Top Economic Advisers Forecast War and Unrest

Top Economic Advisers Forecast War and Unrest

The Big Picture

Kyle Bass, Martin Armstrong, Larry Edelson, Charles Nenner, James Dines, Nouriel Roubini, Jim Rogers, Marc Faber and Jim Rickards Warn of War

We're already at war in numerous countries all over the world.

But top economic advisers warn that economic factors could lead to a new world war.

Kyle Bass writes:

Trillions of dollars of debts will be restructured and millions of financially prudent savers will lose large percentages of their real purchasing power at exactly the wrong time in their lives. Again, the world will not end, but the social fabric of the profligate nations will be stretched and in some cases torn. Sadly, looking back through economic history, all too often war is the manifestation of simple economic entropy played to its logical conclusion. We believe that war is an inevitable consequence of the current global economic situation.

Martin Armstrong writes this week:

We will be updating the Cycle of War. Obviously, it is time once again. Especially since that model also hit to the day 3 times in a row.

Similarly, Larry Edelson wrote an email to subscribers entitled "What the "Cycles of War" are saying for 2013″, which states:

Since the 1980s, I've been studying the so-called "cycles of war" — the natural rhythms that predispose societies to descend into chaos, into hatred, into civil and even international war.

I'm certainly not the first person to examine these very distinctive patterns in history. There have been many before me, notably, Raymond Wheeler, who published the most authoritative chronicle of war ever, covering a period of 2,600 years of data.

However, there are very few people who are willing to even discuss the issue right now. And based on what I'm seeing, the implications could be absolutely huge in 2013.

Former Goldman Sachs technical analyst Charles Nenner – who has made some big accurate calls, and counts major hedge funds, banks, brokerage houses, and high net worth individuals as clients – says there will be "a major war starting at the end of 2012 to 2013", which will drive the Dow to 5,000.

Veteran investor adviser James Dines forecast a war is epochal as World Wars I and II, starting in the Middle East.

Nouriel Roubini has warned of war with Iran. And when Roubini was asked:

Where does this all lead us? The risk in your view is of another Great Depression. But even respectable European politicians are talking not just an economic depression but possibly even worse consequences over the next decade or so. Bearing European history in mind, where does this take us?

He responded:

In the 1930s, because we made a major policy mistake, we went through financial instability, defaults, currency devaluations, printing money, capital controls, trade wars, populism, a bunch of radical, populist, aggressive regimes coming to power from Germany to Italy to Spain to Japan, and then we ended up with World War II.

Now I'm not predicting World War III but seriously, if there was a global financial crisis after the first one, then we go into depression: the political and social instability in Europe and other advanced economies is going to become extremely severe. And that's something we have to worry about.

Billionaire investor Jim Rogers notes:

A continuation of bailouts in Europe could ultimately spark another world war, says international investor Jim Rogers.

***

"Add debt, the situation gets worse, and eventually it just collapses. Then everybody is looking for scapegoats. Politicians blame foreigners, and we're in World War II or World War whatever."

Marc Faber says that the American government will start new wars in response to the economic crisis:

• "The next thing the government will do to distract the attention of the people on bad economic conditions is they'll start a war somewhere."

• "If the global economy doesn't recover, usually people go to war."

We're in the middle of a global currency war – i.e. a situation where nations all compete to devalue their currencies the most in order to boost exports. And Brazilian president-elect Rousseff said in 2010:

The last time there was a series of competitive devaluations … it ended in world war two.

Jim Rickards agrees:

Currency wars lead to trade wars, which often lead to hot wars. In 2009, Rickards participated in the Pentagon's first-ever "financial" war games. While expressing confidence in America's ability to defeat any other nation-state in battle, Rickards says the U.S. could get dragged into "asymmetric warfare," if currency wars lead to rising inflation and global economic uncertainty.

As does Jim Rogers:

Trade wars always lead to wars.

And given that many influential economists wrongly believe that war is good for the economy … many are overtly or quietly pushing for war.

Moreover, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that the Iraq war was really about oil , and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And see this and this. If that war was for petroleum, other oil-rich countries might be invaded as well.

And the American policy of using the military to contain China's growing economic influence – and of considering economic rivalry to be a basis for war – are creating a tinderbox.

