World Business Press Online news agency-my best articles

Financial reform more than needed

There are moments in the White House when the success of a presidency is decided. The decisive moment for the presidency of Barack Obama is on now- it is the financial reform bill.

On Thursday, the Senate voted first to end the debate on the financial reform bill by 60-40 margin. Then it was passed by a 59-39 margin. Now the bill has to be merged with the bill passed by the House. The most radical part of the bill will end the "too big to fail" policy- state will be able to liquidate big failing firms or prevent to let them rise too big before they fail. It will also create a new watchdog agency and reform the business with derivatives.

Republicans did not succeed to force Democrats to make big changes on the bill and are now in the corner. Their refusal to work with Democrats on the bill can be perceived, that they are trying to save Wall Street from the biggest changes of financial regulations since the Great Depression. This is a very unthankful position- and it is good so.

It is not to forget, that the bill proposed by Democrats is just an reaction on the events which brought the financial world on the brink of the collapse. If there would not be the bailouts- paid by taxpayers- Wall Street would not be far from the events leading to Great Depression. So it is not an overreaching to propose a radical bill which could fulfill the promise of Barack Obama, that this kind of financial crisis when Main Street is paying for the greed of the Wall Street should never to be repeated.

Yes, it is for sure about politics, too. Barack Obama needs to score against Wall Street in order to show that he understands the anger of the voters. A radical bill could help him to get reelected- in this regard it is a populist bill and a decisive moment of his presidency. But populism can be also a virtue of a good politician- when it means that he is listening to the voters and following the interest of the country simultaneously. And this is the case of the financial reform bill.

Zolo Mikes

Obama versus Arizona: Action required

To tell stories about the values, which all Americans share and the fairness is fine for opposition. But it cannot be enough for a president dealing with the raid against illegal immigrants in Arizona.

President Obama told the expected when commenting the law against illegal immigrants, which will lead to racial profiling against Hispanics, one of his most important voting groups. "That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," commented the law Obama. The problem is, commenting is good enough for people, who cannot change anything,- regarding of the politicians commenting is good for opposition, for example. But people, who are in power should not just passively wait what will happen. They should have a political vision, they should to be forecast what will happen in the future, they should be proactive and try to prevent the evil. In case of Obama and the anti immigrant raids to prevent means to be active. It was clear, that when nothing will be done regarding immigration on the federal level, that laws like in Arizona would be enacted on the state level. President Obama- and the Congress where Democrats rule- did nothing.

A politician in power should be judged on the results he reaches, on the things, he gets done. Obama did not choose immigration reform as a priority, he did not recognize, how serious the situation is and that is the reason why he - and the Democrats in the Congress- are co-responsible for the anti immigrant raids in Arizona and anywhere in the US. Action, not just words, is required.

Zolo Mikes

What does it mean to be green…

Americans are discovering America- this metaphor could be used in order to characterize the recent rise in popularity of ecological thinking in USA. But is it real, or is it just a seasonal issue, a hip thing, a way to be in? Are the Americans serious about ecology, or do they just show up ?

In order to answer this dilemma, it is useful to show some differences-which have influence on ecology- between the majority behavior in US and in other parts of the world. Here are some examples, what could Americans do in order to persuade the world, that they are serious about ecology.

The first one is about cars. Yes, we are talking about transmission. In Europe, for example, the majority of people have a manual one. Here in US, the majority of cars have an automatic transmission. The difference is about 1 liter gas on 100 kilometers. Yes, correct, if you have a manual transmission, you are using less gas. Maybe it means to take some classes before getting the driver's license- a normal thing in majority of EU countries- but using less gas is definitely ecological.

The second is about work in the garden- it is nice that to cut grass each weekend is a social duty in US and that if you do not take it seriously, you are not beloved in the community of your neighbors. But how many of Americans do cut the grass if not manually than at least with a machine which does not use gas or electricity? Vacuum the leaves- another national sport of an order loving American- is also not ecological. Yes, both of these beloved activities are possible to be done manually and in both cases it is more ecological, and believe it or not- it is also less loud, what is another undervalued quality of life here in US.

The third thing is about temperature, using the freezer and air-condition. In the majority of European grocery stores freezer is covered what means, that the use of electricity is minimal in comparison with the majority of US grocery stores where the freezer is open and does not even have a cover. Another plus of the more ecological practice- in Europe it is not usual to catch a cold just walking the aisles of a grocery store. That is true also in the case when you choose to take public transport- in US, at least in Washington DC, it is normal that metro is using air-condition also in December. But really, it is neither necessary nor ecological.

Maybe these everyday examples are not sophisticated enough to be part of a serious climate change study - but if this majority behavior in US would be changed, it would be enough for me, an European journalist in US, to be persuaded that Americans are about ecology really serious. Maybe it would be even more credible than the attendance of Barack Obama in Copenhagen.

