Unfortunately, the UK's Northern Rock disagrees with you. The US has seen the same with Bear Stearns. They're unfortunately classified as too big to fail. And why would the CEO want to tell everybody that his company is probably overvalued in the long term? Surely he wants his performance to be judged by the stock value, and making comments that might bring the stock value down is counter productive. Oh, and no, he didn't buy tons of his own stock in the time period, so he's not some crook trying to make a quick buck by scaring the market. I agree that you can easily get other pundits to say otherwise, but these aren't small institutions or single market traders. They're massive institutions, and I would lend more credence to them. Biofuels have only recently become the 'hot' thing, and there's a large farmers lobby in the US supporting biofuel subsidies in their own self interest. But really, I don't buy conspiracies. But if you choose to believe in them, by all means, go ahead. I've to disagree. This is seen in TI's Corruption Perspections Index, which is by no means an objective assessment, but is an indicator of what's going on. China's been relatively stable in the last 4-5 years. Also, if you see the World Bank's report on corruption in China, we've had a steady reduction instead, and a increase in 2005-2006: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/c42.pdf It might take time, but if you're right and the world has seen it for a long time(I'm assuming in the last 3-5 years), we wouldn't have seen the panic today. Of course you could easily say that it might take a longer time to prepare farmland, but the fact that not a single government prepared for this either points to the fact that all governments are incompetent or none actually saw it. I say again, hindsight is 20/20. But how do you know that there isn't any? Isn't the investment announced by our government recently also one? It's certainly a kneejerk reaction, but I don't believe that our government's basically abandoned our farmers. Oh no no no. Mahathir and Ku Li's Bank Bumi bustup occured in the first term too. He also lost a few hundred million in trying to speculate in the price of tin in his first year (RM650 million in 1981 dollars iirc). Oh yes, and Mahathir was bombed with allegations of a RM200 million private jet himself The point is, trying to paint AAB as being as the worst PM ever when it comes to squandered funds isn't exactly right when you consider what his glorious predecessor has done, even if you compare term for term. Which is why I said......it's normal......almost business as usual, which sounds kinda sad when you think of the massive mismanagement that has occured. It's just that the Internet's given his critics a much more open playing field compared to Mahathir's era. And that's a good thing when it comes to transparency. And that is why I think we'll be able to make good progress in the medium term with this transparency. I do agree with you that most, if not all governments would want to hold back exports in order to save themselves from getting overthrown by pissed off citizens, which is a pity really imo. Self preservation is simply another name for economic nationalism, which is something I do not agree with
Only those two cases? What about the many other banks that have collapsed since? You will note that in both cases, the banks were not actually bailed out in the sense that the PKFZ was a bail-out. Northern Rock was given emergency funds by the Bank Of England because they had liquidity problems. In other words, they did not have the cash to return depositors who asked for it. As mentioned earlier, in such situations, central banks do provide commercial banks temporary funds to avoid a panic run on the bank. In Bear Sterns case, they were not actually bailed out by the US government. They were SOLD lock, stock and barrel to JP Morgan for less than 10% of their value. The Federal Reserve only provided a US$ 30 billion loan backed by Bear Sterns assets for JP Morgan to complete the purchase. In both cases, the "bail-outs" were done in order to preserve public confidence in financial institutions at a time when the banking industry is suffering from a massive liquidity problem and losses due to the subprime mortgage crisis. For every bail-out, you can be sure many other banks were allowed to die. Forgot about Barings (1995) already? A quick Google search will reveal many other banks which were allowed to collapse. Like Netbank in the US (2007), UK's Bank Of Credit & Commerce International (1991), Metropolitan Savings Bank (2007). From a news report by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - "Across the country, there have been 29 bank failures since October 2000, an average of about four a year." That's how often banks are let to die. In the US, the FDIC insures deposits in member banks by up to $100,000 per depositor. This is similar to the system over here, albeit ours is much less at RM 60,000 per depositor. So, no, governments generally do not bail out their banks unless it is necessary to ensure stability or national security. I don't know about that CEO or what he did personally. But he could very well be wrong. After all, there are so many other pundits and industry experts who took the OPPOSITE view. IMHO, look at the BIG picture. LOL! What makes you think the other people who disagreed with your quoted CEO are small fries? The size of the institution does not make them any less likely to tell lies or commit hanky-panky to further their own agendas. Look at the subprime mortgage crisis. Practically all the banks involved kept insisting that it was all okay, everything was hunky-dory... until they had to choice but to reveal the full extent of the damage during audits.. or when they had to ask for financial assistance. I believe it was something like US$ 3 TRILLION and counting? That's the guarantee of size for you. Exactly. Why now? Why did investors and governments suddenly developed a keen interest in biofuels and alternative power sources? Biofuel is NOT cheap. In fact, biofuels are more expensive than regular petrol/diesel. That means