The results of the poll: people in Egypt, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, Indonesia, the Palestinian Territories, plus the Muslim population of Nigeria in general are very favorable towards globalization and international trade, with 63% saying that globalization is good for their own country.

This may come as a surprise to some who think of Muslim countries as trying to protect themselves against “western” influences, but it makes perfectly good sense to me. Globalization in general tends to be balancing global wealth, in effect a bit like Robin Hood, taking jobs from the rich countries and giving them to the poor countries. (Ok, I admit the analogy is not great, since we all know that global wealth is still very concentrated in the hands of a few, but middle classes are growing stronger almost everywhere.) The fact that globalization brings jobs to developing countries would tend to make people in those countries see globalization favorably; anti-globalization movements, on the other hand, mostly come from developed countries who are adjusting to job losses in some industries.”It’s the economy, stupid.”

To view the complete report, visit this web page.

Post from: EveryJoe

World Public Opinion Poll on Globalization

“The Russians are the best chess players in the world; they think long-term and strategically. They invest in partners who can help them develop their industries at home.

Americans look for a quick return.

The Chinese hide their imperial thinking behind a mask of confucian peacemaking.”

- Joachim Schroeder-Hohenwarth, Vontobel

Post from: EveryJoe

Quote of the Day (Foreign Direct Investment)

My green side thinks the ban is a wonderful idea. Compact florescent bulbs are great – they use a fraction of the energy and last forever – and there are a lot of people out there who still don’t use them. The combined benefits of a European ban are fantastic. Billions of kilo-watt hours of electricity would be saved annually, as well as about 23 million tons of CO2.

My business side is looking for the angle. Should I buy stock in Philips, Osram and other big lighting companies? Surely their profits will rise; CF bulbs cost a lot more than regular incandescents so the producers can get higher margins. Should I stock up on the incandescents and sell them in 2 or 3 years on eBay? Will there be a market? Will there be a gray market importing bulbs from those countries where they haven’t been banned?

My homemaker side is sizing up our lighting fixtures at home. Where do we still use incandescent today and why? Are we ready for the ban? How much will we miss incandescent?

Personally, I don’t think the last word has been said yet on the proposed bans and that many of them will be postponed by lobbyists and perhaps even a few lawsuits.

If the bans do go through in the next few years, what will we then use as an icon to mean “Eureka”?

Post from: EveryJoe

The Race to Ban the Lightbulb

China has already “left us behind in the dust” when it comes to the emission of carbon-dioxide. According to USA Today, China is now responsible for 24% of the worldwide CO2 emissions, easily passing the US which is ranked at “only” 21%.

The polluters list:

1. China: 24%
2. USA: 21%
3. Europe (EU-15): 12%
4. India: 8%
5. Russia: 6%

Of course, China also has about four times as many citizens as the US, so the per capita pollution rate is actually much lower. Still, the metric is an interesting one. In general, US citizens use about twice the amount of energy as Europeans and this is reflected here. (See also my post on energy saving.)

Looks like China is heading for more smoggy weather. Does pollution bring prosperity?

Post from: EveryJoe

China takes the Gold in CO2 Emissions

The article describes a number of “common sense” technologies which are in wide use outside of the US: motion-detecting light switches in hallways and stairwells, two-button toilets (chose your flush volume) and of course, biking.

Denmark is a great example of a country that actually is benefitting from the re-current energy crisis. After suffering in 1973 when oil prices spiked, Denmark implemened a system of taxes and benefits which have made the country practically energy-independent. Gasoline costs $10 a gallon in Denmark, but unemployment is an incredible 1.6%. And Denmark companies producing alternative energy technology are market leaders.

In comparison, the US Congress just cut the production tax credits for wind development.

Oh well, at least Big Oil in the US is doing well.

Post from: EveryJoe

Denmark: Saving Energy Can Be Easy

Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung

My previous post about Tata.

See also Nano on Wiki.

Post from: EveryJoe

Big Protests over Tata’s Little Nano

This being an election year in the US, some big companies can get away with almost anything.

After losing a $35 billion deal to build the next generation of U.S. Air Force tanker planes to European competitor EADS (refer to previous post), Boeing called “foul-play” and Congress forced the Air Force to re-open the bidding process. Boeing has now publicly stated that they will not participate in the bidding unless it is extended by an additional four months. Boeing needs the extra time to include a different plane in the bid. Well sure, the first plane they offered lost the bid.

Remember, we are talking about a big military project here, paid for with taxpayer money. The bidding process is meant to be open and fair to ensure that the government gets the best product for the best price. How can pampering one bidder (Boeing) be tolerated? Like I said, it is an election year and politicians want an American company to win, even though the EADS bid (with partners Northrop Grumman and engines from GE) will also lead to new jobs in the US.

If Boeing gets the contract in the end, it will be not only a blow to international business in general but will represent a low point in US – European relations, and may lead to some sort of silly retaliation.

Image from www.af.mil. 

Post from: EveryJoe

Boeing Continues the Poker Game for Air Force Tankers

Speaking of Lenovo, they also have a few blogs themselves. One of them is called “Worldsourcing” and is written by the Lenovo VP for Corporate Communications, Reid Walker. The subject is the “decentralization of the world’s economy and talent”, a topic I often look at and post about here.

Post from: EveryJoe

Olympic Advertising

Pallavi Aiyer moved from India to Beijing to be an English teacher in China (and to be with her boyfriend). Her memoir “Smoke and Mirrors: An Experience of China” thus includes many comparisons between her native country and her new country of residence. Combined, the two are refered to as “Chindia”.

Aiyer’s experiences as a teacher of English to Chinese journalism students and her travels to different parts of the country provide for fascinating insights into the modern Chinese culture. Almost all of the millions of students in China today are only-children who, compared with their parents, have obtained great material wealth. They define freedom as being able to dress how they want, date whom they want and buy a new car and apartment. When Aiyer pushes them on controversial subjects, the students glibly recite the government line as if it were their own free thoughts.

Aiyer is able to look at the shiny new China without being blinded by the smoke and mirrors.

Image from uscc.gov. Shanghai highways.

Post from: EveryJoe

Book Review: Smoke and Mirrors (An Experience of China)

In case the TV studios shy away from anything more “political” (meaning anything which might be seen as controversial), today I will look at two new books on China which have made my reading list.

“The Man Who Loved China: The Fantastic Story of the Eccentric Scientist Who Unlocked the Mysteries of the Middle Kingdom” by Simon Winchester portrays Joseph Needham (1900-1995) a British scientist and Sinologist who formulated the “Needham question:” Why did the country fail to industrialize when Europe did, despite its prior achievements. Needham pursued this question most of his life and predicted a grand future for China based on its past successes. The book is a good introduction into Chinese history as well as a portrait of an eccentric researcher.

Image from memory.loc.gov

Post from: EveryJoe

Book Review: The Man Who Loved China