Government’s ownership of the banks is limited and is created to stimulate money flow to the economy. The resent crisis is the most severe crisis after the great depression; therefore government buying the banks stocks seems very reasonable. There is not an exact estimation of the amount of ownership of the banks but it should be as much that it could stimulate the banks to start to loaning again and business to start producing. We certainly cannot criticize the fed’s involvement as Jones says in the Washington post, “Almost every day there’s a new program. It’s almost Rooseveltian, if that’s a word,” said David Jones, chief economist at DMJ Advisors in Denver and a longtime Fed watcher. He was referring to bold federal programs undertaken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s to battle the Great Depression. Certainly, the Fed is pressing against the bounds of its territory as the central bank. But we got into the Depression precisely because the Fed then stood by and watched most of the banking system fail, watched the money supply contract by a third, and did nothing about it. You cannot criticize this Fed for trying to do something about a crisis which has basically shut the flow of credit down to a trickle and poses a threat to the economy,” Jones said.
Congress created the Federal Reserve System so in case of a severe rescission or inflation the money supply could be controlled in a way that is most efficient for the economy. Even though its members are chosen by the president and are approved by the Senate, its overall decision does not have to be approved by the congress. Therefore the politicians are not going to be magnificently pressured to act a certain way, or favor a certain party. It is safest to let the fed help boost the current economy to a limited extent. Government should buy shares of banks only to stimulate the economy not to own the banks. Additionally the shares should be sold when the economy has recovered from the current economic crisis. While it’s too late for many of the banks in Wall Street including, to be helped and they have already called for bankruptcy, Goldman is still functioning well enough to keep all the employees and keep going. (Its 30,522 employees earned an average of $600,000 last year — an average that considers secretaries as well as traders.)The credit Crisis flooded Wall Street over the last years, Merrill, Citigroup and Lehman Brothers to maintain heavy losses on big bets in mortgages, even Goldman ended up losing money because of the great partnership in A.I.G which was bought by the government after it filed for bankruptcy.

A Humiliation

For some, oil is a curse. Corruption is often rife and there exists a dangerously unequal distribution of wealth in oil-rich countries. The people of such regions of the world, moreover, are exposed to the health hazards of living adjacent to a maze of oil fields and pipelines, which can also possibly explode and destroy large areas of property in their proximity. Nigeria is no exception. In fact, the recent pipeline explosion is an embarrassment to the Nigerian government, which must act now to avoid any further such incidents.
Consider the current status of Nigeria: its government is notorious worldwide for widespread corruption in dealing with the oil profits pouring into the country. With the government’s inability to distribute the wealth to the poorer regions of the country, it is no wonder riots are so widespread in Nigeria. Furthermore, if suspicions that MEND, the region’s main armed group, had attacked the twenty-four-inch pipeline operated by Shell’s local joint venture in southern Delta state are correct, then the recent pipeline explosion is a testament to the government’s huge unpopularity in the country. The attack is a major humiliation because while most countries around the world currently fear the attack of international terrorists, Nigeria is suffering attacks from within its own borders. Yet the country is not hopeless; if the government proves willing to reform itself and the economy, terrorist attacks within the country may one day no longer be a problem.
Although the task will no doubt prove to be a difficult one, the government must begin reforming the country’s economic sector as soon as possible. After all, MEND has been attacking the oil industry for about three years no; is it not time to start addressing the issue then? Or do Nigerians want to continue facing the humiliation of one pipeline explosion after another? Aside from the attacks, moreover, Nigeria can no longer ignore the poverty issues rampant in the region. But in order to address the economic crisis in the region, the Nigerian government must first resolve yet another problem: corruption within the government. This is especially true in light of the fact that although members of MEND may have directly caused the pipeline explosion, the real responsibility of the attack lies on the shoulders of crooked businessmen and politicians that have used the nation’s oil wealth to meet their own needs rather than to address, for instance, poverty in the nation’s very streets. Members of Mend, as a matter of fact, are not attacking the oil industry for no reason: their mission is to force the federal government to send more oil-industry funds to the impoverished southern region.
All in all, the recent oil pipeline explosion in Nigeria comes nothing short of a humiliation and a desperate call to the region’s government to reform itself. Once the government is cleansed of politics, only then can economic issues be addressed. One can only hope, however, that the Nigerian government will in fact act before yet another pipeline is destroyed.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D96MJ1MO1.htm