Finally, multi-billionaire investor Hugo Salinas Price says:

What happened to [Libya's] Mr. Gaddafi, many speculate the real reason he was ousted was that he was planning an all-African currency for conducting trade. The same thing happened to him that happened to Saddam because the US doesn't want any solid competing currency out there vs the dollar. You know Gaddafi was talking about a gold dinar.

Indeed, senior CNBC editor John Carney noted:

Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.

Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal thinks the central banking initiative reveals that foreign powers may have a strong influence over the rebels.

This suggests we have a bit more than a ragtag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. "I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising," Wenzel writes.

Indeed, some say that recent wars have really been about bringing all countries into the fold of Western central banking.

Many Warn of Unrest

Numerous economic organizations and economists also warn of crash-induced unrest, including:

• The head of the World Trade Organization

• The head of the International Monetary Fund

• The head of the World Bank

• Leading economic historian Niall Ferguson

• Leading economist John Williams

Sent with Reeder

 (verzonden vanaf tablet)

How to save two million lives

How to save two million lives

Global development news, comment and analysis | guardian.co.uk

Wiping out the biggest killers of children will require co-ordinated effort in 15 interventions, from clean water to antibiotics to vaccines – not a magic bullet

A global plan to save the lives of the 2 million children who die from pneumonia and diarrhoea every year – the most common causes of death in children – is launched on Friday and deserving of much applause. It is not just about vaccines and it is not just about clean water, but about pushing forward on those and all the other well-known fronts at the same time. This is a truly joined-up approach that has the ambition and the ability to end all these deaths by 2025.

Four papers in a Lancet series spell out the situation and the progress that can be made. There are 15 interventions that work. On their own, each will save some lives. Together they could transform child survival – wiping out the causes of over a quarter (28.5%) of child deaths. In 2011, the authors estimate, there were 700,000 diarrhoea deaths in children under five and 1.3 million pneumonia deaths. Deaths are falling in many countries thanks to efforts to reach the millennium development goals, but in Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cameroon, Chad and Mali, they are still rising.

These are the 15 interventions, some of which are expensive and some not at all, in order from the most life-saving to the least: pneumococcal vaccine, treating neonatal infections, breastfeeding promotion, treating pneumonia infections, improved water source, zinc supplementation, Hib vaccine, hand-washing with soap, improved sanitation, oral rehydration solution, rotavirus vaccine, hygienic disposal of children's stools, vitamin A supplementation, zinc for treatment of diarrhoea, antibiotics for dysentery.

We have heard so much about vaccines, because they are new, because the idea that a few jabs saves a life is exciting and because Bill Gates has backed their development with big money. But the new global action plan, put together by Unicef and the World Health Organisation, says they will not work miracles alone. Clean water, sanitation and hand-washing are also important. So are the really, really cheap treatments for diarrhoea: oral rehydration salts (ORS) and zinc – take-up of which, the Lancet series says, is negligible.

This is from the third paper in the series, by Christopher J Gill of the Boston University School of Public Health and colleagues including the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which has been championing ORS and zinc:

If these problems are so well-known and so solvable, why haven't they been solved already?

One key factor could be that our recent child survival investments in low-income and middle-income countries have favoured technically sophisticated, expensive solutions targeting specific pathogens or diagnostic challenges, at the expense of broader-based investments in healthcare systems. The recent licensure of several highly effective vaccines targeting key pathogens responsible for pneumonia and diarrhoea – Streptococcus pneumoniae and rotavirus – is emblematic.

Both vaccines are welcome additions to our public health armamentarium, but neither vaccine covers the full range of pathogens that cause pneumonia and diarrhoea, and neither is completely effective. Some children, including some who were fully vaccinated, living in communities with high vaccine coverage, or both, will still fall acutely and seriously ill. Without basic treatments (zinc, ORS and antibiotics) many will die.

To elaborate further, if the global uptake of rotavirus vaccines matched that of the DTP (diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis multivalent) vaccines, an estimated 2·6 million child deaths could be prevented in a 20-year period (roughly 189,000 deaths per year). With the assumption that vaccines could be delivered equitably, which is probably optimistic, all-cause under-five mortality could be reduced by about 2%. By contrast, the combination of ORS and zinc could avert an estimated 75% of diarrhoeal deaths, reducing overall under-five mortality by 20%; antibiotics for sepsis or pneumonia could reduce mortality by a further 12%.

