Category Archives: Resource Based Economy

China has not only outdone Latin America in exporting commodities, but it has also become the main importer of Latin Americas natural resources: China has reduced Latin America from exporting commodities to the world to exporting natural resources to China. This is the central idea of Kevin P. Gallaghers book, The China Triangle: Latin Americas China boom and the fate of the Washington Consensus, published by Oxford University Press in 2016. Gallagher is Professor of Global Development at Boston University. This opinion piece intends to discuss Gallaghers certain ideas expressed in the book.

Three points are written large upon the book. Firstly, it mostly focuses on China-Latin America economic relationship. Secondly, many ideas are repeated to banality. Thirdly, its presentation needs rearrangement. Regarding the last, five phases can be used to present the book in a better way. The first phase spanned from the nineteenth century (1870) to the Great Depression (1929). During this phase, Latin America was a winner of commodity lottery,as Western Europe needed Latin Americas vital natural resourcessuch as copper, gold, silver and iron ore and commoditiessuch as coffee, cocoa, tobacco, sugar, beef, hides, wool, and bananasto support its industrial revolution. These commodities not only substituted European agriculture produce to spare peasantry to be utilised as industrial workforce, but these commodities also prompted European and the US companies to invest heavily in Latin Americas infrastructure to hasten the provision of commodities. During this phase, Latin Americas economies grew by 3.4 percent per year (i.e. GDP growth).

The second phase continued from the Great Depression (the 1930s) until the early 1980s. During this phase, the state took over the role of laying infrastructure and boosting industries to make Latin America produce consumer goods for consumption and export. This state-led industrialisation remained the best phase in terms of growth at almost 5 percent per year. However, this phasealso witnessed accentuated economic inequalities, besides the absence of democracy. Unfortunately, macroeconomic mismanagement during this phaseultimately led to a regional financial crisis in the 1980s.

The third phase covered from the 1980s to 2002. During this phase, the state-led economic management was replaced with the Washington Consensus, the basictenet of which was a package of reforms having ten economic policy solutions for crisis-ridden developing countries. The reforms encompassed macroeconomic stabilisation, liberalisation of trade and investment, reduced role of the state in economic affairs, and the adoption of a market-based approach called neoliberalism. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) introduced these reforms (privatisation, liberalisation, and deregulation). During this phase, the growth plummeted to the slowest at just 2.4 percent per year, with inequality getting accentuated more than in the state-led industrialisation era. However, the phase ushered in return to democracy the regions hallmark achievement of the late twentieth century. The Washington Consensus was a dominant economic paradigm that ended with a major financial crisis in Argentina in 2002.

The fourth phase sustained from 2003 to 2013, and it was called the China Boom. During this phase, the economic inequality that accrued during the Washington Consensus phase lessened. Latin Americas economies grew by 3.6 percent per year, the best surge since the regions state-led industrialisation era. This periodalso helped many Latin American economies recover from the global financial crisis of 2008-2009.In December 2001, China became 143rd member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Since 2003, China enhanced its trade relations with Latin America. China was already enjoying trade ties with Latin America. About the consequent triangle, called the China triangle, Gallagher writes on page 3: At the top of the triangle tip is the United States, while China and Latin America form a new base of cooperation from left to right.

China-Latin America trade ties did not begin in 2003. Since the late 1970s, the Chinese growth miracle had been feeding on Latin Americas natural resources, but there were other competitors such as Europe and the US. On page 66, Gallagher writes: As early as 1998, then Chinese President Jiang Zemin championed the globalisation of Chinese investment and lending. He argued that regions like Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and South America with large developing countries have huge markets and abundant resources; we should take advantage of the opportunity to get in. There are two implications. First, Gallagher mentions on page 65: [Compared to Dollar diplomacy, Yuan Diplomacy (named after Chen Yuan, Chairman of the China Development Bank, in 1998) is that] Chinas development banks started financing foreign governments to help them support energy, mining and infrastructure investment... Chinese loans do not come with the harsh strings attached. Second, Gallagher writes on page 74: All of Chinas commodity-backed loans to Latin America are secured in oil [i.e. the loans-for-oil policy]. Two developments are the hallmark of this phase. First, Latin Americas export industry could not compete with Chinas low-priced but high-qualityexport products. Resultantly, Latin America smarted financially. Second, China came to Latin America with banks and investment to import natural resources. Resultantly, Latin America profited.

To get entrenched in Latin America, China adopted two soft approaches. First, edging out competitors from Latin America, as Gallagher writes on page 75: Chinese loans often come with a tacit understanding that Chinese companies will be doing a significant amount of the work related to the project or that the project will involve Chinese imports. Second, offering an alternative to the Washington consensus, as Gallagher writes on page 82: Chinese lending follows the nations Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which prohibit meddling in other countries domestic affairs [i.e. not to impose political conditions].Consequently, during this phase, China got oil to run its transport; copper to manufacture electronics products; iron ore to construct buildings, bridges, and automobiles; and soya beans to feed its cattle. On page 7, Gallagher writes: Chinese companies have flocked to the Americas to invest in these commodities, backed by Chinas state-run development banks. However, on page 92, Gallagher call it Latin Americas resource curse, which attracts one country or the other to exploit these resources to create wealth for itself. On page 93, Gallagher writes that this will keep on happening unless Latin America invest the windfalls into industry, innovation and education, besides managing the currency exchange-rate.

The fifth phase continued from 2014 to date. China has reduced import of Latin Americas natural resources and is turning into a consumer-based economy. Resultantly, the economic growth of both China and Latin America has slowed down.

This discussion surfaces two main possibilities. First, loans for development may be available to developing countries from other than the IMF and WB. Second, the provision of commodity-based loans is a viable option.

The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com

Visit link:

Kevin Gallagher's The China Triangle - Daily Times

Feb 06, 2017 (LBO) President Maithripala Sirisena has called upon all sections of the society to work with determination and commitment to win economic freedom through achieving the goal of sustainable development and poverty alleviation.

This goal will be achieved through the commitment of intellectuals, the strength of the labour force of workers and peasants, active participation of the youth of the nation as well as efficient utilization of innovative human resource force, the President said.

Addressing the nation on the 69th Independence Anniversary at the Galle Face, Saturday, he said economic freedom could be achieved through a knowledge based economy with innovative technical skill development.

The nation has the capacity and strength of skilled human resources and intellectuals as well as resourceful young generation to carry out such development endeavours, he said.

In the 21st century, the nations need knowledge based education, knowledge economy, innovative economy, digital economy and in this process the youths should play a pivotal role.

The President said the youth of Sri Lanka have the determination and desire for absorbing new technology and innovative skills, he said that the government would provide all the requirements essential for the youths to obtain that knowledge.

The young generation is the inheritors and custodians of the building process of the knowledge based economy.

I am trust that the youths, intellectuals, politicians, all other sections of the society would fulfill their responsibilities and duties with absolute commitment and determination to build the Motherland, President Sirisena added.

He said that there is a new meaning in todays freedom as we are talking about a freedom that blows freely across the skies.

This is an era in which the human freedom, media freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom to gather freely blow across the skies.

The President, pointing out that there are strengths and weaknesses in social democracy and market economy, said that we should understand those strengths and weaknesses in order to adopt a mixed system by obtaining positive segments of both the systems.

He emphasized the imperative need for eliminating corruption, bribery, malpractices, waste and fraud and said it is essential for the politicians and public servants to work honestly and with commitment.

When we attempt to achieve economic prosperity, it is essential for the politician to be a character of honesty and commitment. Furthermore I trust the politicians and public servants fulfill the responsibilities and duties honestly and with commitment to build the Motherland.

The President recalled the sacrifices made by all the communities to gain independence during various struggles from 1505 to 1948.

We have to remember that sweet fragrance of their great sacrifices with gratitude today.

During the 30-year old conflict to liberate the country from the LTTE, the heroic soldiers made many sacrifices. Hundreds of thousands people sacrifices, lives and limbs and their families also suffered immense difficulties. Economy was ruined. Today we have to ask the question whether all those who died were the losers and all those who are living are the victors? I believe that all of us should learn a lesson from that.

The President pointed out that the governments endeavour for reconciliation and communal harmony has been praised locally as well as internationally.