Zolo Mikes

Event of the year 2009: The healthcare reform bill

Although the final version of the bill is still not ready, the political event of the year in the US is the healthcare reform bill. It is hard to imagine, that Democrats in House or Senate would not reconcile their versions and pass some version of this bill. The so called chance to write history is securing- on 99, 9 percent- the approval of this bill. On the other side the ambition to deliver any version of the bill in order to please White House and give Democrats some sort of political achievement is also the biggest danger for the healthcare reform.

The facts are clear- House of Representatives and the Senate both approved their versions of the healthcare reform bill. These versions must still be reconciled in one final version and than there will be a vote on this final version as in House as so in Senate. If in the both it will be approved, the bill will be sent to President Obama. He will decide if he will sign it.

The healthcare reform bill is the most important piece of legislation for first term of President Obama. It is possible to quarrel, if the priorities were set correctly. But in this stage it makes no sense- the time for talks is over. And it is ok so- president Obama as the winner of the presidential elections has the right to decide and he has the responsibility to deliver. Democrats facing the Congressional midterm elections in 2010 know, what kind of political disaster would happen if they would not deliver. So that is the real reason for the necessity to approve any version of this bill. After approval the political PR and marketing about the importance of this legislation will be the main effort of Democrats. They will try to persuade the voters, that the bill will improve the social situation of all Americans. There will be lots of talk about Franklin Delano Roosevelt, second New Deal, historical chances, etc... It still can be true- but it is important what will be the final version of the bill.

Namely- forgetting the abortion issue- the main difference among the House and Senate version of this bill is the so called Public option. Public option is in the House version of the bill, but not in the version of the Senate. It is very important, if it will be included in the final version of the bill.

If it will be include, than the bill will be a real second version of New Deal- because it will be so an economical as so as also a philosophical change for US. Philosophically, it will mean, that also in the economically most powerful state in the world the principle of solidarity among people will prevail- everybody will be offered an AFFORDABLE healthcare. The affordability of healthcare will be secured by the fact, that state will be one of the providers of the healthcare. It is almost certain, that this public option would increase the competition and lower the prices for healthcare. The poorest will be able to pay for the healthcare, because - in the worst case scenario- the state will have to insure them.

Without public option, there will be just an economical, but not an philosophical change- the philosophy of "Market the Almighty" will prevail. Sate will be not one of the players and the price for the healthcare will be determined by the competition among the private insurers. But still, everybody will be offered a healthcare and everybody will have to have healthcare- or he will be fined. This individual mandate will cause, that US healthcare will be more cost effective. People will not solve their health problems in Emergency rooms, they will have a doctor who will take care of them regularly and together with preventive care this all will lower the costs of healthcare. It is substantially cheaper in long run to take care of a patient with preventive care, than a one without it. Economically, it is still a revolutionary change.

It is probable, that the Senate version- without the public option- will prevail. Senate, namely, voted just 60 to 39 in favor for of the bill. Senator Liebermann - most strongly- and other Democratic Senators strongly enough are signaling, that they will not support a bill with public option. It is a missed opportunity- from philosophical point of view. Anyway, because of the economical point of view, the healthcare reform bill is still our choice for the event of the year 2009.

Zolo Mikeš

Will Obama achieve?

World Business Press Online, WASHINGTON -

Sincerely- nobody knows. There are enough cases, which show that his approach can be successful. One for all- Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But there are also cases, which show, that an opposite approach had maybe even more success- take Ronald Reagan.

Before to discuss why to hope, that Obama will be successful, there is to define the term success- and here the differences begin. Obama administration lowering the expectations proclaimed as a goal stabilizing the economy as the main goal - but this would be not enough, if you are prioritizing economy over foreign policy, if you are giving up such a geopolitical tool like missile shield system, you must not just stabilize the economy on catastrophically low levels inherited from Bush administration- you must reach an economic superiority. Just with economic superiority can you than regain the lost political superiority by having money to invest in even better equipment than the missile shield was or to have again enough money in order to “buy” the political support and friendship from countries which would otherwise not care or oppose your goals.

Because one has to be clear, and you do not need to be Machiavelli to admit it- if you as a country want to have economic success, it is better to have more than less political influence. And political influence is to gain by threats and arms or by helping other countries which will have to help you. Both approaches cost money- lots of money.

After Roosevelt stabilized the economy US was able to help the friendly countries during the WW II and after the war by Marshall plan even to former enemies, which than became their friends. It had cost money on the way, but the economical profit for US at the end of the way was enormous.

Reagan, on the other side, achieved the fall of Soviet Union by even more investment in the arms, he invested in the idea of star war, he threatened the empire of evil and destroyed it. It had cost money on the way, but the economical profit for US at the end of the way was enormous.

Obama is on the beginning of this road. He will need to have economic success in order to have money to regain the superiority of US- in both cases either by power or by friendship or by combined means, US will need to be in a totally different economical situation like the one which was caused by unwise and primitive policy of Bush administration. And just because of seeing, what a catastrophically bad geopolitical and economical situation did Bush, Cheney and Rowe left behind- there is no other way just to hope, that Obama will prevail with his approach. Because even US has its mistake- one of them was just Bush- the philosophy of this country is still better than the one of Russia or China or the of Islamic fanatics.