We do not make this point to devalue vaccines, which are an essential component of a co-ordinated strategy to reduce childhood mortality. However, the high cost and time needed to develop new vaccines demands a balanced approach that allocates resources to prevention and treatment according to need. Vaccination of a child represents a substantial investment in that child's survival, and a failure to invest in treatment jeopardises our investments in prevention.

WaterAid is among those who are applauding the plan, understandably. Sanitation and basic hygiene – hand-washing – have not received the attention they need. These and clean water supplies and antibiotics were the advances that did most to drive down pneumonia and diarrhoea in rich countries. "It makes sense to do it all together," says Yael Velleman, WaterAid's senior policy analyst on health. "It is not about this intervention or that intervention. This is a comprehensive package, reaching everybody with everything."

What could impede progress on this broad front, however, is the earmarking of funds for one particular venture or another, which gives governments less freedom to spend on those less popular areas, such as sanitation.

• Vaccines and immunisation
• Infant and child mortality
• Access to water
• Sanitation
• Health

Sarah Boseley

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Sent with Reeder

 (verzonden vanaf tablet)

The Electric Car’s Short Circuit

The Electric Car's Short Circuit

Project Syndicate - A World of Ideas - the highest quality opinion ...

Some day, the electric car will be a great product – just not now. It costs too much, it is inconvenient, and its environmental benefits are negligible (and in some cases non-existent).

Sent with Reeder

The ‘laws of economics’ don’t exist | The Edgy Optimist

http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/04/11/the-laws-of-economics-dont-exist/

The myth of CSR.....

The myth of CSR > http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_myth_of_csr

--

Met vriendelijke groet,

DoenDenkers ®

Henk J.Th. van Stokkom

Contact details > http://henk.vanstokkom.tel

What donors need to know....

What donors need to know about rating services..... (2004)

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/site/print/useful_but_limited

--

Met vriendelijke groet,

DoenDenkers ®

Henk J.Th. van Stokkom

Contact details > http://henk.vanstokkom.tel

China Reaches Deeper into Global Food Stocks

China Reaches Deeper into Global Food Stocks

All Roads Lead to China

the recent FP Blog piece, Is China secretly hoarding the world's fish?, by Elizabeth Ralph highlights another resource that China (and its economy) has become a major player in.  One that is perhaps not as sexy as oil, where it is now the largest importer, or wood, which has been controversial lately, China's global ag grab now covers everything from fish (as highlighted above), soy, alfalfa, cows, chicken, hogs, bananas, rice, sugar, and so on.

It a supply chain that kept the shipbuilding industry afloat, and has altered the markets for products in other countries where exports to China have raised the prices in domestic markets beyond local reach.

Like the issues of smog that I have discussed previously, this trend is one that will only continue as China urbanizes another 400 million people.

To be clear, Beijing at this point does not have much choice but to go to these lengths.  Domestically, the food economy is only 40-60% efficient depending upon the industry, and while there have been some efforts to bring small farms together that would provide the foundation for a number of investments that would improve yields and efficiency to the plate, the progress has been slow… and will continue to be.

Sent with Reeder

 (verzonden vanaf tablet)

Debunking the Myths Behind Social Impact Bond Speculation

Debunking the Myths Behind Social Impact Bond Speculation

SSIR Opinion & Analysis

By Kyle McKay

Anytime Goldman Sachs' is speculating on investments linked to broader societal outcomes, we should probably take notice. As NPR noted recently, New York City has signed a Social Impact Bond (SIB) deal that would allow Goldman "to profit by helping troubled teens." Ironically enough, other jurisdictions across the world are looking at replicating the financial creativity in New York City to solve the budget problems precipitated by pre-2008 financial innovation. A closer examination recently conducted in Maryland should give pause to other governments and nonprofits looking to take the leap.

Originally conceived as part of the UK's "Big Society" agenda, SIBs are a new type of performance-based contract. Their innovation is to include third-party investors who provide money upfront to fund the operations of a social service program. If targeted outcomes are achieved, the government agency holding the contract pays for the program by reimbursing investors. If the program does not meet its targets, the investors lose their entire investment. This, in theory, shields service providers and governments from performance and outcome risks.

The fact that investors are providing upfront capital has led many to believe that the government's upfront budget obligation will also decrease. Proponents note that in the SIB model, the government will only have to "pay for success." Even better, success saves the government money because the model changes the focus of programming to outcomes and their measurement, stimulating innovation for programs directed at high-cost individuals.

