Spotlight on the UN CSD Youth Caucus

Spotlight on the UN CSD Youth Caucus



Should youth be involved in the UN or focus on other global decision-making arenas? What has more impact?

Jamaica Gleaner News - Fitch upgrades Jamaica ratings to 'B-' - Lead Stories - Wednesday | February 17, 2010

Jamaica Gleaner News - Fitch upgrades Jamaica ratings to 'B-' - Lead Stories - Wednesday | February 17, 2010

Is the new JLP economic reforms really having an effect?
Despite these developments, Jamaica just went through at least 12 quarters of negative growth in GDP.
The loan which was given to us by the IMF really doesn't do much a part form stay in the BOJ, so what is the plan?

One Young World 2010


After all is said and done, what now? That is the question facing the over 800 delegates that attended the inaugural One Young World Summit in London last week. The euphoria that filled the air evolved over two days into an epiphenomenal sense of meaning and purposeful action to create change consumed everyone. But now that it is done, can we really make a difference?

Yes we can, through spreading the word to as many people as possible! Knowledge has power to change actions and people. We must force each other to do the right thing through enlightening each other of what the right choices are. We can take civil action through writing to MP’s and the newspaper. And we can get our friends involved. So be the change my friends!

I invite you all to visit these sites and find a way that you can help make a difference, feed a starving person, or reduce global warming. It starts with YOU and ME!

Progressive Government: What did we expect?

A traditionally shaped tin of corned beef as s...Image via Wikipedia

An IMF deal in the making, there had to be some changes. Yesterday night the Jamaican Minister of Finance announced a broadening of the Tax base to include items such as female sanitary napkins, sugar, corned beef and bread. The excuse is basically that they need more revenue o pay back there debt as well as run the government. At the same time the government has been undertaking a public sector cut programme that will identify and see the realization of possible savings in the government apparatus.

There is no denying that some amount of inequity has been reached. The tax exempted items had always been those that the poorest of society need to maintain some amount of decent living. The position of this government seems to be a more 'progressive' type of taxation which no doubt will be easier to collect and will almost definitely raise government revenue, but how will this affect the poor, and who's idea was this anyway?

Of course we need not look any further than Washington to realize where all of this is coming from. The IMF negotiations have been going on for well over 6 months, but not a word has been said about the conditions. Definitely, the broadening of the tax threshold to include the items most needed by the poor is as a result of IMF conditionality, and we certainly would not be getting any 1.2 billion dollars if it were not done. The government acts as though they have no idea what the IMF wants, however there is the Article IV Consultation reports that came out in June 2008, which outlines basically everything the IMF thinks the government should do. There is no hit and miss in these negotiations, we know what they want and Shaw is giving it to them.

So what did we expect? As long as Jamaicans continue to live in the cloud of ignorance as we currently do, these things will continue to occur and take us by surprise. The information is there, we must hold our government more accountable by equipping ourselves with knowledge.

O yeah, and all now there is no talk of how we plan to pay this money back.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Number of World Billionnaires takes a nose-dive

The financial crisis is taking its toll on the world's richest people, wiping 332 names off the Forbes Magazine's 'rich list' of world billionaires.

LINK

The Two C’s and one Boat: An old debate for new problems


People and politicians are now fixated with the economy and the response that governments are having worldwide in order to fix the worlds problems. It would seem like the majority of people are in favor of some sort of government intervention whilst there are a few who are absolutely against it and there are probably fewer who would favor a totally planned economy. Frequently we are bombarded about thoughts on what the governments involvement in the economy should be if any at all. Some calling for big government and some want small government.

What seems abundantly clear to me is that during the previous century, neither ideal has performed particularly well. The birth of the big government during the period after the great depression didn’t see a boom in the American economy, but what we saw was greater stability and overall growth. At the same rate, the deregulation of the Clinton years saw an economic boom along with the advent of a credit bubble dwarfed only by the current crisis and the great depression. Although Clinton had a higher approval rating than Bush when leaving office, both left an economy on the brink of destruction.

What we have to understand is that there is a trade-off that does not get popularized because this is not politically convenient for any politician to really say. The trade off is between slow sustained growth and quicker more sporadic and more volatile growth. Politicians would rather promise economic boom and prosperity rather than forecast slow growth. But with both of these comes their trade offs, one has severe economic implications while the other has political implications.

Towards "Rational Act(ions)"

The fundamental problem here is not a new one. It has perplexed our liberal philosophers from the conception of their thought. How does one get people to act rationally? How do you get people to make good decisions in a world where you may be rewarded for acting irresponsibly? Their answer was the nuclear family structure. If one have a spouse to look after and children to inherit our world, they believed that people would make all their decisions based on fear of implications for their families well being. Today, although professed to still be the best structure for families, it is slowly being eroded. Feminist have been the group of people dealing with this phenomena and trying to explain exactly why this is happening. Single parenthood is becoming for whatever reasons the most popular way of parenting in many ‘liberal’ societies.
What we now have is a breakdown in the functionalist’s societal workings. Some may be forced to call it a degeneration of society, but from a postmodern perspective, it may just be the next step(even though they don't believe in progress). What needs to happen is an adaptation process should occur and the government should be a facilitator. The economy and economic regulations needs to adapt to the social changes that have occurred. The current family structure does not serve the purpose of acting as moral fiber for the rest of society. Instead it acts as a consumption unit that is obsessed with elevating its lifestyle to a superficial iconographic image sold to us through the mass media.

The government is not equipped to deal with these problems, but they have great potential to support any positive change that might occur. Whether it comes from civil society, NGO’s or politicians themselves. But there is no set in stone way of doing this, society changes and so too should approaches. So in the words of Barack Obama – The question shouldn’t be whether our government is too big or small, but if it works.
Powered by Blogger