He said that he considers the opportunistic forces that are against reconciliation process as the forces against the country.

President Sirisena called upon everybody to fulfill the responsibilities and duties to build a nation which is economically prosperous, fortified in knowledge and maintains international goodwill.

Read more here:

Younger generation inheritors of knowledge-based economy: President - Lanka Business Online

Colombo, 04 February, (Asiantribune.com):

Today our country completes 69 years of the freedom from colonial rule (1948 2017). I am very pleased with this occasion to hold this 69thindependence celebration with high dignity, pride and glory.

The 69th Independence Day celebration was held today at the Galle Face Green under the theme of the National Peace, and under the patronage of President Maithripala Sirisena. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, ministers, parliamentarians and diplomats attended the ceremony which also included military parades

Addressing the nation on the 69th Independence Anniversary at the Galle Face this morning, the President said the economic freedom could be achieved through a knowledge based economy with innovative technical skill development. He pointed out that the nation has the capacity and strength of skilled human resources and intellectuals as well as resourceful young generation to carry out such development endeavors.

When we celebrate the freedom, we should talk about what the real freedom is. As far as I know more than 6000 languages are spoken by various nationalities living in the countries across the world. In all those languages the word independence is considered as a significant, incomparable and unconquerable word.

There is a difference between the ideas come into minds when we talk about the freedom during the time our country has been under foreign invaders from 1505 to 1948 and the freedom in the current era.

In 1948, D. S. Senanayake and contemporary national leaders who represented all communities; Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim gave a giant strength to the national struggle for freedom.

During that struggle, there were occasions when our national leaders were imprisoned. Thousands sacrificed their lives for the country and the freedom from 1505 to 1948. On this Independence Day, we should remember the sweet fragrance of the noble sacrifices made by the heroes in that historic era, who sacrificed their lives and shed their blood in the fight against colonial rulers.

During the decades of 1930 and 1940, as a result of the demands made by the leaders of this country, we got rid of some major grievances through the Donoughmore and Solbary Commissions. We succeeded in winning the freedom on the 4th of February 1948.

When we talk about the freedom it is essential to remember the valiant war heroes who fought to save our country from L. T. T. E. terrorism throughout 30 years. They sacrificed their lives. They lost their limbs. They became disabled and their families suffered heavily. Economy was ruined. About 100,000 people including civilians lost their lives. Thousands became disabled. Are the people who lost their lives in the 30 years long war were losers? Are those who saved their lives are winners? I believe that we, who saved our lives from that tragedy, should remember the lessons we learnt.

Today we talk about freedom in a more complex manner than it was discussed in the past. All of us know, at present when we talk about freedom primarily, we talk about a freedom blowing across the sky, including our human freedom, media freedom, the right to expression, right to thought and the right to assemble.

In the process of building our great Motherland as a modern state which is compatible with the twenty-first century, we have to work, giving priority to the political stability and the social development. All of you know that to achieve those goals, it is necessary to strengthen the national as well as religious reconciliation in the country. Specifically, I have to mention that we, as a Government, have given priority in this regard.

I clearly state that even though we receive accolades from locally and internationally for our commitment and determination to establish national reconciliation and peace in the country, there are some opportunistic elements who act against those noble efforts of the Government. I describe those opportunist forces as a section of society who acts against the country.

Today, all of us should commit ourselves to ensure the economic freedom of our country, when we define the word freedom. The knowledge and the ability of the intellectuals and scholars in the country, innovative skills and capabilities, and the efficiency of the skilled workforce as well as the strength of labor of all the people including the farmers and workers plus their commitment is essential to gain economic freedom to our country.

I believe this era as a period where our new generation is extremely interested in obtaining knowledge and the skills in the field of the high technology. I must mention that always as a Government we are giving priority to provide requisite guidance to our young generation to acquire new knowledge to conquer the world also to build this country based on the concept of the knowledge economy.

All of us agreed that to ensure full democracy in the country in this 21st Century, first we should achieve the economic prosperity. In that context, we give priority to our new generation. I should specially mention here the inheritors and custodians in the process of building an innovative economy based on the knowledge, is our young generation.

President Maithripala Sirisena called upon all sections of the society to work with determination and commitment to win economic freedom through achieving the goal of sustainable development and poverty alleviation. This goal will be achieved through the commitment of intellectuals, the strength of the labor force of workers and peasants, active participation of the youth of the nation as well as efficient utilization of innovative human resource force, the President said.

The President said that in the 21st Century, the nations need knowledge based education, knowledge economy, innovative economy, digital economy and in this process the youths should play a pivotal role. Stating that the youth of Sri Lanka has the determination and desire for absorbing new technology and innovative skills, he said that the government would provide all the requirements essential for the youths to obtain that knowledge. The young generation is the inheritors and custodians of the building process of the knowledge based economy.

I trust that the youths, intellectuals, politicians, all other sections of the society would fulfill their responsibilities and duties with absolute commitment and determination to build the Motherland, President Sirisena said.

He said that there is a new meaning in todays freedom as we are talking about a freedom that blows freely across the skies. This is an era in which the human freedom, media freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom to assemble, freely blow across the skies.

The President, pointing out that there are strengths and weaknesses in social democracy and market economy, said that we should understand those strengths and weaknesses in order to adopt a mixed system by obtaining positive segments of both the systems.

He emphasized the imperative need for eliminating corruption, bribery, malpractices, waste and fraud and said it is essential for the politicians and public servants to work honestly and with commitment. When we attempt to achieve economic prosperity, it is essential for the politician to be a character of honesty and commitment. Furthermore I trust the politicians and public servants fulfill the responsibilities and duties honestly and with commitment to build the Motherland.

The President recalled the sacrifices made by all the communities to gain independence during various struggles from 1505 to 1948. We have to remember that sweet fragrance of their great sacrifices with gratitude today.

During the 30-year old conflict to liberate the country from the LTTE, the heroic soldiers made many sacrifices. Hundreds of thousands people sacrifices, lives and limbs and their families also suffered immense difficulties. Economy was ruined. Today we have to ask the question whether all those who died were the losers and all those who are living are the victors. I believe that all of us should learn a lesson from that.

The President pointed out that the governments endeavor for reconciliation and communal harmony has been praised locally as well as internationally. He said that he considers the opportunistic forces that are against reconciliation process as the forces against the country.

President Sirisena called upon everybody to fulfill the responsibilities and duties to build a nation which is economically prosperous, fortified in knowledge and maintains international goodwill.

Soon after President Sirisena's address, the smart parade comprised of tri-service Officers and Other ranks, Police and Civil Security Department personnel, including National Cadet Corps (NCC), dressed in their respective ceremonials was reported by the Parade Commander to the Chief Guest who took the Salute in accordance with military traditions.

Thousands of troops, attired in their ceremonial attire afterwards began their march-past, according their salute to His Excellency, the President, the Chief Guest on the occasion.

Rhythmic cultural troupes, made up of well-known artistes, school students and others from provincial levels added variety and magnificence to the parade as the days programme drew to a close.

Religious dignitaries of all denominations and a massive crowd of spectators witnessed the National Independence Day proceedings in Colombo.

More than two thousand artistes representing Colombo and all other districts in the country, in addition to some five thousand tri-service, Police and Civil Security Department personnel took part in the parade.

Many cultural events and marches by tri forces, police and the civil defence forces colored the event.

- Asian Tribune -

Follow this link:

Economic freedom achievable through knowledge based economy, innovative technical skill development - President - Asian Tribune

The leaders of 15 global brands including Dow Chemical have recommended the replacement of three widely used chemicals made by Dow as part of the Ellen MacArthur Foundations New Plastics Economy initiative.

The foundations new report, "The New Plastics Economy Catalyzing Action," released last month at the World Economic Forum in Davos, recommended replacing polystyrene (PS), expanded polystyrene (EPS) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) as packaging materials globally.

The recommendation significantly couldtransform the plastics industry, setting off a search for replacement materials. The report singled out these three materials as "uncommon" plastic packaging materials whose replacement would make a "huge impact."

Replacement of PVC, EPS and PS would enhance the economics of recycling and reduce the potential negative impact of these materials as "substances of concern," the report said.