When the Act of Union merged the Kingdom of Ireland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, perhaps no one foresaw the resistance that would continue to trouble the shaky union more than two centuries later, in the twenty-first century. A new wave of violence by Northern Ireland dissidents against British officers, resulting in the death of several officials, in fact, has recently plagued the union. Although the attacks on British soldiers and police have sometimes been shockingly immoral, it is time nonetheless for Northern Ireland to gain its ever-desired independence.
When Mahatma Gandhi led India in its fight for independence from foreign domination in the early twentieth century, his practice of nonviolent resistance inspired other leaders across the world to follow similar methods. Colin Duffy, the leading Republican leader in Northern Ireland, was not one such leader. Colin Duffy, in fact, has allegedly been involved in a number of brutal attacks, sometimes fatal, against British police officers and soldiers—actions that have inspired fellow Irishmen to follow similar suit. One such attack involved the Protestant policemen shot point-blank into the backs of their heads while on foot patrol in 1997. More recently, in May2009, Colin was arrested on suspicions that he was involved in an attack on several unarmed off-duty soldiers as they picked up their pizza from two deliverymen. This last attack is absolutely brutal in light of the fact that the soldiers were unarmed and off-duty. Even more horrifying is that the two deliverymen, moreover, were seriously wounded. Such attacks by the Irish Republican Army are most importantly unhealthy for the region, as even innocent civilians must fear for their safety. An end to this violence must come now.
Although it would seem appropriate for British officials to deny Northern Ireland complete independence due to the recent attack on British guards, Northern Ireland must nevertheless be granted its freedom. In addition media is being Bias to this situation and blaming Ireland and denying its independence from Britain, by showing disturbing images and clips to create sympathy for the British soldiers. British soldiers and policemen, moreover, must be pulled out immediately, because only these actions will finally bring an end to violence in the region. After all, why should British officials have to worry themselves with violence in Ireland when more important issues such as the current recession-turning-into-depression and widespread strikes in the industrial sector are already plaguing the country? Regarding the cultural aspect of this dilemma, furthermore, the Catholic Northern Ireland does not fit quite so well in the puzzle with Protestant England, making it only more fit that the two regions end their 200-year-old union.
On the whole, violence in Northern Ireland will end only when dissidents are at last granted their desire of independence from foreign domination for their country. The British should therefore make no delays in moving towards such an end. Only time will show, however, whether the British are in fact ready to forgo power in Northern Ireland.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2009-14-1593091966_x.htm