After conducting research for the Maryland General Assembly, I found, however, that this last paragraph is built largely on myths:

1. Myth #1: New capital for social programs. This myth ignores the fact that if successful, the government will have to pay for the program. In addition to the fiscal imprudence of accruing debt for social services, states are generally restricted from creating liabilities in their operating budgets without providing matching funds. Thus, it should be no surprise that Massachusetts, like the UK national government, is pre-funding its pilot SIB program. In New York City, Bloomberg's personal foundation is providing a grant on behalf of the government to cover the payments.

   Given the costs of attorneys, consultants, program evaluators, the potential for a return on investment to third-parties, and a second tier of program managers, using an SIB relative to direct financing will therefore increase pressure on the budget, as the government must set aside more funds than even the investors provide to the program.

2. Myth #2: The programs will save the government money. An independent evaluation by RAND Europe of the first SIB pilot program in Peterborough, UK, found that the prison reentry program "is too small to deliver substantial 'cashable' savings" for the government. My analysis found that even for a relatively large reentry pilot program in Maryland, a 10 percent reduction of reimprisonment for treated individuals would at best produce a 6 percent discount to the cost of operating the pilot program—using highly optimistic assumptions. If the costs do not stack up in criminal justice, it seems unlikely they would materialize in other types of programs.

3. Myth #3: The government pays only for success. This assumes that governments and nonprofits will actually be able to enforce the byzantine contracts in the event the program does not meet its targets. As with every attempted SIB implementation, which have uniformly noted the complexity and difficulty of designing a contract, RAND Europe found that in Peterborough, "complexity in some instances meant that the actual transfer of risk is not clear." 

   This complexity is inherent to the model. Attempting to manage social service through contract attorneys, consultants, program evaluators, and an all-or-nothing payment model will inevitably produce a contract that is extremely complex, and therefore more likely weak. As the United Kingdom's prior fiasco with the London Underground demonstrated, financial creativity does not prevent the government from holding the bag on failed projects, even when the risk appears to be on the private sector.

4. Myth # 4: A focus on outcomes will encourage innovation in programs. Given the high-stakes nature of the outcome payment, investors will be more likely to select programs with a proven record and with evaluation techniques that maximize the chances of demonstrating a positive outcome. In the case of Peterborough, the project skimmed providers and the prison location based on unique locational advantages and a long-standing record of provider accomplishment. Even more problematic, the evaluation technique cannot control for (or estimate) these advantages. Thus, in Peterborough, the government is likely to pay a risk premium to investors for a program that is already known to work but may not be replicable or scalable.

Although the benefits commonly associated with SIBs are undoubtedly appealing to cash-strapped governments and nonprofits still recovering from the Great Recession, without an understanding of how social impact bonds actually work, these endeavors in financial creativity may become expensive experiments that leave governments with the ultimate risk and providers with broken or contested contracts. Before leaping, nonprofits and governments should evaluate SIBs as a public private partnership, with an eye toward their own financial and operational risks relative to the efficiencies of direct government financing.

Sent with Reeder

 (verzonden vanaf tablet)

Alle heil aan de MKB’ers is een zwaktebod

Alle heil aan de MKB'ers is een zwaktebod

Vice Versa

Willem van de Put, directeur van Healthnet TPO wil graag positief reageren op de nota van Lilianne Ploumen maar dan in een 'kader van onbegrip.' Waar de Engelsen en Noren volgens dezelfde analyse als het Nederlandse kabinet kijken naar de ontwikkelingen in de wereld en hun budget voor internationale samenwerking om die reden juist verhogen, bezuinigt Nederland een miljard en presenteert dat als 'nieuw beleid.' Het moet niet gekker worden.

De plannen van minister Lilianne Ploumen zijn bekend. Zelf spreekt zij graag van een nieuwe agenda en het verstaan van de tekenen des tijds. HealthNet TPO herkent in de nota een aantal wegen die al ingeslagen zijn, naast uitgesleten paden. Partners worden vooral in het bedrijfsleven gezocht, handel is belangrijk. Daar is weinig nieuws aan. Wat wel nieuw is, is de beperking van de rol voor maatschappelijke organisaties. Die krijgen minder geld om zo beter als 'waakhond' op te kunnen treden. Het belang van vrouwenrechten en seksuele gezondheid en rechten blijft overeind.