these countries and investors have already predicted that oil prices will rise high enough for biofuel to be economically feasible. Yes, the farming lobby in the US has been pushing for biofuel subsidies and whatnots. You must understand that they are so productive that they have large stockpiles of grain. Of course, they want to make more money. But what they want are not what biofuel investors are interested in. So what if the lobby keeps asking for biofuel subsidies? They have been asking for years. Why the sudden change of heart? As far as the biofuel investors are concerned, there must be a real potential for profit for THEM. Otherwise, why should they spend so much money in biofuel? Only a huge increase in oil prices can ensure them of that profit... and that's something no farmer's lobby can do. I don't know why you think this is a conspiracy. The facts are right there. You can easily search online for the cost of biofuels. You will see that they are NOT cheap to make, even if you do not factor in the cost of building the facility. Aiyoo.. It only shows the recent years. What we have been talking about is China before and after liberalisation. In any case, China's corruption is definitely higher than that of Singapore, but lower than over here in Malaysia. I wouldn't know when people started feeling that the demand will increase enough to make it worthwhile to invest in new farmland... but I would think most of the increased cultivation only occurred in the last 1-3 years. Err.. How do you know that not a single government prepared for the rise in food prices? IMHO, the increased cultivation alone says that at least those people saw it coming. In any case, food prices have been on the rise for a long time now, so it's impossible for these governments not to notice. More than a year ago, I saw a report on inflation in China where price of food increased by 2-3X from the previous year. That was over a year ago. Only here in Malaysia are our staple foods subsidized and their prices controlled. Hence, we are not so aware of the rise in global food prices. Because there has been limited investment in the farming industry by the government and Bernas. Did you not read a recent report (a few weeks ago?) that a farmer created his own machine to automate the plowing and planting of rice? He did it on his own. There was no government help at all. You can check on what Bernas did. By not encouraging the local farmers to improve their productivity, yes, they basically abandoned the farmers. The only reason why the farmers are not fuming about things is because food prices have gone up... and they are making good money. I believe that's Daim Zainuddin's fault? In any case, it's one thing for the bank to speculate and fail... only to have the government bail it out. It's ANOTHER thing altogether to have politicians make use of the government to cheat the people's money. Look at the Bank Bumi bail-out for example. Bank Bumi did not buy tin at RM 1 and insist the government buy it at RM 20. They speculated and failed, like any other bank. The government could have bailed Bank Bumi out to ensure national stability and faith in the banks. Of course, they had to protect the image of the "towering Malays" that Mahathir was trying to cultivate as role models for the people. The PKFZ bail-out is a totally different story. This is a clear-cut case of embezzlement by our politicians. Imagine buying land at RM 3 psf and getting the Port Klang Authority to buy it at RM 25 psf. Then they got PKA to agree to let them build up the place and run it for exhorbitant amounts of money. Then after running the PKFZ into over RM 1 billion worth of debts, they got the government to bail them out for RM 4.6 billion. Where is Mahathir's private jet? He is a corrupt old man but where is this airplane of his? How often did he fly out of the country anyway? We have all seen Abdullah's private jet. We have also heard of how he uses it to fly his family and friends to Australia every 2 weeks. Actually, practically everyone agrees that AAB is the WORST Prime Minister ever! Even people in UMNO. When I first moved down to PJ (over 2 years ago), I had a guy come set up the Astro for me. Out of the blue, he tells me just how useless Abdullah is and how he wished that Mahathir was in charge. He said that even though the Old Man was corrupt and all that, things were much better under his administration. Look at the reports coming in from within UMNO. Even they hate him. He is totally ineffectual as a PM. He has no vision and no ability to get things done. All he does is spout slogans. Why do you think people call him Mr. Slogan? Of all the Prime Ministers we have had, Abdullah Badawi is the most useless one. That is a fact. And from the reports we are getting, it looks like he may not even get through this year! For certain, he will be known as the PM who suffered the greatest defeat in the polls and the one with the shortest administration in Malaysia's history. Many people have said that but I disagree. Like Mahathir, Abdullah and his 4th floor boys did not believe in transparency. Why do you think they controlled the press so tightly? Even got Vincent Tan to buy over theSun. Forgotten already about their crackdown on HINDRAF and the Tamils at Batu Caves? Or the watergunning of peaceful protestors with their children at the Parliament? Is that transparency or freedom of speech? Ptui... No. Badawi is as much of a tyrant as Mahathir. Only problem is he's stupid and weak. IMHO, the only reason why blogs and such were allowed to flourish was because they underestimated the power of the Internet. Heck, they virtually ignored it. As for his perceived RELATIVE gentleness (compared to Mahathir) in combating dissent, frankly speaking, that's not true either. Abdullah Badawi is a weak, indecisive man. Then I hope you will never become the leader of the country I live in! Remember, in a democracy, the government REPRESENTS the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. That is exactly what those governments are doing. If you disagree with that.. and insist on doing it your way... well, aren't you being a tyrant?
