorable if not dishonest, then they should be stripped of their titles. They should be banned from sitting in the House of Lords, and a retrospective law should be brought in to get rid of other jokers and soakers and the upsetters of our democracy, for they are there singularly to protect it. They are not there to upset it for their own monetary, political or cultural advantage but they are there to serve us in our democratic rights.

Leaders to flock to Davos to discuss economic crisis

By Emma Thomasson

ZURICH (Reuters) - Political leaders and central bankers will dominate this week's annual Davos forum as a chastened business elite is sidelined in the drive to reboot the world economy, improve global security and slow climate change.

More than 40 heads of state and government -- almost double the number last year -- will be joined by 36 finance ministers and central bankers, including the central bank chiefs of all the G8 group of rich countries except the United States.

About 1,400 business executives will also be in Davos but fewer top bankers and captains of industry are expected as they struggle to keep their businesses afloat -- and themselves in a job, mindful of the event's glitzy image in more austere times.

"The pendulum is swinging back to governments now we're grappling with recession," said Thomas Mayer, Deutsche Bank economist. "We're going into a period where more government involvement will mean lower growth and higher inflation."

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will open the four-day meeting on Wednesday in the Swiss Alpine resort that is being organized under the title "Shaping the Post-Crisis world."

Also present will be Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown as well as Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to new U.S. President Barack Obama.

It is the first time world leaders will get together to discuss the deepening crisis since a meeting of the G20 group of big and emerging countries in Washington in November.

The G20 meets again in April ahead of a G8 summit in July and before that, finance ministers from the Group of Seven nations gather in Rome in mid-February.

The World Economic Forum was set up in 1971 as a business and academic think tank whose motto is "entrepreneurship in the global public interest." Its annual Davos meeting has grown into a huge event that has become a focus of anti-capitalist anger.

The Financial Times newspaper predicted this year's meeting would be characterized by "sobriety and self-recrimination" with fewer glitzy cocktail parties and corporate skiing jaunts.

Instead, participants are invited to an event that simulates life in a refugee camp and asks them to navigate a mine field, while non-profit groups will hand out awards "for outstanding achievements in social and environmental irresponsibility."

GLOBAL RISKS ON AGENDA

A WEF report ahead of the meeting said the main risks facing the world included deteriorating government finances, a slowing Chinese economy and threats to food and health from climate change, along with a lack of global coordination to tackle them.

Worries about protectionism as a response to the downturn are also growing. Around 20 trade ministers meet on Saturday on the sidelines in Davos to discuss long-running Doha trade round talks to open up commerce.

"We have not yet seen the same protectionism in trade with beggar thy neighbor policies of the '30s. And I will fight hard to ensure we do not," Britain's Brown, who will chair the April G20 summit, said on Monday.

"But we also need to ensure we do not exercise a new form of financial mercantilism of retreat into domestic lending and domestic financial markets," he said.

G20 leaders called in November for an outline trade deal by the end of 2008 to help counter the economic crisis. But late last year, World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy decided political differences were still too wide to invite ministers to Geneva to seek a breakthrough.

While the focus will clearly be on the world economy, security challenges like ongoing tensions the Middle East will also be on the agenda, as will climate change, with about 30 energy and environment ministers in attendance.

Klaus Schwab, the forum's founder and chairman, said the meeting would be a chance for leaders to think about the kind of world they wanted to see emerge when the crisis is over.

"What we are experiencing is the birth of a new era, a wake-up call to overhaul our institutions, our systems and, above all, our way of thinking," he said.

While this year's meeting illustrates a shift in the balance of power toward governments, political leaders in Davos are likely to get a reminder that the crisis also threatens their own positions after recent civil unrest in several countries.

While activists have been kept away from Davos itself after a demonstration turned violent in 2000, protestors have warned of trouble in Geneva after an anti-capitalist march planned for Saturday to coincide with Davos was banned.

"The WEF is a symbol of the neoliberal policies of the last 20 years that have caused this crisis. We have no confidence that the same people who caused the crisis can solve it," said Laurent Tettamenti, an organizer of the Geneva protest.

Comment:

President Dmitry Medvedev called for reform of the world financial systems in November last year, and his and Vladimir Putin's measures are working in the Russian Federation by all accounts, with Russian's taking longer holidays in "recession what recession"?