Polystyrene has raised occupational safety concerns in its production. EPS foam crumbles readily into small pellets widely found during beach cleanups and in the digestive system of birds and fish that can mistake it for food. PVC has been used for packaging and intravenous medical bags, and contains plasticizers with phthalates linked to a host of health disorders that can damage the liver, kidneys, lungs and reproductive system.

EPS foam may pose a higher risk to marine animals than other plastics due to research showing it can accumulate high concentrations of water-borne toxins.

The signatories include the leaders of Amcor, Carrefour, Coca-Cola Co, Constantina Flexibles, Danone, LOreal, Marks & Spencer, Mars, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, Sealed Air, Suez, Unilever, Veolia and perhaps most significant, Dow Chemical. Dow CEO Andrew Liveris praised the report as "a key step in delivering science-based solutions by providing options that help us close resource loops for plastics." Dow manufactures styrene, polystyrene and vinyl chloride monomer, used in the production of PVC

EPS has been widely used as takeout food packaging but rarely recycled and is often contaminated with waste food, making it harder to recycle. EPS foam may pose a higher risk to marine animals than other plastics due to research showing it can accumulate high concentrations of water-borne toxins in a short time frame. PS has caused decreased reproduction in laboratory populations of oysters and fish.

Several companies have moved to phase out use of EPS foam following the passage of bans and restrictions on foam in more than 100 U.S. cities. At least eight countries also have banned some uses of PS foam.

The MacArthur report also called for a global protocol to reduce the number of plastics in use to those that are least toxic and most recyclable.Its recommendations align with As You Sows long-standing efforts to promote sustainable packaging.

In 2011, As You Sow engaged McDonalds and Dunkin Brands, which were using EPS foam beverage cups, to phase out their use in the U.S. McDonalds agreed to do so in 2013 and opted for paper cups. Dunkin also committed to phaseout but has not yet followed through. Due to increasing concerns about the impact of plastic pollution in the ocean, As You Sow returned this year to ask McDonald's to expand the foam cup phaseout globally, after reports of its continued use in other markets.

Dell has pioneered the use of mushroom-based compostable molded cushions as an alternative to foam.

We also began to query three major e-commerce brands Amazon, Target and Walmart about their use of EPS foam packaging. Dell and Ikea have taken leadership roles in phasing out foam as a packing material.

In announcing its commitment to phase out EPS foam last year, Peter Larsson, packaging sustainability leader at IKEA, stated: "Why should we fill the air in our flat packs with something that is more dangerous than the air itself?"Ikea said its previous use equaled 7,400 trucks filled with foam, equivalent to more than half the volume of the Empire State Building. It now uses recyclable fiber-based packing materials.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos stated in a 2013 letter to customers that no EPS foam is used in its frustration-free packaging, but that likely applies to a small amount of packaging relative to total packages shipped by the company. We are awaiting responses from all three companies about the extent of their use of EPS foam. Dell has pioneered the use of mushroom-based compostable molded cushions as an alternative to foam. The company says 72 percent of its flat-panel monitors and 65 percent of desktops are packaged in foam-free sustainably sourced materials.

Read the original:

From Amcor to Dow to Veolia, what the 'New Plastics Economy' means - GreenBiz

Adrian Calcaneo

E. Adrian Calcaneo is the founder of the Council for North American Policy, a think tank whose mission is to foster an understanding of the contempora

The Trump administrations proposed Mexico policies regarding immigration and trade will make Americas fears a reality.

Minutes after descending from the golden escalator at Trump Tower, Donald Trump fired the first salvo at what would eventually become one of his favorite electoral targets during his presidential campaign: Mexico. Trump attacked the southern neighbor from two different fronts: immigration and trade. In hisfirst speechas a presidential candidate he stated clearly his adversarial vision of Mexico:

When do we beat Mexico at the border? Theyre laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But theyre killing us economically. The US has become a dumping ground for everybody elses problems When Mexico sends its people, theyre not sending their best Theyre sending people that have lots of problems, and theyre bringing those problems with us. Theyre bringing drugs. Theyre bringing crime. Theyre rapists.

On the surface, these two issuesimmigration and tradecould seem unrelated. In reality, these are two policy areas that are heavily intertwined and, along with national security, are the main pillars of one of the United States most important relations with a foreign nation.

The focus on immigration, particularly undocumented, soon gave birth to one of Trumps greatest campaign devices: the building of a wall between the US and Mexico. Taking the issue further, not only was he advocating that the wall be built, but also proposed thatMexico pays for it. Build That Wall became a campaign rallying cry in subsequent months and one of the key promises of the Republican candidate.

The purpose of the wall came along with thepromiseto secure the border and create a deportation force to remove the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the US. Since about half of the undocumented US population is thought to come from Mexico, this narrative quickly added toxicity to the rhetoric that the Trump campaign had toward Mexico.

The electoral benefits of such a stance were evident, as hard talk on immigration remains one of the best ways to mobilize the conservative base. Moreover, adding trade and NAFTA to the rhetoric allowed Trump to break a traditional democratic stronghold and gain support of middle-class workers whose jobs prospects might have suffered due to globalization.

This perception of a southern border being overrun by undocumented people, however, is very different from what the numbers say. The Pew Research center recentlyreportedthat more Mexicans are leaving the country than coming in, and the US Border patrol statistics show that apprehensions at the border, a metric used to calculate undocumented crossings, are currently at a 40-year low. In other words, the facts regarding immigration from Mexico do not match Trumps campaign rhetoric.

Among the most important reasons for this shift is the fact that Mexican population growth has decreased considerably. In 1970, Mexican fertility rate was almost seven births per woman, one of the worlds highest. A couple decades later, about the time where the population born in the 1970s reached adulthood, the US experienced a peak in undocumented immigration from Mexico. The Mexican fertility rate since 2000 has been just above two births per woman and declining. In short, there are simply not enough young Mexican people for the migration levels to return to the levels of the 1990s.

Immigration is usually composed of both push and pull factors. The example of high fertility rates combined with the macroeconomic mismanagement Mexico experienced in the 1980s and 1990s were obvious push factors that led to more Mexican migration to the US. Since the late 1990s, macroeconomic management in Mexico has been prudent and has not experienced any self-inflicted recessions.

Economic growth, while not at the countrys full economic potential, has been consistent and allowed the economy to create enough jobs and stability to produce a pull effect that allowed Mexicans to have other options rather than immigrating to the US. The impact of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the opening of the Mexican economy to the world were key components of this new Mexican reality.

Regarding trade, Trumps statement that Mexico was killing us economically was the preamble of another great campaign device: the desire to renegotiate or repeal NAFTA. Early in the campaign, NAFTA became one of Trumps favorite targets, often referring to it as the worst trade deal ever.

Along with China, Mexicothrough NAFTAwas blamed for the loss of thousands, if not millions, of US jobs, particularly in manufacturing. Through this anti-free trade rhetoric, Trump was able to tap into the anger of certain strata of the population, particularly those in the manufacturing sector, who saw their factories close and move abroad over the last few decades. This allowed him to break the so called Democratic blue wall and capture the support of people in the rust belt and key states like Ohio and Wisconsin that paved the way for his presidency. Mexico, in the eyes of someTrump supporters, is not only a source of undocumented immigration, but also a country that is taking jobs away from the US.

According to theUS Census Bureau,in the first 11 months of 2016 trade between Mexico and the US reached $482 billion dollars, making Mexico the third largest US trading partner and second largest destination for US exports in the world. As a matter of perspective, during the stated period, Mexico bought more US products than China, Japan and the United Kingdomthe third, fourth and fifth export destinations for the US,combined.

One of Trumpsmain argumentsto support his animosity toward Mexico and China is the current trade deficit the US holds with these countries. The US Census Bureaudatashows that while the trade deficit with China is by far the greatest($319 billion),the deficit with Mexico is much smaller ($58.8 billion) and similar to other US trade deficits with Germany ($59.6 billion) and Japan ($62.4 billion). It goes without saying that none of these three countries are part of NAFTA.

Deficits cannot be solely attributed to free trade agreements. One explanation for President Trumps focus on China and Mexico could be outsourcing. Companies are not known to move US jobs to Germany, Canada and Japan, but there is no denying that this has occurred to some extent with China and Mexico.