Zolo Mikes

Consequences for the former “New Europe”.

Missile shield retreat IV- consequences for the former “New Europe”.

World Business Press Online, WASHINGTON -

The decision of Obama administration regarding the missile shield retreat has the most serious consequences for the region of former Soviet block, now sovereign countries trying to defend their interests against expansionist politics of Putin’s Russia. Although the missile shield was never proclaimed officially to be used against this expansionist politics, it was planned to be located in Czech Republic and Poland- so this use was possible and probable, if Russia would try to repeat the Soviet attack on Czechoslovakia from 1968 or try to use the mistakes of foreign politicians like in the case of Georgia.

The missile shield retreat and the decision of US to make Russia its ally is a very bad news for Ukraine, or for the part of politicians in Ukraine, who would like to defend their national interests against Russia. It is a bad news also for Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.

For each country namely, it is good to have so much foreign policy options as possible- they can choose just one, but they can play with all of them. These countries, called in Rumsfeld era as “new Europe” had two options how to defend their interests against Russia. The first one was to prefer a very close partnership with US over accepting all the conditions of the “old Europe” in EU- or at least to play this card, when France and Germany began to ask for everything /taxes/ and giving up nothing /job market/. Now, after US is letting Russia to determine, where should or should not be their missile shield, when Russia is getting such a close ally of US- it would be very irresponsible not to rethink the position of US as the only one defender against expansionist politics of Putin’s Russia. This card is getting definitely weaker, after the decision about missile shield retreat.

So, the logical consequence should be strengthening the ties to EU- although to strengthen the ties to politicians like Sarkozy or Berlusconi will be very hard. It is also to expect, what will do Germany in 2011, when they should open their job market. To be at least a little bit able to defend their interests, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic should join their forces and strengthen the Visegrad initiative. One of the possible leaders could be here the Czech president Vaclav Klaus, who -hopefully- just pretends to play the Russian card in order to defend the interests of Czechs within the EU. He is wise enough to prefer EU over Russia- but just than when he will have no other possibility than to choose among them. Otherwise it is strategically very wise to outplay EU and Russia against each other in order to defend the Czech interests, as Klaus is doing it.

It is possible, that also in other countries of new Europe there are intellectual elites and politicians, who are able to play with all cards the situation gives them and to defend the economical and political freedoms of their voters regained in 1989. The sad news is, that these elites were pushed into the corner by pseudointelectuals and politicians who are ready to sell the interests of their country for their personal profit to anybody or by primitive nationalists who are seeking their personal profit too- but they are ready to pay not just by the economic interest of their voters, but also with their lives.

Zolo Mikes

Russia as an ally of US and the consequences for EU

The decision of US regarding missile shield retreat has consequences for the EU and it’s foreign policy. Obama- with his missile shield retreat decision- has chosen the allies, enemies and adversaries of US and the way how he wants to deal with them. EU has to react.
It is clear- the major enemy remains Iran, China is adversary and the most significant change is that the position of Russia changes from enemy to an ally. The missile shield system located in Czech Republic and Poland- although never officially proclaimed- had to protect also Eastern Europe from return under the Russian influence. Reagan and Bush, the main supporters of the missile shield system had a clear picture of Russia as an enemy. Obama, also because of the unwise policy of George W. Bush, does not have the luxury to have so many enemies. He has not enough economic resources to regard for enemy Iran, Russia and be under economic pressure of China, which is buying the US debt. To make Russia an ally is- from US point of view in this economical situation- the only possible decision, although there is no insurance that it will work. Obama hopes that Russia will help him to prevent Iran getting a nuclear superpower - when not, Israel is waiting with bombs. Obama also hopes, that Russia has no interests on rise of China- there is enough geopolitical and historical tension between these two nations, so there is hope, that this point of view can be correct.
EU has to deal with this new situation, in which Russia is regarded as an ally of US. It would be a big political mistake to think, that Russia will not try to use the possibility to regain the influence in Eastern Europe and in the new member states of EU. It is a very bad news for Georgia, Ukraine, less bad but still bad for Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. But it is also not a good news for the “old Europe” The markets in these countries are big enough to be worth to fight for them. Nowadays they are full of products from France, Germany or Great Britain. How would old Europe like, if this would change and instead of Italian ice cream there would be “morozenoe” in the stores in Eastern Europe? How would it the old Europe like if instead of French wines or the Guinness the former countries of Soviet block would return to their habit drinking cheap Russian vodka? How would it the old Europe like, if instead of Volkswagen there would be produced Lada in Slovakia? To loose a workforce which is working for less than 2 euro an hour could be painful…
Eastern Europe is worth to be fought for. The US decision to regard Russia as an ally is a challenge for EU to protect the states of former Soviet block from Russia. The decision of US to retreat from missile shield system in EU is also weakening the protection of EU from a possible attack from Iran and other rough states. After these changes in US foreign policy there is no insurance, that Obama will be ready to strengthen the power of NATO, which was weaken by unwise unilateral way of Bush policy. Because of all these reasons, EU has to begin to pursue its own foreign policy and to build its own army and give more money to protect its safety. It is a big challenge for EU, which will show, if it is able to survive.
Zolo Mikes