Actually the Northern Rock has been nationalised as of right now. And the 'loan' by the Fed isn't exactly a loan in the normal terms that you and I would understand it. I understand the pragmatist's POV, to keep the banking sector running to ensure we don't go into full blown meltdown. I've said it before, there are banks which are too big to let them fail, unfortunately, Bear Stearns, being the fifth largest investment bank in the US and Northern Rock, which is a big high street bank were simply too big to let them fail, else you would get massive aftershocks in the financial system. Barings may be the oldest merchant bank, but its capitalisation was puny compared to what Northern Rock or Bear Stearns has. Bank Bumi, well, being another government propped up bank, had a similar size relative to the Malaysian economy. The point is, they're both bailouts on a massive scale. He was wrong. Oil shot up to 100 USD per barrel. But it goes to show that the market did not anticipate it, which you've been saying over and over again. It anticipated a rise, but one of such magnitude? I think not. What's the big picture? Oh no, they're certainly not small fries, but are they small fries compared to those banks, the biggest in America? Yes they are, and that's a fact. Of course, being big doesn't make you wrong, but I was rebutting what you said about the market having known that prices were going to jump up by such a magnitude. It's clear that they didn't, and that's the point I'm illustrating here. Biofuels are not cheap, but they're certainly made cheap by those subsidies. There has not been a sudden change of heart, but the subsidies were passed back in 2002, making it competitive with the price of oil back then. And last I checked, oil prices were hovering below USD 30 back then, and the only big event that was supposed to raise the price of oil was the impending war in Iraq. Whoops, I misread the graph. It was increasing, and then you had a reduction in 2005-2006. Sorry for that error For comparison, here's Malaysia's and Singapore's reports. Malaysia http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/c155.pdf Singapore http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/c193.pdf Surprisingly, Malaysia's above China there, which is something I find hard to believe, but then again, I've never lived in China, so I can't do comparisons myself But cultivation has always increased year on year, barring large crop failures. You say you wouldn't know it yourself, yet you're wagering that people have seen it for a long time coming. What are you really supporting here? Abdullah wasn't exactly directly involved in the PKFZ himself either, and neither was Mahathir, but the point is, they occured under their administration, and thus they share an equal portion of the blame. But remember, even if most of the losses occured under Abdullah, it was under Mahathir that the purchase of that land occured where the RM10 psf (I got that figure from Anwar's speech) land, valued by the government guys, was then bought for RM25 psf. Oh no, and I'm not saying the bailout's nothing other than to save their cronies skin either. It's just the same. The point I'm trying to get across is that Abdullah's just another continuation of Mahathir, with a sleepy image which certainly doesn't endear him to the public when everything's going wrong. 1998, after Anwar got sacked, I quote: BBC News | Asia-Pacific | Anwar denounces Malaysian PM To me it's just the same old, same old thing. Oh, of course he has, he's led them to their worst showing ever. He's also had a much more informed society and free media on his back, and also more people being able to access alternative views on the Internet, and this is easily disseminated further using SMSes. I know, the 4th floor boys are terrible, but I doubt Citizen Nades would've existed during Mahathir's days, and we know what happened in MGG Pillai's case. Personally, I'm happier with an Abdullah in trouble than a Mahathir in trouble. The last time Mahathir got into trouble in UMNO, our judiciary's independence was pretty much lost and freedom of religion just became a hollow sounding word. Mahathir's done the slogans too himself. Just replace 'Development Region' and 'Corridor' with 'Mega Project', and you'll see that they're the same. Failures and bailouts? Well, the MSC is a prime example. Tried to make Malaysia some Silicon Valley of the East. Prime vision, but the implementation was so poor that the MSC's just a hollow sounding name today. Oh yes, I don't disagree with you that Abdullah lacks a coherent vision. But you're ignoring Mahathir's many faults while decrying what Abdullah has done. Which is why I said, it's business as usual as far am I'm concerned. Oh, but you're insisting your own way too over mine, which also makes you a tyrant? There's nothing wrong with any of us voicing our views, and debating them, but there's simply no need to accuse one another of being tyrants No, I agree with you, and it is true that there's always an element of self preservation in any government of person. The idealist in me disagrees though. It certainly isn't very pragmatic, and it certainly clashes with your viewpoint, but that's my view, and I'm open to suggestions on how to accommodate other viewpoints.