However, placing outsourcing to China and Mexico in the same category is a gross misunderstanding of current international trade trends and the benefits of regional integrated supply chains. When a company moves jobs to China, it takes the vast majority of the production chain with it. This makes sense from a geographical standpoint, since production requires proximity to the supply chain.

The case of Mexico is very different. As a general rule, companies moved only part of their production to Mexico. In most cases, it was the low-skilled, labor-intensive portions of the production process. This allowed companies to keep higher-skilled jobs in the US by leveraging the cheaper labor in Mexico to produce parts and other necessary components of production. In other words, by moving some low-skill jobs to Mexico, manufacturers are allowed to keep part of their production in the US as opposed to sending the whole production chain to China.

The results are quite clear. According to theWilson Center, a Chinese export has about 3-4% of US made contents/inputs, while a Mexican export product has, on average, 40% of US made content/inputs. Out of the $270 billion Mexican exports to the US, $108 billionaround 40%eventually end up back in US companies due to the benefits of supply chain integration.

As an example, the number one US import and export with Mexico is the automobile. Due to supply chain integration, cars cross the border multiple times during production. One can argue that there is no such thing as a US, Mexican or Canadian-made automobile but rather a North American one. In the words of President John F. Kennedy: A rising tide lifts all boats.

President Trump continuously boasts his business acumen and credentials. Is it good business to ostracize your second largest customer? Furthermore, supply chain integration with Mexico makes the US and its exports more competitive worldwide. The US Chamber of Commerce states that trade with Mexico supports up tosix million US jobs. A high percentage of these jobs will be put in jeopardy if relations are meddled with. Is it wise to trade those jobs for the estimated 800,000 low-skilled and low-paid jobs that the US lost to Mexico?

As stated, thinking of immigration and trade policy as two different issues is a mistake. Along with national security, these are deeply intertwined and one must be careful to act without considering the implications across all three realms.

Unfortunately, so far this is what Trumps policy toward Mexico appears to be doing. The historical low levels of apprehension at the border, not seen since 1973, hardly justify building a $25-billion wall on the border. Indicating that NAFTA is the main culprit of the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US without mentioning advances and growth in robotics used in manufacturing only tells a small part of the story.

Mexico has made tremendous strides during the last decade toward creating economic incentives to keep its citizens within its borders. A large part of these economic incentives is derived from the burgeoning trade with the US. In 1993, the year before NAFTA was implemented, US-Mexico trade was$81 billion dollars, according to the US Census Bureau. In comparison, through November 2016, yearly total trade between the countries reached more than $481 billion dollars. Mexico made the transition from a natural resource-based economy into one based increasingly on complex manufacturing.

Prosperity in Mexico has several benefits for the US: less undocumented migration, increased security and higher demand for US products. It is hard to find a better example of a win-win-win.

The frontal attack of the Trump administration on this equilibrium, particularly NAFTAand hence the stability of Mexicocould have dire consequences for both countries. A withdrawal from NAFTA could prove disastrous in the short term for Mexico as 80% of its exports are destined for the US. Mexico could easily end up in a steep recession that could cost millions of Mexicans their jobs and sources of income. It is easy to imagine the consequences of what would happen if up to a million maquiladora workers right across the US-Mexico border suddenly find themselves unemployed. If history serves as guide,Mexico will see a spike in organized crime activity and migration to the US.

While the argument has been that current undocumented immigration numbers do not justify President Trumps focus and escalation on the border, his nationalistic vision on trade could end up destabilizing Mexico to the point where people begin migrating north in numbers large enough to make the need for a wall a reality. His proposed policies are, therefore, counterproductive for both the US and Mexico as they could deteriorate this delicate balance to the point that his pessimistic and largely unsupported by facts vision becomes a reality.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observers editorial policy.

Photo Credit:Ruskpp

Join our community of more than 1,700 contributors to publish your perspective, share your narrative and shape the global discourse. Become a Fair Observer and help us make sense of the world.

Originally posted here:

Trump's Flawed Logic Regarding US-Mexico Relations - Fair Observer

Attention economics is an approach to the management of information that treats human attention as a scarce commodity, and applies economic theory to solve various information management problems. Put simply by Matthew Crawford, "Attention is a resourcea person has only so much of it."[1]

In this perspective Thomas H. Davenport and J. C. Beck define the concept of attention as:

Attention is focused mental engagement on a particular item of information. Items come into our awareness, we attend to a particular item, and then we decide whether to act. (Davenport & Beck 2001, p.20)

As content has grown increasingly abundant and immediately available, attention becomes the limiting factor in the consumption of information.[2] A number of software applications either explicitly or implicitly take attention economy into consideration in their user interface design, based on the realization that if it takes the user too long to locate something, they will find it through another application. This is done, for instance, by creating filters to make sure the first content a viewer sees is relevant, of interest, or with the approval of demographics.[3] An attention-based advertising scheme may say they are measuring the number of "eyeballs" by which their content is seen.[4]

Herbert A. Simon was perhaps the first person to articulate the concept of attention economics when he wrote:

"...in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it" (Simon 1971, pp.4041).

He noted that many designers of information systems incorrectly represented their design problem as information scarcity rather than attention scarcity, and as a result they built systems that excelled at providing more and more information to people, when what was really needed were systems that excelled at filtering out unimportant or irrelevant information (Simon 1996, pp.143144).

In recent years, Simon's characterization of the problem of information overload as an economic one has become more popular. Business strategists such as Thomas H. Davenport or Michael H. Goldhaber have adopted the term "attention economy" (Davenport & Beck 2001).

Some writers have even speculated that "attention transactions" will replace financial transactions as the focus of our economic system (Goldhaber 1997, Franck 1999). Information systems researchers have also adopted the idea, and are beginning to investigate mechanism designs which build on the idea of creating property rights in attention (see Applications).

According to digital culture expert Kevin Kelly, the modern attention economy is increasingly one where the consumer product costs nothing to reproduce and the problem facing the supplier of the product lies in adding valuable intangibles that cannot be reproduced at any cost. He identifies these intangibles as:[5]

Attention economy is also relevant to the social sphere. More specifically, long term attention can also be considered according to the attention that a person dedicates managing its interactions with others. Dedicating too much attention to these interactions can lead to "social interaction overload", i.e. when people are overwhelmed in managing their relationships with others, for instance in the context of social network services in which people are the subject of a high level of social solicitations. Digital media and the internet facilitate participation in this economy, by creating new channels for distributing attention. Ordinary people are now empowered to reach a wide audience by publishing their own content and commenting on the content of others.[6]

Social attention can also be associated to collective attention, i.e. how "attention to novel items propagates and eventually fades among large populations." (Wu & Huberman 2007)

"Attention economics" treats a potential consumer's attention as a resource.[7] Traditional media advertisers followed a model that suggested consumers went through a linear process they called AIDA - Attention, Interest, Desire and Action. Attention is therefore a major and the first stage in the process of converting non-consumers. Since the cost to transmit advertising to consumers is now sufficiently low that more ads can be transmitted to a consumer (e.g. via online advertising) than the consumer can process, the consumer's attention becomes the scarce resource to be allocated. Dolgin also states that a superfluidity of information may hinder the decision making of an individual who keeps searching and comparing products as long as it promises to provide more than it is using up.[8]

One application treats various forms of information (spam, advertising) as a form of pollution or 'detrimental externality'. In economics an externality is a by-product of a production process that imposes burdens (or supplies benefits), to parties other than the intended consumer of a commodity. For example; air and water pollution are negative externalities which impose burdens on society and the environment.

A market-based approach to controlling externalities was outlined in Ronald Coase's The Problem of Social Cost (Coase 1960). This evolved from an article on the Federal Communications Commission (Coase 1959), in which Coase claimed that radio frequency interference is a negative externality that could be controlled by the creation of property rights.

Coase's approach to the management of externalities requires the careful specification of property rights and a set of rules for the initial allocation of the rights. Once this has been achieved, a market mechanism can theoretically manage the externality problem. The solution is not necessarily simple in its application to media content (Hay 1996).