Disaster- US lost the image of a reliable partner

Stating that the missile shield retreat was an expected and – from Obama’ s point of view- understandable step, it does not mean, that this step will have just positive consequencees. Obama prioritized economy of his country over foreign policy. And from the view of foreign policy US lost the most valuable virtue they ever had- they lost their image of a reliable partner. At least in the eyes of Czechs and Poles who were for missile shield system on their soil. They are angry- and that is to understand.
We are not talking here about former politicians in Czech Republic, Slovakia or Poland, who 40 years ago were heroes and protested against the Russian ocupation, but now some of them are living from the political and financial acts of grace of US embassies abroad as donors, directors or founders of pofider NGO-es lacking any own political idea and just following the agenda of their breadstuffers. Their protest against the missile shield retreat was just a pitiful outcry for continuing financial and political support- they and their young sneaks know that without US financial and ideological support they are not able to survive. Forget them.
But you can not forget the disappointment of simple people, who put their bodies in front of Russian tanks in 1968 and now they sincerely believed, that US and their missile shield will protect them against the possibility of dejavu. These people are not stupid, they understand, that a missile shield in Eastern Europe is not just again rough states as Iran is…They hoped, that if there US soldiers and US army base would be on their soil, the Russians will not have the courage to return. They made their choices- they prefer the US soldiers, the US way of life and the US values on their soil over the Russian ones.
Among these values there was also a chimerical belief, that US are a reliable partner. That if they promise, that there will be a missile shield system, then it is worth to fight for it. Lots of these people organized in political parties fought and won their fight on the soil of Czech or Polish parliament. And than, when they devoted time of their life and their political prestige for this fight- they were abandoned by the president of the country which was their ideal.
These people do not care that Bush who signed the missile shield system and Obama who scrapped it have different political priorities- and they are right. They hoped for consistency of US foreign policy and believed in the image of US as a reliable partner. Obama with his decision lost it- and not just in their eyes. His decision, economically understandable, from philosophical point of view expected is for US from the point of foreign policy view a total disaster.
Zolo Mikes

Missile shield retreat- tell me why?

The decision of Obama administration to retreat from the missile shield system plans in the region of eastern and central Europe is a very important change in US foreign policy, which will have unprecedented consequences. That is the reason why our news agency,which happens to be based directly in this region, will analyze and comment this change from various points of view in separate articles during the whole week.

Missile shield retreat- tell me why?

The primary answer is very simple. Because of money. US is in economic problems and Obama have chosen economic recovery as a priority over the foreign policy.In the recent bad economic situation,inherited from the Bush administration, when short term goals have to have priority over long term goals- it is an understandable approach.
In short term range-and the economic situation is so bad, that Obama has to act very quickly- this decision will save money, which Obama needs for economic recovery. It will enable him to use this money for health care reform, which will save money again and on the end of the road US will be economically-not politically- better off with this decision.
Obama understands, that with the recent US budget deficit he can not fight two wars and begin to prepare for a possible third one-and that is the reason why missile shield was planned. Obama inherited and has to fight until the bitter end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, because if he will not prevail there, the islamist fanatics provoked by the unreasonable and not wise Bush policy, are really able to plan other terrorist attacks on the US soil. From this point of view Obama did not have any other choice than to scrap the missile shield program- because he had no money for two wars and preparing for a third one and the time when there will be no lender to finance the US budget deficit for a reasonable rate is not so far away. Not to talk about the real possibility, when Chinese decide to cash out from USD and diversify…
At the end of the day,make peace and not war is cheaper and because Obama is a left liberal, his choice not to prepare for a possible third war was expected and is not against his philosophy. He did not lie to his voters, he went to the fight for presidency as a left liberal and is acting as a left liberal president. And , besides of money and bad economic situation as the primary answer, his philosophy is for sure the secondary reason why US have chosen to retreat from their missile shield program.

Zolo Mikes

Amnesty as the only one right reform

Amnesty as the only one right reform


World Business Press online, Washington –

Two senior administration officials from the White House announced, that Barack Obama is planning to start addressing the nation's immigration system as early as in May. It would be ok, if he addresses it right.

Right means just one way- immigration amnesty without any compromise. It is the only one right way, because it is economically effective and morally right. Nobody can be made responsible for the country where he was born. Everybody can be proud, that he was born in US, but it is not his achievement- so why should have anybody some privilege, just because he was born in US or any other country. It is to admit, that US was long – and probably still is- the country which provides the best conditions to immigrants. The nationalist antiimigrant advocates should know that this fact was also the corner stone of the economic success of the US. The melting pot worked just in the favor of economy- immigrants were new potential customers, who wanted to buy here their first home, their first car and live their American dream. If the millions of illegal immigrants will be allowed to come out from the shadow, they will pay taxes and will work better and more efficient for the economy than any stimulus package. Social conservatives have no argument against the amnesty- because it simply just does not exist.