The Implications of an Iranian Nuclear Energy Program

When the United States helped the Iranian Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi to launch Iran’s nuclear program in the 1950s as part of the Atoms for Peace program, it did not foresee the upcoming Islamic Revolution of 1979. The revolution, however, prompted much of the Western world, including the United States, to reduce its assistance to the program as it suspected Iran’s intentions to not be as peaceful as previously planned. Although Iran claims to be generating low-enriched nuclear materials for energy purposes, the United States worries that this is not the case.
Iran has fought all attempts to dismember its nuclear program and its leaders have repeatedly claimed its necessity for peaceful energy-related purposes, evidenced by the country’s generation of only low-enriched material. This need for assurance of a steady energy supply implicates that the nuclear program is nothing more than a confidence measure for the nation. Under the Atoms for Peace program, Iran’s claimed intentions pose no threat to international peace and security. It is for this reason, in fact, that the Western world supported Iran in the mid-twentieth century in launching is nuclear program. Under these circumstances, Iran, one would assume, would have nothing to hide from the rest of the world. Yet Iran’s failure to declare all nuclear facilities and materials in a timely fashion has resulted in international suspicion of plans for an Iranian nuclear weapons program in the near future. While media attempts to cover all of the speeches that (Iranian President) Mahmood Ahmadi Nejad has made regarding the nuclear activities, it fails to cover obama’s speeches about any offering solutions.
Due to Iran’s inability to cooperate appropriately with international inspections of its nuclear program, the United States fears Iran’s leaders plan to use their nuclear energy program for more than just peaceful energy resources, possibly even for building a nuclear bomb. This worry is not at all unfounded; Iran, for instance, has recently blocked International Atomic Energy’s efforts to investigate its nuclear program. If Iran is in fact working towards a nuclear weapons program, the United States, and certainly the rest of the world, has much to fear. What if Iran, for example, is successful in building a nuclear bomb? Powerful weapons in the hands of the wrong people can have terrible consequences. The Islamic Republic, for instance, may feel the urge to drop the bomb on its enemy nation Israel. Can a Third World War possibly pursue? It should be of no wonder that the United States no longer supports an Iranian nuclear program.
Not surprisingly, the Untied States fears the implications of an Iranian nuclear energy program despite Iran’s repeated claim that its use of nuclear energy is only for peaceful purposes. Although the Western world can attempt to peacefully urge Iran’s leaders to abandon their nuclear program by offering incentives, this strategy too closely follows one that has already proven to be completely unsuccessful and, if anything, disastrous: that of appeasement before the eruption of the Second World War. Only time will show, however, if the world is in fact headed for a Third World War.

British Jobs for British Workers

In the United States of America, domestic workers are currently battling the increasing tide of Mexican labor. A similar situation has risen in the United Kingdom of Great Britain as citizens are protesting against domestic companies that have hired Italian and Portuguese workforces. The growing collective strength of the Unite union may in fact cost foreigners their jobs within Britain’s borders. Nevertheless, although the recent strike in Britain has indeed endangered the job security of foreigners, United Kingdom citizens have every right to protect domestic labor in their country. In addition the media always uses these situations to portray the unsatisfactory of the citizens in a certain country , in this case Britain.
As British strikers have claimed “in the wise words of Gordon Brown, UK jobs for British Workers” on their various placards and banners, these protesters are hoping their home country’s companies will cease to hire foreigners as they have signed to do so in official contracts with companies such as the Italian IREM. With the global recession we are in now, these jobs may in very truth be the only jobs these foreigners have been able to get a hold of. Is it therefore not hypocritical of British citizens to protect their own job security while at the same time they are putting the jobs, and perhaps the only ones, of hundreds of foreigners on the line? Put more flatly, can the recent strike in Britain be considered ethical? Do not foreigners such as the Portuguese and Italians have every right to work just as the British do?
Well, although one may consider British strikers hypocritical, the truth of the matter is that British Prime Minister Brown Gordon promised British jobs for British citizens and these are honest British citizens fighting fro British jobs. Even more importantly, did not Gordon Brown say he “came into politics to help people out of unemployment?” British workers, moreover, are not at all hypocritical for fighting against foreigners for domestic jobs because these workers have families to feed and, however harsh reality may be, sometimes one family must suffer for another to survive. If this was not the case, then there would be no reason for competition to exist in the first place; if every person on the planet has access to a job he or she desires, then why would anyone bother to show that he or she is more qualified then another person? Referring back to the British strike, these protesters are in fact more qualified for domestic jobs simply because these companies are in their country. British strikers must thus continue protecting domestic labor in their country until British companies cease to hire foreign labor. At the same time British strikers who have been taking their job opportunities for granted, and did not do their best in their jobs, now have competition which could be a cause of progress for British workers.
Despite the loss to foreigners, overall, British citizens have the right to and must in fact continue to protest against the decisions of domestic companies to hire non-British workforces. Otherwise, an unfortunate series of events may cause British citizens to resort to violence toward the companies’ assets as well as the foreigners who have taken over their jobs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/oil-refinery-dispute