Holy mole this thread is long lol Speaking of rising food prices though, the rice in Canada just increased by a few dollars a few weeks ago
Yes, Northern Rock has effectively been nationalised but not as a bail-out. As stated earlier, like other banks affected by the credit crunch due to the subprime mortgage crisis, NR had to borrow money from the Bank of England to counter a run on the bank. In fact, there was a run on the bank and they had to borrow billions of pounds from the BoC just to return to jittery depositors who were asking to withdraw their savings. The run happened due to panic, even though NR had more than enough assets. They only had a liquidity problem. Of course, NR had to pay back the loan. It was not FREE money. Two groups (Virgin and Olivant?) and probably several more attempted to buy over Northern Rock but things fell through and eventually the government had no choice but to take over the management. Remember, the British government has to safeguard the money they loaned to Northern Rock. Unlike here in Malaysia, where you can just write it off and forget about it. Even today, NR is doing its best to return the loan. Quote - "On 18th March, Northern Rock announced the measures that they would be taking to reduce their Government debt, hopefully entirely within three to four years" In other words, bail-outs (as in GIVE and FORGET) appear to happen only in Malaysia. It's bad practice and stinks of corruption and cronyism, but it's certainly not the norm. You will also note that Northern Rock and Bear Sterns are NOT government banks. So in conclusion... government-backed banks will not necessarily be rescued by the government.. and even commercial banks CAN be rescued by the government if they feel there is a genuine need to. Of course the government has to bail out the big boys. Not only because their fall would mean loss of money for many more people, it also strikes fear into the people... and that could precipitate a run on all the other banks. But the point is all these bail-outs have to be done for the good of the country. Of course, in the US and UK bail-outs, there seems to be proper accountability. The people are certain more scrupulous about the use of public money over there. Some people (like the CEO in this case) just refuse to believe. This is why some airlines lost a lot of money because they too refused to believe that oil prices can remain high for so long.. or even go up. Other airlines believed otherwise and thus benefitted by hedging most of their oil futures at the high price (at that time). Recently, I believe MAS just announced that they would be hedging a significant amount of their oil futures at $95 per barrel? And another significant amount at an even higher price. Something like that. That tells us that MAS feels that oil prices will remain high.. or go up further. No matter who believes what... you pay your money and you take your chances. Some people may have seen it coming and chose not to do anything about it. Maybe they didn't believe, maybe they didn't WANT to believe. In any case, they sure paid for it. But one thing's for sure. There are people who foresaw this and they are the ones benefitting from the rise in oil prices. Look at the way the Saudis and Singaporeans are buying up assets in the US. Bear Sterns, as you mentioned above, is "the fifth largest investment bank in the US" and yet these big boys FAILED to predict the outcome of the subprime crisis. No, size does not matter. A larger crystal ball will not make your predictions any more accurate. No matter how big or small you are, you are just as liable to make the same mistakes. It's just like gambling. You can bet small or you can bet big. The risk of making the wrong decision is the same, no matter how much you bet. It's merely the MAGNITUDE of the reward or the failure that differs. You are not. A few big banks/companies does not make a market. In fact, the current subprime crisis has shown that institutional players were all hesitant about admitting mistakes and acting fast. IMHO, it's not that they didn't see it coming... it's just that they just refuse to believe they could have made such a monumental mistake. Until today, everyone is wondering... how could these people not have seen it coming. Even before all those banks and financial institutions started reporting billlions of dollars of losses, everyone was already talking about the "impending housing crisis". Apparently, everyone KNEW about the crisis before the banks. No, they are not stupid. They just refused to see the writing on the wall. That is exactly why they suffered severe losses. Of course, we are not talking about subprime losses but rather increase in food prices. The point I'm making here is that large organizations have a kind of institutional inertia. Whether it's because of the sheer size of their assets (or egos), they may know something is wrong.. but they will resist doing something about it. Coming back to the rise in food... as mentioned earlier, the writing was on the wall. Over a year ago (probably close to two years now), China had already reported massive inflation of food prices. Even then, the people in China were already grumbling. Even here in Malaysia, we were also feeling the effects. I know... cause I'm always very tight... and things have been getting tighter and tighter. So food prices going up? Yeah, I KNEW about it long ago. I saw it coming, so did many other Malaysians. Why do you think so many people are disgruntled with Abdullah's policies? Subsidies help but they are still more expensive than ordinary oil. Also, with food prices rising, so will the cost of the base materials needed for biofuels. No matter what, the increased interest in biofuel definitely lies in the strong prospect for profit, not subsidy. That means increased oil prices. Otherwise, even with subsidy, biofuel will not be a viable alternative to regular