If all people were created equal-a fact in which all Christian ideologies as so as the US Constitutions believes- than the only right immigration reform is the immigration amnesty.

Zolo Mikes

Just forget them

Just forget them

World Business Press online, Washington –


Just radicals and pseudo intellectuals in the right wing think tanks are disappointed by the new policy of Barack Obama towards Cuba. His speech at the summit of Americas was just brilliant and shows the best of best what this president can bring to the foreign policy of US.

No, he is not an economic champion, no, he is probably not strong and experienced enough to deal with Putin- but his idealism is more than useful in foreign policy relations towards Cuba and Latin America. Barack Obama is the best “ambassador” of US in this part of the world. His speech on the Summit of Americas is to be compared to the speech of Kennedy in Berlin, where he stated “I am a Berliner”. Obama indirectly stated in his speech that he has the best qualities of a Latin American Leaders, that he has the best qualities of Chavez, Morales or Castro. Because these people are not devils, like the right wing propaganda tries to picture them. They have lot of negatives, their policy is not right in all corners- but they strongly believe in their ideals. Obama showed that he is very similar in this political quality. When he declared in his speech, that US is ready to forget the past and have a new beginning with Cuba, he just showed that. The fact, that after the speech he and Chavez shook hands is more than symbolic. Again- Chavez and Obama nor Castro and Obama are not the same and probably they will not agree on everything. But their passion to strongly believe in ideals is a bridge, which really can be a new beginning in the relations of US toward Cuba or Venezuela.

And this change of policy is, after CNN poll, supported by 71 percent of Americans. So against it are just radicals and pseudo intellectuals from the right wing think tanks in Washington. It is so good, that in Obama time we can just forget them. For seven more years, hopefully, at least.

Zolo Mikes

US policy in Middle East on the crossroad

US policy in Middle East on the crossroad

World Business Press online, Washington -

The elections in Israel are a stalemate. Although till now it is not clear, who will get the right to try form a government, it is clear, who would be probable the better partner for Barack Obama.

Although all politicians in the world have just one and the very same boring diplomatic answer on the question who would you like to have as a partner – we are able to work with anybody people have democratically chosen- the differences among Kadima's Tzipi Livni and Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu are so clear, that to guess the preferences of Mr. Obama is not so hard. On one side, there is Netanyahu, who supports the expansion of Israeli settlements and opposes making further territorial concessions and on the other side, there is the candidate of change Livni, who is clearly a better chance for the peace process and the ending the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The most possible outcome?

After all diplomatic gestures honoring the winner, Obama will have to choose if the peace process in the Middle East will become a real and not just proclaimed priority in his foreign policy. If Livni will get the winner of recent stalemate, Obama would probably choose to be very active and try to use the chance. If Netanyahu will repeat his
prime minister term- he served on this position in Israel from 1996 to 1999- it is possible that Obama will not be so engaged in the process in the Middle East. The failure of George W. Bush in this part of the world in much more better conditions could serve as a warning for him, too.

Zolo Mikes

Obama’s interest is Hillary’s satisfaction

Obama’s interest is Hillary’s satisfaction.

WORLD BUSINESS PRESS ONLINE-WASHINGTON
Barack Obama had reached his goal. Hillary Clinton will suspend her presidential bid and formally ask her supporters for support of Democratic party. But Obama should just not be satisfied with his victory.
It is because one speech is not an significant campaign on his behalf. It would be a mistake from Hillary to campaign on behalf of Barack Ob ama without a bargain. Hillary as a very rational woman has to know that she has three possibilities. The first one is get on the ticket as vice-president, as Nr.2 behind Barack Obama. The second one is to get an important post in his government or a promise, that she will get nominated for position of a judge at Supreme Court. If she will get what she wants, she can campaign for Barack Obama. The third one possibility is just let Barack Obama to disregard her. But than he should not to be surprised, that she will not try to persuade her voters to support him. Because if Obama looses against McCain she can try again in 4 years. If he wins, than it is probably at least 8 years.
It is really in the interest of Barack Obama to respect the voters of Hillary Clinton.

Zolo Mikes

Lots of Jews have Israel “just” in their souls and hearts.

Lots of Jews have Israel “just” in their souls and hearts.

The opinions on the creation of Israel can vary and each opinion- except the extremist ones from both sides calling for any use of force on- should be listened. Especially on the day, when this state celebrates its 60 th anniversary.
It is clear, that after this opening the opinion here stated will be not a traditional one. Because there are lots of positives of the decision to create a Jewish state, but there are also some negatives. Despite the fact- or because of it- that I personally deeply admire the courage and ability of Jewish people to stand up to all the persecution, which they had to face for thousands of years just because they were and are clever and were and are thinking more than one step forward- I am not sure, if the creation of Israel was the only one possible solution. Yes, I surely because of my age can not understand the disaster after holocaust and the fear of the possibility, that it could be repeated, which was one of the reasons of the creation of Israel. On the other hand, the Jewish people already before the holocaust managed to survive also because they recognized themselves and helped themselves also without a state on the map. They had their state in their souls and hearts and could open their hearts and souls just to people who they honored with their trust. If they wanted, they could be invisible for the others.
And that had- my opinion after- more advantages than they have today with a state. Today, the Jewish people of Israel are under the fire from extremists from all over the world, just because they are recognizable to terrorists as a target which they hate. Would the Jewish people be not better of if they would be carrying their state “just” in their souls and hearts? Is it not better to FEEL the Jadishness like to POSESS it in a form of a state?
Zolo Mikes

Price of oil as a bubble.