Prachtige vergezichten in een rouwrand

Zoals de nota prachtige vergezichten inkadert in een rouwrand van noodzakelijke bezuinigingen, proberen wij positief te reageren, maar in een kader van onbegrip. Want de belangrijkste economen in de wereld geven aan dat bezuinigen niet de oplossing is voor de huidige crisis. Waar de Britten en Noren de tekenen des tijds juist zien als reden voor versterking van de internationale hulpagenda, schrapt Nederland een miljard en presenteert dat als 'nieuw beleid'.

Ploumen heeft gelijk als ze stelt dat de wereld enorm veranderd is sinds de jaren van Jan Pronk. Juist daarom moeten nieuwe manieren gevonden worden om de allerarmsten erbij te betrekken. Maar de nota grijpt toch vooral terug op oude ideeën. Met de nadruk op gebonden handel blijven de allerarmsten buiten beschouwing. Nog belangrijker is misschien het ontbreken van toenemend inzicht in de globale verbanden tussen de private sector en de publieke zaak.

Maar we weten dat we een neoliberale regering hebben die duurzaam coalitiebeheer als hoogste ideaal heeft. Laten we dus zakelijk blijven, en vast een beetje de door de minister gewenste waakhond spelen. Dat economische uitsluiting niet meer tussen continenten, maar binnen steden overal ter wereld plaatsvindt, en dat de 'remittances' binnenkort vier maal het volume van de hulp bedragen, relativeert het belang van de hulpagenda van de overheid. Wat is er dan te zeggen over de keuzes die gemaakt zijn in het licht van die onontkoombare relativering van de hulp?

Innerlijke tegenspraak van de coalitie

Het eerste dat opvalt, is hoe deze nota doortrokken is van de innerlijke tegenspraak van de coalitie. Het woord ambitie komt 16 keer in de nota voor, het woord bezuinigingen 21 keer. De spanning tussen VVD en PvdA is in elke alinea te vinden. Nu is de exegese van overheidsstukken toch al niet makkelijk – maar met deze spanning wordt de nota een oefening in herkennen van contradicties, waarvan hieronder een paar voorbeelden volgen.

Een fundamenteler probleem is de in de nota ingebakken notie van 'public good' en de privatiseringsgedachte. Dat aan zes Internationale Publieke Goederen (IPG's) aandacht zal worden besteed door middel van vier speerpunten is ambtelijk proza waar je altijd even aan moet wennen. Dat 'migratie' ineens als internationaal 'public good' opduikt, maar verder niet genoemd wordt, doet budgetvervuiling vermoeden. Steeds meer geld van deze begroting zal door andere ministeries gebruikt gaan worden, en dat hoeft helemaal niet erg te zijn. Dat de uitvoering van beleid voor een belangrijk deel van maatschappelijke organisaties naar het midden- en kleinbedrijf wordt overgeheveld is meer bijzonder.

De strijd met de VVD is verloren, en deze nota laat zich dan ook lezen als schaamlap voor handelsbevordering in low-income countries.

Cordaid het beste voorbereid op plannen Ploumen

Hoe dat ook zij, Cordaid, dat zich tot een verzameling businessunits heeft omgevormd, lijkt het best voorbereid te zijn op de plannen van Minister Ploumen. Tegelijkertijd geeft de transformatie bij Cordaid en andere organisaties een trend weer waarin steeds meer organisaties een'hybride' karakter krijgen. De populariteit van 'social entrepreneurship' wijst ook in die richting. Maar sociaal ondernemen blijft ondernemen. En ondernemen blijft iets anders dan het dienen van de publieke zaak. En wat NGO's gaan presteren die zich als ondernemer opstellen, is nog niet duidelijk.

Het belangrijkste probleem in deze nota is daarom de verwarring, al dan niet opzettelijk, van het publieke en private domein. Wij zijn groot voorstander van een grotere rol voor de private sector in gezondheid in Afrika. Dat handel en hulp op allerlei manieren effectief samen kunnen gaan is ook het probleem niet. Bedrijfsmatige processen, op basis van resultaat en harde afrekening, vormen absoluut vooruitgang in deze branche. Maar rechten kun je niet privatiseren.