oil. Well, IMHO, the best thing would be to compare the corruption index since the 70s. Then you can see the effect of strong authoritarian rule in China and lack of opportunities for corruption before the opening of China... and the corruption index after China opened up the economy. Huh.. Do you have proof that everyone has always been increasing cultivation of food crops? No, I did not say they saw it coming since a long time ago. I only said many people saw the writing on the wall... IMHO, probably in the last 1-3 years, when things started going bad. That's why whatever increase in food cultivation globally had little effect, compared to the major shortage in food supplies caused by bad weather, etc. this year. Actually, the cabinet function as one voice. That means all decisions are UNANIMOUS. Kinda stupid idea IMHO but that's the BN model. So, everyone in the cabinet (including Abdullah and Mahathir la) must accept blame for approving it. Yup, the land was only valued at RM 10 psf but the original price was RM 3, IIANM. IMHO, Dr. M cannot deny that he was to blame for this fiasco either... ALTHOUGH we have proof that Ling Liong Sik and Chan Chong Choy, both dirty MCA rats, illegally issued letters of support (essentially government guarantees) without Cabinet knowledge or approval. HOWEVER, Abdullah Badawi (and his cabinet) bears the SOLE responsibility of agreeing to BAIL OUT PKFZ. Now, that is something Mahathir should not be blamed for. Abdullah Badawi could have just let PKFZ die... After all, what's there to lose but a few hundred warehouses and a few other buildings? It's not like PKFZ is a bank with thousands of Malaysian depositors who could lose their hard-earned savings. Of course, he should also launch an investigation into the matter, as well as prosecute those responsible for illegally signing those letter of support. None of which he did. So, if you ask me, Abdullah Badawi turned a RM 1.8 billion loss into a RM 4.6 billion loss (and counting!). Let's not forget the RM 5.8 billion Putrajaya apartment project. That was under Abdullah. Eh, as corrupt and iron-handed as Mahathir was, at least he did something for the country. What did Abdullah do but sleep? That's the problem. In the last 5-6 years, Malaysia was like a ship with the captain sleeping at the wheel. That's why we failed to notice the coming storm. Now that we are in the midst of the perfect storm, do you really blame the people (crew) for wanting to make the captain walk the plank? Actually, till today, I have not seen Mahathir's plane but I sure have seen Badawi's plane! In fact, I've also seen his yacht. Woah.. woah.. Free media????? Where's the free media? Why do you think so many people stopped buying local newspapers? Have you read the stuff they printed in the papers before and during the elections? LOL! How can that be free media??? Ahh.. They cannot control the Internet, but they sure employed cybertroopers to go mess up opposition blogs. They also attacked and brought down opposition blogs, like Malaysia-Today. LOL!! Didn't you notice that theSun was bought up by Vincent Tan (yeah, the guy in the Lingam tape) before the elections... and the staff instructed (in front of Khir Toyo) NOT to write any more negative stories about the Selangor government or Khir Toyo. Didn't you notice that Citizen-Nades was effectively shut up and sent for a "holiday" during the elections? No, the press was no freer than it was during Mahathir's days. Badawi's people are just less intelligent. Okay, I will use the word - stupider. Err.. So our judiciary was better after Badawi left? Look at the crap that went on in Abdullah's term. He shove a Constitutional change down the Agong's throat just to extend the EC Chairman's retirement age by one year. He elected the a private lawyer to the Federal High Court! In which aspects do you feel our judicial system has improved since Abdullah took over until the recently concluded elections? Freedom of religion? You gotta be kidding me. Only in Badawi's time did we hear of nonsense like body snatching, Islam Hadhari, tearing down of Hindu and Buddhist temples? Only under Badawi did we learn that only Muslims are allowed to use the word Allah, and that the Bible cannot be translated into Malay (although this was already done by a Malay Muslim centuries ago). No one has interfered into religion more than Abdullah Badawi. Eh, slogans are different from pet projects. Everyone knows.. Mahathir's weakness is his penchant for mega-projects. He probably has an inferiority complex. Maybe large phallic objects like the Petronas twin towers make him feel like a bigger man. Who knows... but it sure is different from slogans la... Have you heard Abdullah talk before or not? Never heard of his many slogans? LOL! He's famous for coming up with slogans for different issues. But real work or policy = NO. No, I'm not. I've already said many times that Mahathir has many faults. But Abdullah Badawi is ABSOLUTELY the worst Prime Minister ever... bar none. This is not only my opinion, but also an opinion shared with most Malaysians believe, including many people in UMNO right now. Ahh.. You did not read what I wrote in the right context. Let me clarify. You said "Self preservation is simply another name for economic nationalism, which is something I do not agree with" In a democracy, the government REPRESENTS the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. You may think it's wrong for the government to interfere with the free market to ensure the people are happy. But that's democracy. They are LISTENING to the will of the people. If you, as a Prime Minister, insist on going against the will of the people. Then, aren't you being a tyrant? LOL! It's just a discussion la. What will ever come out of such discussions? Nothing really.. Maybe just the maturity and honing of thought for everyone discussing. Well, it's just you and me right now.
