Global Financial Crisis

Last updated Saturday, December 11, 2010.

Following a period of economic boom, a financial bubble—global in scope—has now burst. The extent of this problem has been so severe that some of the world’s largest financial institutions have collapsed. Others have been bought out by their competition at low prices and in other cases, the governments of the wealthiest nations in the world have resorted to extensive bail-out and rescue packages for the remaining large banks and financial institutions.

Some of the bail-outs have also led to charges of hypocrisy due to the apparentsocializing of the costs while privatizing the profits. Furthermore, the institutions being rescued are typically the ones got the world into this trouble in the first place. For smaller businesses and poorer people, such options for bail out and rescue are rarely available when they find themselves in crisis. There is the argument that when the larger banks show signs of crisis, it is not just the wealthy that will suffer, but potentially everyone because of the ripple effect that problems at the top could have throughout the entire economy.

Plummeting stock markets have wiped out 33% of the value of companies, $14.5 trillion. Taxpayers will be bailing out their banks and financial institutions with large amounts of money. US taxpayers alone will spend some $9.7 trillion in bailout packages and plans. The UK and other European countries have also spent some $2 trillion on rescues and bailout packages. More is expected. Much more.

Such numbers, made quickly available, are enough to wipe many individual’s mortgages, or clear out third world debt many times over. Even the high military spending figures are dwarfed by the bailout plans to date.

REACTION:

                Because this was our lesson last meeting in Economics 210, I've decided to choose this as my topic for my blog today. Now, we all know do know "The Great Depression" that brought down the United States of America's economy down. People were brought down to misery and into the grasp of poverty. It all happened in just one market crash in one day.

                 In our time today, we are closing in on the day that "The Great Depression" would happen again. It would only be just a matter of months or weeks if we don't do something. As a student and a member of a family of 6, it would always sadden me to think of my family struggling just like the people during "The Great Depression". Although they do say that there are many ways to prevent this crisis, and one of the biggest solutions could be the government, but come to think of it, even the government is full of problems today including corruption and many others. Still, it would be happy to think that people working in the stock market are doing the best they can to prevent the stock market to fall down again.

                 Today people are beginning to fear that "The Great Depression" may happen again in our economy. And not only in the US, but also in Europe. It is painful that I as a student cannot do any big solution about this. Perhaps all I can do now is wait for the outcome. 

China vs. Philippines for Spratly's island

Spratly Islands 101 

01:09:00 03/14/2008

MANILA, Philippines -- Joint Development in Mineral Agreements is not controversial in international law. What makes the China-Vietnam-Philippines 2005 Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) suspect, if not downright unlawful, is that it was signed in violation of the Philippine Constitution, and may have been signed in exchange for bribe-tainted loans. It isn’t that we sold potentially oil rich shores so cheaply, but that we bartered our souls.

One, we must distinguish between title over land and title over the waters surrounding the land (or to be more precise, over the maritime territories, which will include the submerged lands and the resources beneath what is called the continental shelf). Each kind of title is derived from a different source.

Our title over our islands derives from the 1898 Treaty of Peace between Spain and the United States: “Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line: ….” Significantly, the Spratlys lie within those lines demarcated within the treaty limits. (The United States paid Spain the sum of $20 million. It could’ve been a neat real estate deal, except that we, the dark-skinned natives, were only accidentally part of the package—and proudly waged war.)

On the other hand, our claim over the waters and the maritime zones derive from the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, which grants us the sole exploitation rights over our natural resources within our Exclusive Economic Zone (which extends to 200 nautical miles around the coastal state) and, more relevant to fossil fuel extraction, to our continental shelf (defined as the “natural prolongation of the land mass” up to the same 200 nautical mile limit).

Within that framework, “joint development zones” are not a problem. Indeed, in our part of the world, there have been other such cooperative regimes: Thailand and Malaysia; East Timor and Australia; Malaysia and Brunei; and China and Vietnam.

These are in fact fostered as provisional regimes so that states can access their mineral assets without having to wait until a final “boundary delimitation” that typically takes one or two generations.