Sending huge numbers of e-mail messages costs spammers very little, since the costs of e-mail messages are spread out over the internet service providers that distribute them (and the recipients who must spend attention dealing with them). Thus sending out as much spam as possible is a rational strategy: even if only 0.001% of recipients (1 in 100,000) is converted into a sale, a spam campaign can be profitable (Mangalindan 2002). Spammers are demanding valuable attention from potential customers, but they are avoiding paying a fair price for this attention due to the current architecture of e-mail systems.

One way this might be implemented is by charging senders a small fee per e-mail sent, often referred to as a "Sender Bond." It might be close to free for an advertiser to send a single e-mail message to a single recipient, but sending that same e-mail to 1000 recipients would cost him 1000 times as much. A 2002 experiment with this kind of usage-based e-mail pricing found that it caused senders to spend more effort targeting their messages to recipients who would find them relevant, thus shifting the cost of deciding whether a given e-mail message is relevant from the recipient to the sender (Kraut 2002).

Closely related is the idea of selling "interrupt rights," or small fees for the right to demand one's attention (Fahlman 2002). The cost of these rights could vary according to the interruptee: interrupt rights for the CEO of a Fortune 500 company would presumably be extraordinarily expensive, while those of a high school student might be lower. Costs could also vary for an individual depending on context, perhaps rising during the busy holiday season and falling during the dog days of summer. Interruptees could decline to collect their fees from friends, family, and other welcome interrupters.

Another idea in this vein is the creation of "attention bonds," small warranties that some information will not be a waste of the recipient's time, placed into escrow at the time of sending (Loder, Van Alstyne & Wash 2004). Like the granters of interrupt rights, receivers could cash in their bonds to signal to the sender that a given communication was a waste of their time or elect not to cash them in to signal that more communication would be welcome.

Supporters of attention markets for controlling spam claim that their solutions are superior to the alternatives for managing uses of information systems on which there is no consensus on the question of whether it is pollution or not. For example, the use of e-mail or text messages for rallying political support or by non-profit charitable organizations may be considered spam by some users but legitimate use by others. Laws against spam put the power to make this decision in the hands of government, while technological solutions like filtering technologies put it in the hands of private companies or technologically savvy users. A market-based solution, on the other hand, allows the possibility of individual negotiation over the worth of a given message rather than a unilateral decision by a controlling party (Loder, Van Alstyne & Wash 2004, p.10). Such negotiation itself consumes attention and carries with it an attention cost, though.

As search engines have become the primary means for finding and accessing information on the web, high rankings in the results for certain queries have become valuable commodities, due to the ability of search engines to focus searchers' attention. Like other information systems, web search is vulnerable to pollution: "Because the Web environment contains profit seeking ventures, attention getting strategies evolve in response to search engine algorithms" (Page 1998). It is estimated that successful exploitation of such strategies, known as web spam, is a potential $4.5 billion per year business (Singhal 2004, p.16).

Since most major search engines now rely on some form of PageRank (recursive counting of hyperlinks to a site) to determine search result rankings, a gray market in the creation and trading of hyperlinks has emerged. Participants in this market engage in a variety of practices known as link spamming, link farming, and reciprocal linking.

However, as opponents of the "nofollow" attribute point out, while this solution may make it incrementally easier for search engines to detect link spam, it does not appreciably change the incentive structure for link spammers unless 100% of existing systems are upgraded to support the standard: as long as some critical mass of spammable sites exists, link spam will continue. Furthermore, the "nofollow" attribute does nothing to combat link farming or reciprocal linking. There is also a philosophical question of whether the links of site commentators (as opposed to site owners) should be treated as "second-class," leading to the claim that the attribute "heists commentators' earned attention" (NoNoFollow.net 2005).

Another issue, similar to the issue discussed above of whether or not to consider political e-mail campaigns as spam, is what to do about politically motivated link campaigns or Google bombs (Tatum 2005). Currently the major search engines do not treat these as web spam, but this is a decision made unilaterally by private companies. There is no opportunity for negotiation over the question of what is an appropriate use of attention expressed through hyperlinking. It remains to be seen[vague] whether a market-based approach might provide more flexible handling of these gray areas.

The paid inclusion model, as well as more pervasive advertising networks like Yahoo! Publisher Network and Google's AdSense, work by treating consumer attention as the property of the search engine (in the case of paid inclusion) or the publisher (in the case of advertising networks). This is somewhat different from the anti-spam uses of property rights in attention, which treat an individual's attention as his or her own property.

Originally posted here:

Attention economy - Wikipedia

This is the chapter by Kelly Mitchell omitted from his book Gold Wars, and we publish it here alongside his letter to us.

Economy means efficiency - a lack of waste Peter Joseph

Imagine a world without telemarketers, without advertising, without someone trying to sell you something constantly, without a propaganda industry trying to convince everyone their empty lives will be filled by the latest gadget/fragrance/object, without logos, and without soulless consumption. Imagine a world without money. Money is useful as a medium of exchange, but a world where all human needs (and most reasonable desires) are readily fulfilled is only possible without money. We are the sole species that pays to live on this planet. This society would simply terminate private property as an arcane, useless and even wasteful fixation. The age of ownership would recede into memory a necessary, but immature phase in our societal growth. Sounds insane, right? But if all human needs can be met, if most non-harmful and physically possible desires can be universally met, then property would be pointless - merely a pathetic, failed means to bolster the self-worth of adult children. Such a world moves through purpose, not paper. It is sustainable. Its called a Resource Based Economy (RBE). The ethic of the resource based economy is to align with natural law. We cannot consume past the earths ability to provide. An RBE catalogs and utilizes planetary resources in the most efficient method we can create for the good of all humanity. Money is not necessary and everyone has access to all goods and services. Planetary resources cannot be claimed by individuals, but are publicly owned. Many proponents of the system now exist, most notably the Zeitgeist Movement.

Conceptual cities have been detailed with full energy independence, complete food self-sufficiency, and awesomely convenient public transportation. Designed cities can have immensely higher efficiencies than the ad hoc ones currently in use. They can maximize human satisfaction through good planning, clean air, water, and organic food. This would not restrict anyone living in the country and fully utilizing technology, either. All choices are voluntary - there is no coercion. If someone is using property, it is not available for others, of course. But no one could own immense tracts of land, letting them lie fallow with no public access.

Certain mandatory measures toward a more sustainable direction must be met the economy must change from a growth to a steady state economy. 1) The monetary system must be eliminated - it creates scarcity. 2) We must move from a competitive to a collaborative model. This will eliminate redundant products, just for monetary competition. It will also eliminate inferior products because all players have full knowledge access and there is no financial incentive to build junk. In a collaborative world, every innovation can draw on all knowledge - nothing is proprietary or withheld. 3) Total open source knowledge. Centralization of knowledge requires distribution of production, but in a coordinated manner. Locally produced goods would be available for all needs. Earth could be catalogued and inventoried as per resources and energy supplies. Action could be taken well ahead of time to avert crisis. A simple form of this is feasible right now, but knowledge is proprietary and resources are owned by elites. Open-source knowledge would eliminate duplication of efforts and mass resource wasting. It would allow for the best understanding and processes to emerge without the current artificial constraints. Global collaboration would overcome the barriers of competition and proprietary knowledge. Humanity would experience an explosion of progress in knowledge, ideas, ideologies, and technology. Eliminating the monetary system would remove the need to suppress competitive technologies like alternative energy (which threatens big oil). Without the need to create energy scarcity for oil profits, those technologies would no longer be restricted.

4) Deliberate automation. The economy is headed to automation already. Artificial means of creating jobs exist (largely as public sector workers), just because the capitalist system demands work for pay. Virtually all factory workers could be replaced in a few years. All jobs with no social benefit (Wall street, finance, and so many public sector jobs) would be pointless. 65% of all jobs could be eliminated with current knowledge right now. Productivity is inverse to employment. The higher the productivity, the lower the employment. Its a marketplace function - people are much more expensive than machines. They need a house, food, car, etc. Machines only need their raw energy inputs and maintenance. Some machines can even repair themselves.