Actually, the run on the bank was caused by news outlets reporting that Northern Rock had to make an emergency loan with the BOE so it could continue with its business model of borrowing large amounts from the money market, which had seized up by then due to the credit crunch, and then providing it in the form of loans. Everyone got worried that the bank would collapse, hence the rush. But that's besides the point. And the problem is....I'm fine with you making a conclusion about a commercial bank, but you're extending this to government-backed banks too, which I think should be treated differently. If a government-backed bank collapses, it will also hurt the government's reputation if they leave it to collapse. [to be honest, I really can't remember how we got into talking about banks, and I really can't be bothered to read it anymore] Oh, I agree with you that they're much more careful with the money over there than here. Goes to show that accountability here is at best a misnomer. But you refuse to believe the other case too. It works both ways. The thing is, when you spoke about the market, you gave me the impression of everyone seeing it beforehand. Well, I was simply providing examples of people having not seen it beforehand. Some people will have seen it, some people will have not seen it. Just as major banks and stuff missed it because they might have wanted to believe in it and be proven wrong, so would others that have seen it and proven right. But your initial assertion about the market, which I quote here: A lot of pundits were wrong. And that was my point. Hmm, how did the Singaporeans actually benefit from the rise in the price of oil and how did it lead to them buying into big chunks of US banks? I can't see the connection between the Singaporeans having seen the price of oil increasing and them buying into US banks because they made huge losses in the subprime market and needed fresh capital. The Saudis, well they obviously benefit from high oil prices Agreed. But some of them, e.g. Goldman Sachs, saw it, and actually profited from it instead (sub prime). I'm just saying that not everyone saw it coming. Well, you may have seen it coming, but how do you exactly quantify your 'many Malaysians' remark? Doubtful. Unfortunately, the US and Europe have massive subsidy programs for their own agricultural products. That's something most agricultural producers in the Third World have been complaining about: the fact that they can't compete with the imports because they're just too cheap. Well, can't provide evidence there can I? It's still surprising to see Malaysia above China, even with our scandals and all..... From the IRRI's website: http://www.irri.org/science/ricestat/pdfs2/Table01.pdf Year Total Production ('000 metric tons) 1999 610689 2000 598459 2001 597498 2002 568508 2003 585972 2004 611650 2005 629494 2006 631415 Oh, and according to them some entries might not be accurate, but that was the best source I could find for worldwide production. And the blip from 1999 - 2002 was caused by an oversupply of rice. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/dec1999/ao267e.pdf Well, many of us certainly didn't see it coming either. It's been increasing year on year since 2004, where it surpassed the 1999 levels, which is in the range of the 1-3 years you mentioned What's gone bad? Actually that's how most governments work, the cabinet members can not vote against whatever they decide there. The stupid thing about BN is the crazy whipping system they apply on their MPs. Vote against us on any issue, you'll get a bloody beating and might get sacked from BN (iirc, penang had 2 people sacked from the legislative assembly because they abstained from the vote on some BN vs opposition motion) I wouldn't quote the RM3 psf price though. It really depends on when they bought it, considering inflation, and perhaps infrastructure developments alongside that might have increased the value of the land, so I would be inclined to stick with the valuation. Well, Abdullah did do that, but the same could be said with Perwaja too. Look, I'm not defending Abdullah myself, it's all the same to me. Ah, you haven't seen it, but Mahathir did admit that there existed such a plane too in that article itself, so well, it's up to you to believe it or not Well, I thought that you would be able to see that the much more also covered the word free media. Perhaps I overestimated your power of comprehension . Well, let me make it explicit. Freer media. Actually, I think Abdullah's been better than Mahathir when it comes to press freedom. I still remember Malaysiakini's offices getting raided during Mahathir's reign. Some of the newspapers actually started doing limited criticism of the government after Mahathir stepped down, which is some better than the things we were fed during Mahathir's days. Do you not remember the very same whitewash in 1999? (I'm too young to remember what they looked like in 1995). I remember reading Muhammad's infamous RM20 million escapade and was baffled by why he was arrested. I had to get my parents to explain to me what my ex-MB did. That was how much they toned down the article. Well, here's a reminder on media freedoms back in Mahathir's era during the height of Reformasi, and try comparing it to what happened during Bersih/Hindraf's protests: Media freedom in Malaysia. - Free Online Library As for the Internet? I think Mahathir got lucky really. He left as the Internet took off in Malaysia with Streamyx and all. And that's why I think the increased access to the Internet vs the situation back in 1999, and Mahathir's pledge not to censor the Internet has led to increased democratisation in Malaysia. And I've gotta say, thank you Mahathir for that! Oh, and you might've missed older boycotts in the past when MCA bought over the Star too Err, are you implying to me that what Abdullah did was worse than what Mahathir did? I'll put it back into context: In which, I mean that the Abdullah in trouble has not just decided, in one form or another, sack 5 out of 9 of the Supreme Court judges because his position is in trouble. I