That is exactly what the Chinese are saying: The JMSU is a way of “shelving disputes and going in for joint development.” That is what the ASEAN’s Manila Declaration of 1992 says: “South China Sea issues involve sensitive questions of sovereignty” and so its members should “explore the possibility of cooperation ... without prejudicing the[ir] sovereignty.” That is also what the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea urged: to “exercise self-restraint [and] refrain from [engaging in] activities that would complicate or escalate disputes.”

Moreover, cooperative zones do not entail loss of territory. Indeed, considering that the Philippines has neither the capital nor technology, the only thing it can share with its partners is exploitation rights over part of its territory. That is why the JMSU contains this disclaimer: the agreement “shall not undermine the basic position held by … each Party on the South China Sea issue,” adverting to the perennial debate over who owns the disputed Spratly Islands in what some Chinese experts call “a Chinese pond.”

The real problem lies elsewhere. It lies in the Philippine Constitution, which reserves to the state the exclusive power of “exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources,” although it can choose to do so through cooperative agreements with Filipino corporations. That clause ends with the reporting requirement—not complied with, either—namely: for the President to notify Congress of every such contract within 30 days.

The official Malacañang line now is that the JMSU is “purely scientific in nature”—not exploratory—and is solely for geological data-gathering to test a portion of the Spratlys for possible oil reserves. However, its worst enemy is itself, via its own statements in the website of the Philippine Information Agency (PIA).

According to the PIA, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said at a press briefing in the Shangri-La Hotel: “The discussion (between President Arroyo and Premier Wen) centered on the joint exploration of the three countries…. The first phase or the exploration phase has been completed and the Chinese Premier expressed hope that the three countries would continue the cooperation on the developmental level.” Finally, contemporaneous statements by the other partners, China and Vietnam, and by Malacañang itself, repeatedly use the word “exploration.”

Finally, it is not as if there is a bright-line distinction that divides the “scientific” from the “exploratory.” Eduardo Mañalac, former president of Philippine National Oil Co., has stated that from an engineer’s standpoint, what the JMSU contemplates is already “exploration” for all practical intents. But the Palace could have been more believable if the scientific study had been undertaken by an academic or scientific agency. What makes the official line implausible is that the deal was signed by three commercial corporations engaged in actual petroleum extraction. A geological study does not become “scientific” merely because it uses expert methods. It becomes so because it aims to discover truths that lie beneath the surface, whoever profits or loses. Just like the protesters at Mendiola Street are scientific, while Ms Arroyo’s minions are exploratory.

REACTION:

                         This economic issue concerns not only me, but also the rest of my fellow Filipinos. It has often been asked if we would be able to win this fight and gain Spratlys island's highly valuable resources. My reaction to this is that China already has a lot of resources, especially OIL. This economic issue regarding the Spratlys island does have a big impact in the Philippines. Why? because this island has something that we Filipinos have been longing to produce, and that is Oil. 

                         In my opinion, China does have a lot of resources already and is even a very rich country to begin with. I do have a Chinese blood in me but that doesn't affect my answer which is, The Philippines should be given the right to claim Spratly's Island as their own. For every Filipino especially me, we would certainly be happy of the resources that would be available once this island is ours. But of course, we cannot judge the future, we'll never know if China would win this fight and claim the island as their property. I cannot say that China should give us a share or give us a chance to lift our country because, in the first place, Spratly's Island is such a resourceful island. To think that such a small and beautiful island would have such important resources for a country to rise up again or even rise up a lot higher than before. Just by reading the last sentence i typed, we cannot question China's courage and willingness to fight for this island. We cannot say it is a small issue, its a really BIG issue since it could judge the future income and outcomes of our country.

           

                          As i end this blog, I am certainly concerned of this issue going South, meaning going the other way we wanted to. All of us Filipinos wanted this island as our own territory, and its resources as our own and we wouldn't want to fight for something and lose in the end. But if we do win, then that would become one of the biggest victories in Philippine Economics!