5) Eliminate property rights in favor of universal access for all goods and services. If all goods and services are freely available, multiple problems are instantly eliminated. Shared resources create abundance nothing is owned by individuals without ever being used. Nothing sits idle, so all that idle time is now useful time, requiring only a tiny percentage of current material goods to fully satisfy all human needs. Hoarding uses an enormous amount of resources. A car in constant use takes care of 20 people instead of 1. The problem of theft is entirely eliminated - if no one owns anything (or everyone owns everything) theft is pointless. 98% of all crime would disappear overnight. We can provide an excellent quality of life for all humans many times over, while eliminating war, crime, poverty, destitution and displacement. There is no need for any of that.

Many people have the feeling that the idea of a resource based economy is actually quite good, but it could never work. Obviously, an unlimited list of tedious procedural problems can be drafted what about people wanting land to homestead, for example? Rural versus urban vehicle use? Vandalism? But such a list are merely wrinkles to iron out through human ingenuity. The most common significant objections are some variation of the following: 1) This is communism. 2) Its utopian. 3) Its dystopian - a machine governed, totalitarian prone society/ technocracy. 4) Owning private property is fundamental to human life and society. 5) People will not be motivated to do unpleasant and dangerous jobs. 6) Its overwhelming. 7) The powers will never let it happen.

Some of these are valid concerns; some are merely philosophical dislikes. Its difficult to give complete answers because we are talking about a total restructure of society on a global level. Lets take the objections one at a time.

1) This is Communism! An RBE is not communism. First, capitalism and communism are not mutually exclusive systems - they work in tandem within a society. If we call any socialized project a shade of communism (as some do), then the military is a perfect example. It performs, in theory, a societal benefit - it defends the country. All the people pay for it through taxes. The military is the ultimate socialist institution. Roads, schools, hospitals, courts, police - many of the things we take for granted are socialized - paid for by the public and there (ostensibly) for the public good. Most people drive, want clean air, land and water in their town, need to feel safe, and believe in education as a right. These are socialist values, and they can exist right alongside of capitalist values of earning a living, owning property, and engaging in the marketplace economy. In fact, every family is communist do children pay rent? Do they work? No in a family, the unspoken rule is from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. One parent makes the money, the other takes care of the house, and the kids eat and live for free and go to school. Capitalism simply makes no sense for the internal operating structure of a family.

More to the point of the resource based economy, however it is not Communism because the labor supply side is totally missing. The labor is supplied primarily by machines. Certainly, some workers will be needed for planning and maintenance, but many, many people simply enjoy these activities. They will volunteer. People like work and they love to feel meaning in their work. Moreover, its not to each according to his needs. Each person has full access to anything they currently have - and a whole lot more. Because goods are well-made and communally owned, they are always available and far more durable.

2) Its utopian. This criticism stems from the fact that people do not have to work and have all needs provided. While true, there is far more needed for a utopian society. People will still have to deal with innate meaning, relationships, personal development and other social concerns. An RBE could never hope to solve such issues, but it can create far better opportunities for us to work on them, rather than being imprisoned in an increasingly senseless monetary system.

3) Its dystopian. This comes from the notion that it will be a centrally planned system, subject to political tyranny by controllers. While the need for central administration is obvious in terms of resource logistics, distribution and manufacturing, it need not translate into a political control. In any system, preventing dictators from seizing political control is incumbent on the population itself. People must remain aware. No economic system is immune. In fact, the monetary system of control allows for far easier dictatorial control because it creates an impossibly disproportionate distribution of wealth. A few people who control trillions of dollars and even the creation of currency exert so much control that the citizenry is rendered powerless. That is the current situation and it is a definition of oligarchical dictatorship. The people have no true voice, only the illusion.

4) Owning property is fundamental to humans. This is completely false. Ownership is largely an illusion - all you have is temporary possession and use. Even pre-historical societies were completely egalitarian all possessions were commonly owned. Societies exist now without individual property rights all resources are communally owned. They function on a tribal scale, so the challenge is to scale up. It is a formidable challenge, no doubt, but it is doable, if we all see the virtue and strive toward it. People do not need property or possessions, they need and desire the benefits of these things. If you always have access to a home and privacy within that, or to a sailboat, why would you want the individual expense of owning it? Even property taxes would cease - no one would complain about that. A limited ownership would still exist mainly the right to use something as long as needed. What other point is there to ownership?

5) Motivation. The basic problem is conceiving of an RBE through the lens of current reward system programming. As Dan Pinks book Drive showed, monetary incentives create a detrimental effect in terms of motivation and creativity. True motivators are autonomy, mastery and purpose. In an RBE, a sense of civic duty toward humanity would be easy to cultivate. Many people have such a desire already - its why we have philanthropy and volunteerism. Most difficult, dangerous and unpleasant jobs would be machine-doable anyway. All we would need is the technological push, which would come readily through complete open-source knowledge.

6) Its overwhelming. Very true - the project is inconceivably massive. Most people drop it initially but if they come across the ideas again, it seems more appealing. The concept is so alien to our current social programming that it feels a bit repugnant, strange, incomprehensible, or absurd. All I can do is encourage you to take an open mind and just ponder it dream a bit about the profound human potential. Any large task can seem overwhelming, but with many people, it becomes possible. And with enough people, it becomes inevitable. Even a total restructure of society can be done if we all wish it.

Now is the time for a change. As Barack Obama told the banking CEOs, My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. People are angry. The system is teetering. Power is shifting. The world is almost ready for a major change. If a determined global movement pushes, a simple move of capitalist power from West to East can be diverted to a more fundamental paradigm shift.

7) The powers will prevent it. This assumes they can prevent it. They can certainly hinder it, but powerful ideas, when they take hold, live longer than people. The current leaders will die and be replaced. Eventually a more conciliatory group will emerge, subject to a nascent ideology. From that perspective, we make a better world not for ourselves, but our children. We will never see it, but it is worth all the more for that. On a more immediate frame - leaders cannot resist a truly determined, awakened populace. Our leaders have ruled by some assumption that they (or a persons chosen subset) have better insights into managing society. That illusion is failing fast. Politicians are almost universally despised and seen as corrupt. No one trusts them to make decisions that honestly benefit society. They are no better than the average person and often they are far, far worse. All it will take is the people to unify under a greater vision and thats the real challenge of a resource based economy. People have enormous resistance based on previous societal conditioning. However, in a very immediate sense (the next few years), a paradigm shift is happening. Political power is being drained from the corrupted West and headed to an East anxious to prove its integrity to gain the worlds trust so that it can take the mantle of leadership by popular approval. In such a power shift, ideological doctrines have a way of inserting themselves and gaining serious traction. At a deeper level, capitalism may be unsustainable for the reasons listed above, especially on a planet with a ballooning population. From that perspective, all that is needed is to wait for the real collapse, educating as many people as we can in the meantime.

It may sound too good to be possible, but that is just a thought. It may be the only rational solution to our current predicament - for all its power, the monetary system has become open failure, detrimental to humanity. We may be forced to develop an RBE just to maintain a decent standard of life. We have based our society on enlightened self-interest, only to find that is a chimera a totally self-interested society devolves into narcissism and vulgar consumption. Our choice may boil down to global abundance or global destruction. In the end, all that limits us is our ability to transcend our social programming. If we can see a better world, one where basic goodness is known to live in every being, one where global abundance exists by the simple generosity of sharing like we teach children to do, one where conservative means to not waste resources and destroy the place, one where we do not own the Earth because you cannot own your mother, one where hubris becomes humility and greed becomes gratitude if we can visualize such a world, we can make it real.

Comment:

Much of this of course, we can agree with. Except we would point out that the type of society described here has always accurately been referred to as socialism or communism, as they mean the same thing the social or common ownership of the means of living. That so-called Communist countries (really systems of state-run capitalism) like the former USSR, China, East Germany, etc abused the term is not in our view a reason to disassociate ourselves from it. After all, these states called themselves democratic too!

Regarding, the Zeitgeist Movement, we agree there are a number of positive features of this loosely structured organization, but there are sadly many problems with it too. Not the least of which is its lack of democratic internal attitudes and structures, as well as the fact a great many TZM members arguably the majority have views more focused on attempts to reform capitalism (and its banking system, etc) than on the only solution to the social and economic problems of our time real socialism.

Editors

Follow this link:

A Resource Based Economy - worldsocialism.org

The resource-based economy (RBE)

Whilst the term resource-based economy could just as easily apply to the localised gift economy I advocate, its now more commonly understood to be a high-technology, globalised version of a non-monetary economy. Proponents of such an economy include Peter Joseph of the phenomenally popular The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM)(38) and Jacques Fresco of The Venus Project (TVP),(39) two projects which up until 2011 had been strongly associated with each other.