Price of oil as a bubble.

WORLD BUSINESS PRESS ONLINE- WASHINGTON The oil almost at the 130 USD mark for a barrel- it is non sense. This commodity bubble has not an real reasoning and consumers should just take a deep breath and …buy hybrids, ignore air condition and reduce driving at all.
The best example how out of picture is the recent situation on the markets were the today’s inflation reading. The whole PPI including energy costs and food, gained just 0.2% in April, short of economists' expectations and following a rise of 1.1% in the a month before. But because prices excluding food and energy costs rose 0.4%, twice what was expected, the oil rose almost hit the 130 USD a barrel. So where is here the point? The inflation indicator, which includes oil cost ends twice better than expected, but because one another indicator, which does not have nothing with cost of oil ends higher than expected- it is the reason that the speculators send the price of oil to 130 USD a barrel? Where is here the logic correlation?
That is just one of evidences that any news is for the hysteric market just a bad news which gives the speculators a reason to drive the prices higher. It is the evidence that the recent prices of oil are just a commodity bubble and if consumers will fight against it with cutting the consumption, the comeback to reality will be very hard for some speculators. And it is right so.

Zolo Mikes

Town hall debates would profit McCain

Town hall debates would profit McCain

WORLD BUSINESS PRESS ONLINE – WASHINGHTON
The proposal of John McCain to senator Obama to have at least a series of 10 town hall debates face to face instead of just usual three presidential debates after the conventions is a wise one. A wise one for McCain.
It is clear that this proposal is a fair one. It is a proposal, which will help the American public to better know the opinions of each candidate. And the race for the White House will get more like it should be- it would be a race of ideas instead of the race of better commercials and the race in raising money for these commercials. But on the other side, it is clear, that in the recent situation McCain would profit more from debates. Watching his meetings with voters and watching meeting of Obama with his supporters it is clear, that Obama is able to wake more emotions although without debating the issues. He is like a rock star, he does not need to do nothing just smile and she will be able to get elected also he would not have more than 3 debates. Not McCain.
McCain needs the debates to get into the race, to begin debate the issues, because in the field of emotions he would be never able to defeat Obama. It will be interesting to watch, if Obama will have the courage to accept his proposal.

Zolo Mikes

Euro in Slovakia is a questionable change- for the citizens at least.

Euro in Slovakia is a questionable change- for the citizens at least.

WORLD BUSINESS PRESS ONLINE- WASHINGTON Euro will be an official currency in one more European state- Slovakia. From the beginning of the year 2009 the Slovaks will use Euro instead of the Slovak crown. It is clear, that European Union made a good deal. If Slovak citizen will be also glad- that is not so sure.
Slovakia was in the past couple of years called as the European tiger. The increase of GDP was about 8-10 percent, the inflation was low, and the country was politically stabile. The question is, if it is an advantage to change your currency if everything is going so well. The politicians backed by business corporation tried to lure the citizens by the advantage, that they will not have to change the currency when on vacation in the other countries of European Union. But clearly, that is the only one advantage for the ordinary people. The risks are bigger- the inflation can go higher, like it was in Slovenia after change of currency. That can result into the sinking living standard, which is in Slovakia already one of the lowest in the European Union except the countries like Bulgaria and Romania.
So just the future can answer the question, if changing a currency amid an economic growth and stability period was a lucky solution. Lucky solution for the citizens, not just for Slovak business corporation and the European Union.

Zolo Mikes

Endorsement of Lieberman for McCain as an act of greatness

WORLD BUSINESS PRESS ONLINE- WASHINGTON,17.12.2007 The decision of Joe Lieberman to endorse John McCain need not to-and will not -be agreed by lots of political analysts. The reasons why he did it are not agreed by the author of this opinion either. That does not change the fact, that Lieberman and his decision is a great act of contribution to democracy.
The Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2000 is endorsing a Republican candidate for elections in 2008- this is possible just in USA. And it is meant in a good sense. Because the decision of Lieberman is an evidence, that he is able to cross the party lines, that he is able to put the national interest first, that he believes in something. Actually the reason –threat of Islamic extremism is, my opinion after, totally wrong.
But as in many other political arguments, there is no definite judge, who can answer, whose opinion is right. Joe Lieberman has his opinion and while respecting the rules of democracy he is able to break all political taboos and go for it, because he believes in it. That is why, he and his decision are great contribution for democracy. Just in the fight of a broad quantity of antagonistic ideas a new higher quality can be found. Hegel put it right.
Zolo Mikes

It is time for a new Reagan-maybe in skirt.

It is time for a new Reagan-maybe in skirt.