can tell you, I much prefer Abdullah in trouble than Mahathir in trouble Oh, but you forget, the constitutional bit relevant to the Syariah Courts being equal to the secular Federal Court was put in by Mahathir during that constitutional crisis, and it is that which has led to Lina Joy, and many of the cases today. Can I trace it back to Mahathir? Yes I can. I don't deny that this things have happened under Abdullah, but my opinion is if Mahathir didn't screw it up first, we wouldn't be here with these cases because those guys would eventually lose. As for Islam Hadhari, my opinion of it's probably the same as yours. And that's probably saying something Islam, the state and freedom of religion in Malaysia I'm not even trying to portray Abdullah as an angel, I'm just saying he's no worse than that old man when it comes to corruption or 4th floor boys. He does suck in his vision and implementation department though, hence the sleepy head image imo. Ah, but you think I would implement such a policy if I were PM. How would you know such a thing? I can be a pragmatist too, you know. You're assuming I'm going to follow my ideals to the end, of which I can assure you I wouldn't My ideals might clash with others, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to force my policy based on my ideals over everyone else. Like you said, assuming makes an ass out of you and me No, and sometimes making decisions over what's popular isn't called being a tyrant. And to clarify further, I'm speaking in general, and not referring to this specific topic. Some random thoughts: I propose that Abdullah be called The Accidental Bapa Demokrasi, since he wasted so much political capital and hope of Malaysians on him until we actually transitioned from a virtual one-party state (well, with a 2/3rds it is a virtual one party state) to a democracy, and his proposal to revitalise the judiciary, though the results are yet to be known on that. [He certainly didn't want to increase democratisation, but he inadvertently did through his sleepyness] I kinda regret posting my reply to bslee, imagine all that wasted time lol We're going OT here from the main topic, which is food prices. This is seriously getting way too time consuming, and I doubt whether I can devote time to this anymore.
I blame the Japanese government for keeping the price of rice artificially high, and the greeny-weenys for unnecessary regulations.
Well, that still doesn't change the fact that it was not a bail-out per se, but rather emergency borrowing from the central bank, first to solve a liquidity problem and then to avoid a run on the bank. Huh? Why do you think a "government-backed" bank will be protected but not commercial banks? Frankly speaking, the well-being of the banks and other financial insitution can be considered a matter of national security. A problem with any bank or FI can cause a major loss of confidence in the country's financial system, which is bad for the country. It doesn't matter whether the bank is "owned" by the government, or just one in which the government has some share, or a bank with no government links. IMHO, government will generally treat their country's banks (not foreign ones) as national assets, whether they have a stake in the bank or not. Perhaps you can quote me instances of governments favouring "their" banks over commercial banks? ROTFL!! Then let's just skip that part. I also don't know how we always get out of topic! Actually, you misunderstood me. If you go back and read the first post I made about this issue, I said that people have seen it coming. I didn't say EVERYONE saw it coming. Obviously, there is not such thing is unanimity in thought! The point is... many people have already been warning of impending global food crisis years ago when countries started getting hit by abnormal droughts or floods. Like North Korea, for example, where hundreds of thousands of people were killed when severe floods created a massive famine for several years. What's wrong with what I said? Market pundits DID predict it and those who did prepared for it. As mentioned earlier, some airlines hedged their future oil supply at high rates while others started developing more farm land, etc. Yes, as mentioned above, there can never be a unanimity in ideas. Those who did not see it coming.. or refused to believe it, well, they sure had it coming, didn't they? One thing though... people on the streets have been complaining about increasing food prices for a long time now. Last year, we even had shortages of essential food items like cooking oil and sugar. So, it would be wrong to say that we did not see it (higher food prices) coming. The hike in prices and shortages in supply did not just happen overnight.. or after the BN government was hit by major losses in the general elections. It had been going on for a long time now, which is one reason why BN did so badly in the elections. Even while our essential food items are subsidized, food prices have been going up rather quickly over the last 2-3 years. And I agree... but what's shocking is that they could be so wrong when so many other people have been complaining about higher food prices, food shortages, etc. They must have been deaf. Huh? Singapore does not benefit from a rise in the price of oil. No country benefits from that, unless they produce the oil! It is the FALL of the US dollar and the huge losses suffered by banks in the US (due to the subprime crisis) that has allowed Singaporean, Middle-Eastern and Chinese government interests to buy up major stakes in US banks. Of course, not EVERYONE saw it coming. If they did, then we wouldn't be facing this problem, would we? Well, maybe we still would, but only if they intentionally chose not to do anything about it! Simple. Look at the number of Malaysians disgruntled about higher food prices. Ask them how long ago did they start complaining about it. As mentioned above, we have been hit by both cooking oil and sugar shortages last year. We also had cement and steel shortages but those are not food items, of course! And one of the reasons why the BN government did so badly