Their central premise is that in order to enjoy what these members perceive to be a high standard of living, people dont need money, but instead resources such as food, water, minerals and other materials. In fact, they claim that monetary economics actually prevents the fair distribution of such necessities of life. Advocates of such a system argue that the world is abundant, and that all of its resources could be utilised much more wisely and shared equally amongst all of humanity, not just those with financial prowess. Fresco advocates using the high levels of technology that humans are capable of creating, but within a resource-focused, economic model in which built-in obsolescence(40) makes zero sense. It is an economic model in which machines do any job that can be automated, and are used not to replace human labour in a way that leads to unemployment and all the social implications of that, but instead to shorten the working day for all, meaning much more leisure time and complete and free access to all the resources of the Earth and the technologies that are produced. It is a design where human ingenuity is tapped to collectively create the most efficient and sustainable technologies based on best practice and highest quality, and not reduced by the pressures of the competitive market where duplication and waste are inherent and rife. The monetary economy, they argue, and again I agree, is based on scarcity, whereas a resource-based economy is based on collective abundance.

Much of this I find admirable, especially the intentions behind it. Peter Joseph,(41) in particular, is a fascinating man whose analysis of many of the major problems we face today is insightful and his courage and dedication in raising awareness of the destructive consequences of monetary economics is exemplary. Yet I feel that by aiming for a high technology, highly complex version of a non-monetary economy, both TZM and TVP are making their vision almost impossible to realise.

Why? Aside from the fact that high technology has proven to be entirely counter-productive to our sense of happiness and connection to local place and community, a point Ill explain a little further on, for it to happen would require the entire worlds nations to get on board before we could even begin to think about achieving such a grand plan, as many of the minerals and materials that would be used (to make all the high technology products that RBE proponents want) come from all over the planet oil from the Middle East, copper from China, minerals from Africa, rubber from South America. Unless all of these diverse countries and regions signed up to such an economic model and philosophical perspective, it would be unworkable. Considering the complexities of the world and its nations, politics, cultures, laws and religions that I outlined earlier, this is highly unrealistic.

With a localised economy, anyone can start living in the non-monetary economy fairly immediately without having to wait for the political and corporate leaders of the US, Iran, Namibia and Mexico to relinquish their control and unite with their entire populations under a new moneyless world order. Not that I am suggesting that TZM or TVP are advocating that we ask permission from our governments to start enacting elements of their vision they certainly arent, and again on that I agree.

Even if a unification of world ideologies was possible, within this version of a resource-based economy there seems to lie the assumption that advanced technologies make us happy. If this were true, why is it that in easily the most technologically advanced period of human history, humankind has never been more depressed? Ive no doubt proponents of a globalised non-monetary economy would point out that the reasons for our current unhappiness are much more complex than that, and theyd be right, they are. At the same time, it is widely documented that those who live in low technology societies, past and present, express stronger feelings of happiness, contentment and connection to community and place than those of us in the global West, who survive on a collective diet of quick-fix antidepressants, escapism and self-help gurus.

Research such as The Happy Planet Index(42) by the New Economics Foundation (NEF)(43) backs up much anecdotal evidence to that effect. I and many people I know have travelled the length and breadth of undeveloped countries (the only thing developing about them is their debts to the International Monetary Fund and their cronies) and have encountered people in every village and town much happier, and more generous with their time, food and material possessions, than the vast majority of people I encounter in the advanced country I live in. A twenty year study by Helena Norberg-Hodge(44) of the modernisation of the Ladakhi people, as documented by her film Ancient Futures Learning from Ladakh,(45) powerfully demonstrates the effect of technology and its potent ability to destroy the very fabric of our communities. In their experience, after modernisation they had many more time-saving gadgets, yet somehow much less time. The story has been the same everywhere, and we all have experienced this to some extent.

Having lived both a high and low technology life myself, I can unequivocally state that my physical, mental, spiritual and emotional health increased as the role of high technology in my life decreased and the degree to which my life was localised increased. I dont want my table to be made by a machine, I want to make it with my own hands, or at least by the hands of my friend. Using our hands is crucial to our well-being, our sense of creativity, our relationship with the land. The only argument for a high technology non-monetary economy would be if it enabled us, and the rest of life on Earth, to live happier, more meaningful and freer lives. I have yet to see any evidence of that being the case, whilst our history is littered with examples of the opposite.

I would also argue that the separation from the rest of Nature that such high technology would inevitably cause would further diminish the lack of understanding of ecology and natural cycles, while simultaneously heightening the trauma that we endure from having no interaction with Nature in its wildest states. This disconnection would lead to the very same problems we have today and the deluded sense of self that gives rise to them. If humanity has no daily relationship and intimate connection with the Earth, how can it develop any sense of interdependence with it, or care or respect for it?

That said, there is still much we could learn from both the philosophy and practical solutions proposed by RBE advocates, and it all adds into the mixing pot of new ways of viewing economics and how we meet our needs in a more caring, sustainable and life-affirming manner. It is certainly not my intention to be unjustly critical of high technology RBEs (as I have nothing but the utmost respect for many of its intentions and efforts), but instead to help refine our collective thinking and unite us to some cause that we can actually achieve to some meaningful extent in our lifetimes.

Pay-it-forward

Pay-it-forward is a beautiful idea, popularised by a Hollywood film of the same title. It is a perspective that when you do something for somebody, and they ask you what they can do to help you in return, you tell them not to pay you back, but instead to look out for an opportunity to pay the favour forward by doing something useful for someone else, possibly someone theyve never even met before. Whilst there is still the tiniest element of conditionality about it (i.e. a request has still been made), its the most generous, loving form of conditionality I know of.

Regardless of whether you want to start applying some of these ideas, to various degrees, in the inner city or the woods, there will be both internal and external challenges to overcome, and Ill examine these, along with proposing transition strategies to navigate them successfully, in chapter four. These challenges will take time to overcome however, even if you do want to fully live beyond the need for money. To help you make the transition, or to simply incorporate degrees of moneylessness into your life, Ive co-created a tool to help you: the Progression of Principles (POP) model.

See more here:

Resource-based economy and pay-it-forward | The Moneyless ...

Recruitment (hiring) is a core function of human resource management. Recruitment refers to the overall process of attracting, selecting and appointing suitable candidates for jobs (either permanent or temporary) within an organization. Recruitment can also refer to processes involved in choosing individuals for unpaid positions, such as voluntary roles or unpaid trainee roles. Managers, human resource generalists and recruitment specialists may be tasked with carrying out recruitment, but in some cases public-sector employment agencies, commercial recruitment agencies, or specialist search consultancies are used to undertake parts of the process. Internet-based technologies to support all aspects of recruitment have become widespread.[1]

In situations where multiple new jobs are created and recruited for the first time or vacancies are there or the nature of a job has substantially changed, a job analysis might be undertaken to document the knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs) required or sought for the job. From these the relevant information is captured in such documents as job descriptions and job specifications. Often, a company already has job descriptions for existing positions. Where already drawn up, these documents may require review and updating to reflect current requirements. Prior to the recruitment stage, a person specification should be finalized.[2]

Sourcing is the use of one or more strategies to attract or identify candidates to fill job vacancies. It may involve internal and/or external recruitment advertising, using appropriate media, such as job portals,local or national newspapers, specialist recruitment media, professional publications, window advertisements, job centers, or in a variety of ways via the internet.