WORLD BUSINESS PRESS ONLINE-WASHINGTON The effectiveness of US foreign policy regarding the upstanding in Barma is just a disaster. In the better case it is a mirror of failing abilities of the Bush administration, in the worse one it is the mirror of failing possibilities of US.
The brave and courageous upstanding of monks in Barma is at its end. It was totally suppressed by arms of junta and watched by the whole democratic world. But the governments of democratic countries were not able to achieve nothing in order to help the monks. They were beaten, they are in prison, and they are in worse situation like there were before the uprising. They are defeated- maybe not morally but politically for sure. The last time it took almost 20 years in Barma-one generation- till another uprising. One generation lost their dreams- a situation well known from Hungary, Czechoslovakia and maybe Poland- all the countries, where US failed to help prodemocratic forces by an upstanding. But at least, Reagan administration helped to forget all failures of its predecessors in these countries by defeating the Soviets.
On the other hand, the failure to help Barma- where the people were on the streets, where they shouted that they do not want junta- is just another evidence, how illegal was the Bush war in Iraq. Because if some deserved effective help- not necessary by arms- it were the monks in Barma. If you do not help to democracy in country where their own citizens are courageously fighting for it, how can it be just to begin a war against a country, where is no passion for democracy?
So as written in the beginning- this failure of Bush administration effectively support the uprising in Barma was in the best case mirror of the moral and political abilities of this administration. In the worse case it was the mirror of real situation of US foreign policy- after disaster in Iraq this country is in such bad situation, that it is not able to help anybody. And that would be a real tragedy- as so for US as for all other courageous oppositions in all tyrannical regimes in the whole world. Yes, it is time for a new US “reaganite” leader again. But this leader can wear also a skirt…

Zolo Mikes

The good and bad news about the possible end of war

The good and bad news about the possible end of war

WORLD BUSINESS PRESS ONLINE-WASHINGTON The decision of House of Representatives and Senate to bring the troops home till the end of March from Iraq is a good one. Because of human, economic and politic reasons.
More than 3000 american soldiers are dead, the number of Iraqi “collateral damage” is going to 10 thousands. The weekly cost of war in Iraq is more than 2 billion dollars. The American attack which started based on a lie of US president George W. Bush was a clear attack on international justice. It is good, that the main sinner- George W. Bush- is getting to be a looser. The problem is, that his foul decision made the militant Muslims stronger like there were before the war. This is a bad news about the possible end of the war-bad because of human, economic and politic reasons.

Zolo Mikes

Trade of democracy for business is a loose/loose situation

Trade of democracy for business is a loose/loose situation

WORLD BUSINESS PRESS ONLINE-WASHINGTON The death of Boris Yeltsin is a reminder for the West, that once upon a time there was in Russia a period, when democracy could be supported.
Boris Yeltsin was a politician, who understood, that if he will not at least act a as a democrat, the pressure from West will be strong enough to undermine his position. And the Russia of his time was weak enough to be pressured. The problem is, the western and US politicians missed this period and traded the democracy for economic advantages of “their” corporations- the corporations from their countries which indirectly support them financially. So because of missing pressure from West it could happen that from a Yeltsin -the fighter of the freedom on the tank-became an aggressor in Chechnya. This trend is today just continued by Putin. This trend of “de-democratisation” is accompanied also by stronger and stronger economic pressure against western companies- for example Shell.
So the very expensive lesson from this development the West has to take- if you trade democracy for business you will loose both.

Zolo Mikes

The high prices fueled the alternatives

The high pricees fueled the alternatives

World Business Press Online- After yesterdays announcement, that OPEC nations will not cut its oil output, but will closely watch if the price of this commodity is decreasing, one thing is clear- in normal conditions the price of oil about 60 USD a barrel should be maximum. And longterm it is also possible, that OPEC will have to be satisfied with a lower price, too.
The reason is simple- the skyrocketing of oil pricees in the close past is a reason, why it began to be very clever to watch after alternatives to fuel. And although the sheiks do not want to here it- there are some of them. Just yesterday announced Brasil, that it is aggressively expanding its sugar cane plantations, because it wants to raise its ethanol exports from recent 790 million gallons currently to more than 2.1 billion in year 2010. Just hours after it, Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India announced, that this country with its one most promissing economies of the world, will increase ethanol imports to India from Brazil and that he is very eager to follow the success of Brazil in building the flex fuel cars.
And flex fuel cars are the most decisive tool, which will determine, if alternative fuel will be successfull and on the end if it will lower the price of oil. The example of Brazil is showing, that this scenario is possible. In year 2001, when the price of oil was as low as about 25 USD for a barrel, the share of flex fuel cars did not reach in Brazil 10 percents. In year 2004 it doubled on 17 percents, and in the year 2005, when the industry fully reacted on the horrible oil prices, for the first time there were sold in Brazil more flex fuel cars than ,,traditional" fuel cars- 53,7 percents. These flex fuel cars can run on pure ethanol, or pure fuel or any combination of fuel and ethanol. Ethanol is in Brazil produced from sugar cane and its production is highly effective by recent horrible prices of oil. In Brazil the effectivity of producing sugar cane is increased also by the very good weather conditions and by the fact, that Brazil has a very long agricultural tradition.
If this example will be followed by similarly agricultural lands as India or China, where the most cars in the next future will be sold, it would be enough to lower the demand- and the price- of oil regardless of decisions of OPEC about the production output. Not to mention the increased demands for flex fuel cars by the nations like Sweden, which because of enviromental advantagees successfully experiments with flex fuel cars recently.
Zolo Mikes