in the elections is because the people felt they could not keep the food prices low. Whatever Zeti and BNM officials may say, inflation has been really high for the last 2-3 years. If you actually go to the market and buy chicken (for example) every week / month, you will know exactly how much the prices have risen. Not really. How much can they subsidize their farmers? Ultimately, subsidies will be too expensive to sustain. If subsidies really work, why is our government doing its best to throw off those shackles? Also, lower cost of grain is not necessarily tied to subsidies. It's also due to better use of technology (to get rid of pests), use of automation (to reduce manpower), better use of fertilizer, better irrigation, better storage and even better transportation. CNN just ran a piece on the food issue several days ago. They quoted Indian farmers who actually still do not properly irrigate their farm lands, leading to poor yields. Worse still, even when harvest is good, lack of proper transportation meant that most of the crops are lost. So, if you ask me, Third Country farmers should quit complaining... and start thinking about what they can do to improve. That's just my opinion, of course. I generally prefer to think about solutions rather than just complain about problems. Indeed. Knowing what we know... it's really hard to believe. Well, if they are accurate, then I guess we have absolutely no reason to worry about the supply of rice, do we? Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. That means either their stats are wrong... or we have a whole lot more hungry people.. or people who are hoarding food. There is a massive shortage of rice and other food items, and that's a fact. I don't have the stats but I'm pretty sure news reports of rioting in Haiti and demonstrations in Egypt and elsewhere should suffice as evidence that we REALLY have a problem. If their stats are accurate though.. it does meant that some folks did see it coming and started to cultivate more rice. As to what's gone bad... well, it's hard to know for sure if we just base it on those numbers. For example, are those numbers based on actual rice available for sale? Or just estimates of rice production based on cultivated land area? Because as mentioned above, in India, they may have a good harvest but that doesn't mean the rice will actually reach the consumer. Yeah, the whip system is really stupid. They need to use the whip on the idiot who came up with the idea. Huh? Inflation? Heh.. It was worthless swamp land. How much do you think it will appreciate over such a short time? BTW, the actual development of the land itself was not included in the cost. They charged the government for it, at prices that I'm sure are "most reasonable". Indeed, it's the same shit. The point is Abdullah ran on a holier than thou platform. He said he would crack down on corruption but looky here, he's just as corrupt, if not more corrupt than the previous administration. He also said that his "version" of Islam called Civilizational Islam is more moderate and modern than the "older" version of Islam. But what do we end up with? Body snatching, conversion issues, and the provision of Sharia court jurisdiction over non-Muslims. Alright, let's just assume both of them had their personal airplanes. But what you can't deny is the fact that unlike the old man, Abdullah really has a penchant for Aussieland. The rate he's going, he can easily qualify for a PR. That's the point. Media freedom did NOT improve during his administration. Like Mahathir, Abdullah also cracked down on "errant" newspapers. Pray tell us in what way were the press given greater press freedom during his adminstration? Yes, of course, those newspapers started talking bad about Dr. M. That doesn't mean they have more freedom! Haha... He's out and he's no longer on Abdullah's side. Of course ,the will write bad things about him. Why do you think Dr. M actually started counting on blogs to get his messages out? A better indicator of media freedom would be the number of news reports on government cover-ups or misconduct. Okay, so Abdullah is better because he "just" watergunned the protestors (including women and children). So he's better because he "only" jailed some annoying Indians from HINDRAF? I rest my case. Actually, that pledge is worthless. Neither Mahathir nor Abdullah can censor the Internet. It's just not doable for our government. They are just too incompetent. Nope. It's the same thing as Vincent Tan buying over theSun. He doesn't have to? The judges are ALREADY in his pockets, thanks to Dr. M. That doesn't mean he's better or cleaner. If he's better or cleaner, he would have replaced them with better judges. But wait.. what did he do? He elevated a PRIVATE LAWYER and one representing UMNO at that directly to the Federal Court, bypassing all other qualified judges. Hmm... Interesting. Can you also trace body snatching, the use of the word Allah and banning of religious books and demolitions of temples to Dr. M? Remember, it was not Dr. M but Abdullah who advocated the "better" and "more moderate" Civilizational Islam (as if Islam isn't civilized!) What matters is now how things started.. but how they are resolved. All these matters happened during Abdullah's time. He could have changed things. After all, he did advocate his brand of Islam... but did he change things? No. That meant he not only agreed with Dr. M on those matters, he also allowed far worse things to happen. LOL!! You have to remember though.. that Dr. M did not have any 4th floor boys. In fact, it was Dr. M who coined that term for Abdullah's advisors. That's surprising. Honestly, I would stand up for what I believe. If it's the right thing to do, then as a leader, you must do it... even if it's painful. Of course, if others can show me that my thinking is flawed, I would change my mind. But the point is doing what I think is right.. and not following others just because I want to conform. More like through his stupidity. LOL!! Relax la.. It's just a discussion. It's a different thing if we are really in actual charge of the country!