En terwijl de nota zelf het begrip 'duurzaam' toevoegt om te laten zien dat 'groei en een rechtvaardige verdeling niet automatisch samengaan', weten we allemaal dat groei niet vanzelf samengaat met duurzaamheid. 'Groei' kan op allerlei manieren worden gedefinieerd, maar of de definitie van het midden- en kleinbedrijf nu de meest effectieve is om de internationale publiek zaak te dienen is de vraag. Terwijl het samengaan van hulp en handel als vernieuwd consistent beleid wordt gepresenteerd, ligt in de nota zelf de tegenstelling opgesloten.

Kind met badwater weggespoeld

Het kind dat met het badwater van verandering wordt weggespoeld is de mogelijkheid, en de noodzakelijkheid, om maatschappelijke veranderingen te ondersteunen. Dat hoeft niet per se door traditionele Noordelijke NGO's gedaan te worden. Maar het is raar dat 'belang van vrouwenrechten' overeind blijft staan, terwijl de handen en voeten ervan, zoals onderwijs en good governance, worden afgekapt. Als troost voor de OS-branche zegt het ministerie zich te richten op strategische partnerschappen 'die ruimte bieden aan vernieuwende en gewaagde initiatieven van maatschappelijke organisaties'.

Dat woord partnerschappen riekt naar geld voor luiers en melkpoederbedrijven. Voor de maatschappelijke organisaties zal minder geld beschikbaar zijn. De nog beschikbare middelen worden ten dienste van Nederlandse bedrijven gesteld. Het 'midden& en kleinbedrijf zal worden geholpen bij het binnenhalen van opdrachten bij internationale instellingen'.

Cynische noot

Er zit ook een cynische noot in de nadruk die Ploumen legt op het non-gouvernementele karakter van de maatschappelijke organisaties. Als ze iets te bieden hebben op het vastgelegde terrein van de resterende speerpunten, moeten ze wel echt non-gouvernementeel zijn. Maar ze weet goed dat de huidige rol van NGO's in bijvoorbeeld wederopbouwsituaties substantieel meer is dan die van een onbetaalde waakhond. Daarom moeten ook NGO's zich in het tendercircuit voor opdrachten van grote internationale instellingen begeven. Zou nu bedoeld worden dat het non-gouvernementele karakter sommige clubs uitsluit van overheidssteun bij het binnenhalen van die opdrachten? Denkt de minister dan een waakhond zonder contracten beter functioneert? Wordt het dan niet een loslopend keffertje?

De verbinding met de werkelijke grote thema's in de wereld wordt nu gemist: er wordt gezegd dat de wereld erg veranderd is, maar het antwoord van deze regering stamt uit de jaren vijftig van de vorige eeuw. Om iets te betekenen voor de armsten in de wereld is een glashelder begrip nodig van het onderscheid tussen wat de publieke zaak behelst, en waar de private sector allemaal toe in staat is.

We zien geen ideeën over hoe overheden zichzelf moeten legitimeren – Rwanda staat gewoon weer hoog op de lijst. We horen niets over de wijze waarop de 'publieke zaak' zich organiseert, buiten de behoefte aan waakhonden om. Vernieuwende mogelijkheden die bijvoorbeeld het enorme belang van de diaspora's en de landen van herkomst met de IT revoluties verbinden worden niet genoemd. Nogmaals, dat we de Nederlandse bijdragen zoveel mogelijk willen verplaatsen van Nederlandse MFO kantoren naar de landen zelf, is terecht. De Nederlandse branche moet zich gronding hervormen, en doet daar wel erg lang over. Maar de kans om een werkelijk globaal perspectief te hanteren wordt nu helaas verspeeld ten gunste van domweg een andere sector in Nederland.

Gevangen in twee schillen

De nota lijkt dan ook op een harde kern die gevangen is in twee schillen. De buitenste schil is de mantra van bezuinigen die internationaal wordt betwist. De binnenste schil bestaat uit de tegenstellingen binnen de regeringscoalitie en de dwang tot delen met andere ministeries. En binnen de uiteindelijke kern vinden we goede bedoelingen voor minder geld. De oplossing daarvoor blijkt dat het MKB nu mag proberen te doen waar de NGO's niet in geslaagd zijn. Dat is nauwelijks een echte visie – dat is op filosofisch vlak een fout, op politiek gebied een zwaktebod, en op ontwikkelingsvlak…tja, irrelevant.

Sent with Reeder

 (verzonden vanaf tablet)