Wall Street does not react negatively on Democrats

Wall Street does not react negatively on Democrats

WORLD BUSINESS PRESS ONLINE – WASHINGTON With Dow Jones well above the 12 000, actually reaching after 12 100 and stable NASDAQ there are little signs of past election on Wall Street.
Like World Business Press Online predicted already before the elections, these times Wall Street did not react negatively on the victory of Democrats in this Congressional elections. Businessmen knew, that the too strong republican agenda with president Bush pushing the Iraq war spending do need a congressional control. From this point of view, the victory of Democrats is a positive for the state budget deficit. They will keep an eye on the war in Iraq outlining some alternatives for troops withdrawal, what will save some of the costly budget spent on this war.
And from the times of president Clinton, already the traditional republican leaned Wall Street knows, that Democrat need not to be joined with irresponsible social overspending but can be also a synonym for record surpluses for state budget and strong healthy economy. Maybe, that is one of the reasons, why Wall Street does not see these times the overwhelming victory of Democrats as a disaster.

Zolo Mikes

Higher taxes alone not a solution

Higher taxes alone not a solution


WORLD BUSINESS PRESS ONLINE – WASHINGTON Higher taxes on the profits of the oil companies are not a bad idea. But Democrats, who are pushing this, have forgotten to explain, how they would use this revenue to the state budget.
It is clear, if you have a percent profit from some transaction, then this profit is higher, if the value of the transaction is higher. Yes, it is not hard to follow the thoughts of democrats, who see some immorality in the fact, that the oil companies have higher profit when the fellow American citizens have more problem to pay their bill at the pump. And although the question of the morality is not every time the first and only reason for political and economical decisions, there is logic in pushing for higher taxes on profits of oil companies. But if we use the logic- then politicians have to pursue such solutions, which will help to defend the interests of public, in this case the consumers at the pump. Will the higher taxes for oil companies mean automatically lower prices at the pump? Not necessary, maybe the opposite.
So, if there should be higher taxes, the revenue for them should be used for such measures, which will lower the dependence of US on foreign oil, which could lead to lower prices. In the case of Democrats, this does not need to be new oil slopes at Alaska, but it could be building new oil refineries and must be investment in research of alternative energies. Taxing without purpose has no sense, taxing should be compassionate and has to have its ideology, too.
Zolo Mikes

Democrats as a chance for Bush, immigrants and economy

Democrats as a chance for Bush, immigrants and economy

WORLD BUSINESS PRESS ONLINE – WASHINGTON Having Democrats in both Houses as a majority, President George W. Bush has a good possibility to finish the immigration reform as promised. And it will help not just to keep him on track politically- it will help the economy, too.
After it is more and more clear, that the war in Iraq made on false purpose will have a very “false” end, there is an issue, which could help President George W. Bush to remain in history books not just as an unsuccessful politician-warrior. The immigration reform, he had to begin but not finished under the pressure of most conservative Republicans did not deliver his party the victory and for the economy it meant a possibility of further regression. If there would not be enough people dreaming their American dream after immigrating the country, there will be not enough new customers who would like to build their first house, there will be not enough people who would like to buy their first car. And it is housing and car industry which are most struggling in recent US economy.
President Bush with Democrats could finish the immigration reform, which should both- as respect the immigrant tradition of US history as to be an opportunity for further economic growth. Why to change something, what functioned well more than 200 years. And, apropos- it is compassionately conservative, too.
Zolo Mikes

The price of education in US getting unbearable

The price of education in US getting unbearable

WORLD BUSINESS PRESS ONLINE- WASHINGTON It seems to be a mission impossible. And it is not about the new Bond film. It is about the possibility of an American parent to give his child education without letting him pay out the debt for it the whole entire life. And about the reason, the US economy is loosing the race.
If the average price for a four-year private college is more than 30 000 USD, how much have you earn, if you want to pay back the loans? And 30 000 USD is just the tuition- if you add the housing and some money for activities in which a normal young people is interested in- if you make the math, adding also some preparation costs to get in the college, you will probably know, that the young people of the recent generation in US will have to pay out their loans working about 12-15 years after ending college. And if the trend will go in this direction, in some short time, the price for education will be a ”life long slavery” in the work.
It is not acceptable, and it is a question of time, when the best in the young generation will stand up against this trend and leave US searching for a better- cheaper- education. It will be also the time, when US definitely loose the race of economies with countries like China. Because it will loose its biggest and only one advantage- well qualified people. It is time for some compromise between socialism and free market. At least in the question of education.
Zolo Mikes