For some, oil is a curse. Corruption is often rife and there exists a dangerously unequal distribution of wealth in oil-rich countries. The people of such regions of the world, moreover, are exposed to the health hazards of living adjacent to a maze of oil fields and pipelines, which can also possibly explode and destroy large areas of property in their proximity. Nigeria is no exception. In fact, the recent pipeline explosion is an embarrassment to the Nigerian government, which must act now to avoid any further such incidents.
Consider the current status of Nigeria: its government is notorious worldwide for widespread corruption in dealing with the oil profits pouring into the country. With the government’s inability to distribute the wealth to the poorer regions of the country, it is no wonder riots are so widespread in Nigeria. Furthermore, if suspicions that MEND, the region’s main armed group, had attacked the twenty-four-inch pipeline operated by Shell’s local joint venture in southern Delta state are correct, then the recent pipeline explosion is a testament to the government’s huge unpopularity in the country. The attack is a major humiliation because while most countries around the world currently fear the attack of international terrorists, Nigeria is suffering attacks from within its own borders. Yet the country is not hopeless; if the government proves willing to reform itself and the economy, terrorist attacks within the country may one day no longer be a problem.
Although the task will no doubt prove to be a difficult one, the government must begin reforming the country’s economic sector as soon as possible. After all, MEND has been attacking the oil industry for about three years now; is it not time to start addressing the issue then? Or do Nigerians want to continue facing the humiliation of one pipeline explosion after another? Aside from the attacks, moreover, Nigeria can no longer ignore the poverty issues rampant in the region. But in order to address the economic crisis in the region, the Nigerian government must first resolve yet another problem: corruption within the government. This is especially true in light of the fact that although members of MEND may have directly caused the pipeline explosion, the real responsibility of the attack lies on the shoulders of crooked businessmen and politicians that have used the nation’s oil wealth to meet their own needs rather than to address, for instance, poverty in the nation’s very streets. Members of Mend, as a matter of fact, are not attacking the oil industry for no reason: their mission is to force the federal government to send more oil-industry funds to the impoverished southern region.
All in all, the recent oil pipeline explosion in Nigeria comes nothing short of a humiliation and a desperate call to the region’s government to reform itself. Once the government is cleansed of politics, only then can economic issues be addressed. One can only hope, however, that the Nigerian government will in fact act before yet another pipeline is destroyed.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D96MJ1MO1.htm

Yet Another Mistake

When the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo on the United States in the 1970s, America faced a financial crisis. Now that Russia’s natural gas company, Gazprom, has followed similar suit by cutting off supply to Ukraine at the beginning of the 2009 year, the effects will surely be economical; the results, however, will expand beyond monetary troubles and into life-threatening ones since Ukraine depends on this gas to provide the heat it absolutely needs in the extremely cold month of January. Despite Russia’s claim that it has halted gas delivery due to Ukrainian debts, Russia’s actions can actually be attributed to political reasons and this harsh use of business to influence Ukrainian politics is an inappropriate form of foreign policy.
When George H. W. Bush of the United States and Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union declared the Cold War over at the Malta Summit in December 1989, this ending was only nominal. After all, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), established in 1949, continues to exist today. The organization, moreover, continues to plague the Moscow Kremlin, especially because the former republics of the Soviet Union seem to have grown warmer relationships with Western civilization in recent years. Ukraine, in fact, has recently been attempting to gain membership into NATO as well as the European Union. So when Gazprom claimed that it cut gas supplies to Ukraine simply because the latter owes more than $500 million in fines, this argument ignores the obvious fact that Russia is using its natural resources as a weapon to punish Ukraine and stall Western expansion in the former Soviet bloc. This tactic is evidenced by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin threaten of “serious consequences” if any western European nation intervenes.
With no doubt that Moscow has stopped delivering gas to Ukraine as a political tactic, this harsh strategy to gain back its power and influence in the former Soviet bloc is largely inappropriate. With no gas to heat their homes, Ukrainians will surely suffer from freezing temperatures and it would not be surprising should a number of people freeze to death. Additionally, Russia no doubt hopes European nations become hostile to Ukraine since their own gas supply is threatened due to the fact that an estimated 80% of its gas from Russia runs through Ukraine; after all, when Russia cut off oil supplies to Ukraine in 2006 for three days during a similar dispute, several European countries experienced shortages. Russia is besmirching its already somewhat tainted honor by using its power to influence another, weaker country by such negative means. The country should also be humiliated for its efforts to raise gas prices in today’s especially weak economy.
Russia’s use of business as a harsh form of foreign policy is by no means acceptable. Unfortunately, however, no matter how many mistakes the country makes, it seems Russia will never learn to deal peaceably with foreign countries; it was just a few months ago, in fact, that Vladimir Putin attacked Georgia for similar reasons.