Alternatively, employers may use recruitment consultancies or agencies to find otherwise scarce candidateswho, in many cases, may be content in their current positions and are not actively looking to move. This initial research for candidatesalso called name generationproduces contact information for potential candidates, whom the recruiter can then discreetly contact and screen.[2]

Various psychological tests can assess a variety of KSAOs, including literacy. Assessments are also available to measure physical ability. Recruiters and agencies may use applicant tracking systems to filter candidates, along with software tools for psychometric testing and performance-based assessment.[3] In many countries, employers are legally mandated to ensure their screening and selection processes meet equal opportunity and ethical standards.[2]

Employers are likely to recognize the value of candidates who encompass soft skills such as interpersonal or team leadership.[4] Many companies, including multinational organizations and those that recruit from a range of nationalities, are also often concerned about whether candidate fits the prevailing company culture.[5]

The word disability carries few positive connotations for most employers. Research has shown that employer biases tend to improve through first-hand experience and exposure with proper supports for the employee[6] and the employer making the hiring decisions. As for most companies, money and job stability are two of the contributing factors to the productivity of a disabled employee, which in return equates to the growth and success of a business. Hiring disabled workers produce more advantages than disadvantages.[7] There is no difference in the daily production of a disabled worker.[8] Given their situation, they are more likely to adapt to their environmental surroundings and acquaint themselves with equipment, enabling them to solve problems and overcome adversity as with other employees. The U.S. IRS grants companies Disabled Access Credit when they meet eligibility criteria.[9]

Many major corporations recognize the need for diversity in hiring to compete successfully in a global economy.[10] Other organizations, for example universities and colleges, have been slow to embrace diversity as an essential value for their success.[11]

Recruitment Process Outsourcing, or commonly known as "RPO" is a form of business process outsourcing (BPO) where a company engages a third party provider to manage all or part of its recruitment process.

Internal recruitment (not to be confused with internal recruiters!) refers to the process of a candidate being selected from the existing workforce to take up a new job in the same organization, perhaps as a promotion, or to provide career development opportunity, or to meet a specific or urgent organizational need. Advantages include the organization's familiarity with the employee and their competencies insofar as they are revealed in their current job, and their willingness to trust said employee. It can be quicker and have a lower cost to hire someone internally.[12]

An employee referral program is a system where existing employees recommend prospective candidates for the job offered, and in some organizations if the suggested candidate is hired, the employee receives a cash bonus.[13]

Niche firms tend to focus on building ongoing relationships with their candidates, as the same candidates may be placed many times throughout their careers. Online resources have developed to help find niche recruiters.[14] Niche firms also develop knowledge on specific employment trends within their industry of focus (e.g., the energy industry) and are able to identify demographic shifts such as aging and its impact on the industry.[15]

Social recruiting is the use of social media for recruiting including sites like Facebook and Twitter or career-oriented social networking sites such as LinkedIn and XING.[16][17] It is a rapidly growing sourcing technique, especially with middle-aged people. On Google+, the fastest-growing age group is 4554. On Twitter, the expanding generation is people from ages 5564.[18]

Mobile recruiting is a recruitment strategy that uses mobile technology to attract, engage and convert candidates. Mobile recruiting is often cited as a growing opportunity for recruiters to connect with candidates more efficiently with "over 89% of job seekers saying their mobile device will be an important tool and resource for their job search."[19]

Some recruiters work by accepting payments from job seekers, and in return help them to find a job. This is illegal in some countries, such as in the United Kingdom, in which recruiters must not charge candidates for their services (although websites such as LinkedIn may charge for ancillary job-search-related services). Such recruiters often refer to themselves as "personal marketers" and "job application services" rather than as recruiters.[20][21]

Using Multiple-criteria decision analysis tools such as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and combining it with conventional recruitment methods provides an added advantage by helping the recruiters to make decisions when there are several diverse criteria to be considered or when the applicants lack past experience; for instance recruitment of fresh university graduates.[22]

In some companies where the recruitment volume is high, it is common to see a multi tier recruitment model where the different sub-functions are being group together to achieve efficiency.

An example of a 3 tier recruitment model:

View post:

Recruitment - Wikipedia

Survival of the Species

It has been stated on numerous occasions that the principal driving force for human achievement is working for the reward of monetary gain. The argument is a fallacy and isnt true. Even most communist countries use various forms of capitalist systems in their economic frame sets, and yet we have only a portion of people achieving a better life.

Time and time again weve heard the argument, without money there is no motivation or incentive to push humanity forward. Money being a motivator for human participation, for human achievement is flawed. The prime motivating factor of humanity is the survival of our species. It is inherent, it is in our genetic code, and it is in our very core ideology that we must try our damnedest to survive by nearly any means necessary. Our ancient ancestors constantly invented new ways of surviving, new tools for hunting without being motivated by money. They had a drive to survive in the harshest environments, and they prevailed because of their achievements, not because they got paid for hunting and gathering. The most incredible inventions in human history were not driven by greed, but by survival and war. The considerations behind creating one of the most destructive forces on the planet, the atomic bomb was to end World War II more swiftly. The end result of using the bomb was two destroyed Japanese cities, hundreds of thousands of people dead and an arms race between the east and west which resulted in humanity reaching for the stars.

Money is actually repressing humanity, inhibiting exploration, inhibiting the insurance of the survival of our species. We have a surplus of food; many poor people could easily be fed but are neglected because they dont have the right to eat because they didnt earn it. Its an enslaved mindset.

From the point of time when humanity started to walk upright, our survival has instinctively been territorial. Weve created borders, territories, and countries to insure various methods of segregationist survival. Even though humans are social creatures, who need love and affection, we still attune ourselves to our primal nature of territorial ownership. With all of humanitys great technological achievements, we need to stop thinking that survival of our species is only earth bound, since technically we are all currently stuck on this rock called earth. We, as a species need to move off planet to insure our survival since we have the technological means to do so. We are coded for survival; we are coded to explore our surroundings. To stay stationary on a rock which may eventually endure an extinction level event for humanity when we have the technological means to prevent our extinction goes against everything in our fiber of being.

Resource Based Economy, a Holistic Approach to Humanities Survival

A Resource Based Economy (RBE) is an economy that runs off of the current finite resources in our surroundings to insure human sustainability that has no use of money, no use of barter or trade. Part of the structuring of a RBE would be to insure humanity has developed awareness and consciousness that we are all one family and that we are all equal no matter what race, culture or religion we are. Technology and science are used to their fullest measure to develop and manage the planets resources to provide abundance for everyone without stripping the planet bare. In a RBE there is no state or government entity that owns earths resources, all resources are distributed and shared on a planetary level.

Some RBE advocates have suggested the need to rebuild new cities completely from the ground up, but that would be a blatant misuse of resources. We already have cities that we occupy; people have homes that they are attached to. It would take fewer resources to adapt already existing cities to fit the needs of the people.

We must first recognize that we live on a planet with finite resources, and we will eventually run the risk of having a resource shortfall, especially with the population explosions predicted for the near future. If there is a resource shortfall it would be detrimental to our species as a whole. We must eventually move away from extracting resources such as ore and minerals from earth, and utilize our technology to acquire the mass amounts of infinite resources that can be attained only in outer space. Setting up off world colonies, having robotic harvesters in the asteroid belt, mining missions to dead planets and even instituting food production off world would greatly improve humanitys chances at survival.

Currently, humanity is in despair. We have abundance shortfalls because corporations and governments rely on outdated systems that are thousands of years old. Poverty, homelessness and starvation only exist because we allow them to exist. Degradation of human life only exists because we allow it to exist.

Eventually, humanity will come to a point (and were close to that point) where it will have to make a decision. Insure the survival of our species and accept that we are a global community or continue down the path of greed and selfishness, initiating an ultimate slow decay and extinction of the human race.

Automation is on the rise, and it will continue to become more prevalent. As unemployment rises because of automated servants, workers and artificial intelligence taking over human labor and thinking, how will our future progeny pay bills under the current economic model? Understand that Moores Law is in effect; computing power tends to double itself every two years. Eventually, computers, machines, robots and Artificial Intelligence's will be in every occupation. They will learn to fix themselves, they will learn to troubleshoot and do anything a human would be able to do in any situation eventually. What then? We need a new economic model that would be symbiotic with our technology; the current capitalist economic model would only create a complete dystopian atmosphere for nearly every human on the planet. Why not embrace an economic model that would allow all humans who wished to participate in it (voluntarily) to flourish?

The only holistic approach that can be identified right now that would secure humanities future would be to embrace a RBE. Continuing on our careless capitalist corptocracy will insure that humanity eventually becomes a forgotten remnant of the universe we occupy. No one enjoys belonging to a scarcity based economic system, unless theyre at the top of the food chain.

Scarcity is an illusion.

Follow this link:

Resource Based Economy Anonymous Medium