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/gazprom.html

A Corrupt Government Cannot Bring Peace and Stability

Violence among different religious groups has been an issue since biblical times and in areas all over the globe. Nigeria, for instance, is currently suffering what is deemed to be the worst sectarian clash in the West African nation since 2004, when approximately 700 people died in Plateau State in Christian-Muslim clashes. Yet there lies under the sectarian violence a deeper issue that must be resolved first. Although the current crisis is in fact between Christian factions and Muslim factions, the corrupt government of Nigeria lies at the core of sectarian violence in the country.
The Nigerian city of Jos has been the center of sectarian violence ever since Nigeria gained independence from Britain in 1960, and conflict has mainly occurred between the Muslim North and the predominantly Christian South. This information is especially upsetting today as twenty-first century world leaders seek peace on a global level. The formation of the United Nations in 1945 to stop wars between countries attests to this goal of achieving world peace, yet sectarian violence in countries such as Nigeria stand firmly in the way of achieving any such goal. Unfortunately, Nigeria is especially empty of hope because the two major factors actually commingle in a hotly contested land, increasing tensions face-to-face on a daily basis. Meanwhile all the media does is taking sides instead of actually trying to come up with a solution that could help the situation. The media does that by showing the damaged and the cruelty that has been done only to one side of the battle. For instance CNN that many claim is owned by Arabs always somehow takes the side of Palestinians when there is a battle in Israel. As history has shown in examples such as the Jewish-Muslim wars for Palestine, a solution is almost impossible when two religious sects fight for land that both factors claim to rightly own. Yet, despite what can be seen on the surface, a close inspection of the nation reveals an even deeper issue lying behind the current sectarian violence.
Despite the fact that fighting in Nigeria is primarily between Christians and Muslims, it is actually the corrupt and money-drive government of the nation that lies at the heart of the crisis, as evidenced by the fact that the current fighting began only after electoral workers failed to publicly post results. Nigerians took the failure to mean that the vote was only the next in a long line of fraudulent elections. Nigerian civilian, both Christians and Muslims, moreover, have repeatedly been in political strife with the government for consuming the entire wealth stemming from the country’s oil industry rather than spreading the wealth to citizens. As has almost always been the case in this country in particular, a conflict over political issues quickly translates into a conflict between the country’s religious factions. If there is any hope left to resolve sectarian violence in Nigeria, steps must be taken to first cleanse the government of corrupt officials. Only then can elections be made more democratic and suspicions of fraud less frequent. By achieving political peace, Nigerian leaders can then move forward to establish peace between religious factions.
Overall, sectarian violence in Nigeria cannot be addressed without fist assuring political peace. Only time will show, however, if Nigeria can cleanse itself of corrupt government officials without having to resort to the former military junta before the current regime took over in 1999.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1862836,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1864416,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27967681/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos

Negative Consequences Only

With the introduction of the Monroe Doctrine in January of 1824, President James Monroe practically married the fate of the United State’s neighboring country Mexico to that of its own. The establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in January of 1994 only further strengthened the economic ties between the two countries. For these reasons, the growing drug problem Mexico faces today is actually very much a problem for the United States as well. The possibility of the Mexican government collapsing under pressure from powerful drug cartels across the country, in fact, poses economic and social threats to the United States.
Consider the possible economic repercussions for both the United States and Mexico should drug cartels take over the government. First and foremost—and with absolutely no doubt—many countries throughout the world would considerably decrease, if not abolish completely, trade with Mexico. Canada and the United States, perhaps most importantly, would also let NAFTA go to shambles by significantly restricting trade with the corrupt and drug-ruled nation. Being that trade is a two-way street, the United States economy would also suffer as a result. The US, after all, receives much oil and gas from Mexico; an oil crisis would be sure to hit home if Mexico stops supplying such resources the US. US industries would suffer as well. Airplane-producing companies, for instance, would lose a significant consumer if they could not trade as easily with Mexico anymore. It seems that no matter what angle one views the situation from, having drug barons defeat the current government of Mexico is healthy for the economy of neither Mexico nor the United States.
Just as a defeated Mexico would harm the United States economically, such a situation would also affect the US socially. One inevitable affect would be that tourism to Mexico would decrease a great deal, a fact that would have negative economic consequences as well for the traveling service sector of both countries. Perhaps a degree more important is the great possibility that drug issues at the border would only grow due to the absence of enforced anti-drug policy in Mexico; imagine the possibility of whole towns and cities falling apart simply because of the increase of drug use! Yet another social outcome from the fall of the Mexican government is the increase of Mexican immigration to the United States, which would most certainly serve as a great escape valve from the drug cartel-operated government of Mexico. The resulting increase in ethnic tensions, especially among low-income workers whose job security would be endangered by the increase in cheap labor, simply cannot be underestimated. Clearly, this possible crisis in Mexico is only detrimental to society in the United States.
On the whole, if drug cartels were to in fact overtake the Mexican government, both Mexico and the United States would suffer economically and socially. In order to avoid such a possibility, United States leaders must begin addressing the gravity of the situation in Mexico today.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6281486.html

At the Roots of the Nigerian Oil Dilemma

With oil prices of high concern in international affairs as the production of the precious material declines elsewhere, consumer nations have looked to Nigerian oil for hope. Yet this hope has become a source of disappointment as Nigerian oil production has suffered from recent political problems within the country’s borders. The current embroilment is a result of political corruption. The corruption in the Nigerian ruling body, in fact, has caused a tremendous amount of violence in the country and is responsible for the nation’s decrease in oil output.
Consider the People’s Democratic Party in Nigeria: since 2003 the party’s members, not wanting to lose control of oil revenues, have used government funds to secure election victories by inappropriate means. Such practice has naturally given rise to criminal gangs that support the corrupt government and therefore enjoy protection for their illegal activities. No wonder Nigerian civilians, suffering from poverty due to the unequal sharing of the country’s wealth from oil production, have responded to this situation through riots, deliberate destruction of oil plants, and other means of violence: to express their discontent with the status quo. Although these riots have in fact physically caused oil production to decrease, the responsibility of the cutback does not lie with Nigeria’s civilians but rather with the corrupt officials running the country for their own profit.
As recent history shows, oil markets are especially sensitive to political instability. Nigeria, not exempt from this general rule, has seen its oil production decrease by as much as an incredible thirty percent in light of the civilian unrest due to government corruption, at the core of this entire oil dilemma. The fact that businessmen in the oil industry refuse to change the status quo in order to bring about peace evidences their corrupt profit motive; if peace is to be put in process, then the ruling party’s corrupt yet influential political leaders would have to be sorted out, a process that would threaten the oil industry businesses as they will lose their support from what will become former corrupt party leaders. Yes, civilian violence is the direct cause of the cutback in the country’s oil production, yet the real responsibility lies on the shoulders of those crooked businessmen and politicians that have used the nation’s oil wealth to meet their own needs rather than to address, for instance, poverty in the nation’s very streets.
There is no doubt that the true source of current civilian turmoil as well as oil cutbacks is corruption in the Nigerian government. Leaders from the United States and the United Kingdom can continue to attempt to offset violence in Nigeria, but only one thing is for sure: nothing will change until this widespread corruption, at the heart of the Nigerian mess, is first addressed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/17/nigeria.gordonbrown?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

http://articles.latimes.com/world/fg-nigeria29