Putin Calls for New Financial World Order
June 11th, 2007Via: Financial Times:
Russian president Vladimir Putin called on Sunday for a radical overhaul of the world’s financial and trade institutions to reflect the growing economic power of emerging market countries – including Russia.
Mr Putin said the world needed to create a new international financial architecture to replace an existing model that had become “archaic, undemocratic and unwieldyâ€.
His apparent challenge to western dominance of the world economic order came at a forum in St Petersburg designed to showcase the country’s economic recovery. Among 6,000 delegates at the biggest business forum ever held in post-Soviet Russia were scores of international chief executives including heads of Deutsche Bank, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Nestlé, Chevron, Siemens and Coca-Cola.
Business deals worth more than $4bn were signed at the conference – including an order by Aeroflot for Boeing jets – as executives said they were continuing to invest in Russia despite deteriorating relations with the west.
Putin also made an interesting speech recently about not entering into an arms race:
http://news.skilluminati.com/?p=86
Full speech here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17855.htm
“VLADIMIR PUTIN: And I am also against an arms race. I am opposed to any kind of arms race but I would like to quickly draw your attention to something I said in last year’s Address. We have learned from the Soviet Union’s experience and we will not be drawn into an arms race that anyone imposes on us. We will not respond symmetrically, we will respond with other methods and means that are no less effective. This is called an asymmetrical response.
The United States are building a huge and costly missile defence system which will cost dozens and dozens of billions of dollars. We said: “no, we are not going to be pulled into this race. We will construct systems that will be much cheaper yet effective enough to overcome the missile defence system and therefore maintain the balance of power in the world.†And we are going to proceed this way in the future.
Moreover, I want to draw your attention to the fact that, despite our retaliatory measures, the volume of our defence expenditures as a percentage of GDP is not growing. They were 2,7 percent of GDP and will remain so. We are planning the same amount of defence spending for the next 5 to 10 years. This is fully in line with the average expenditures of NATO countries. This amount is not more than their average defence expenditures and in some cases it is even lower than that of NATO member countries. And we can use our competitive advantages which include quite advanced military-industrial capabilities and the intellectual capacities of those who work in our military complex. There are good results and good people. In any case, much of this has been preserved, and we will do everything possible in order not only to maintain but also to develop this potential.”
How can you beat this fabulous system?
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2100587,00.html
“…Its prospectus reveals that its chief executive, Stephen Schwarzman, enjoyed personal earnings of $398m last year. When Blackstone goes public, he will receive a windfall of at least $449m and he will retain a stake in the business worth $7.7bn….”
I remember someone making a point in how those who are considered rich by todays standards make an obscenely disproportionate amount of money relative to what they actually “do”. Compared to the so-called robber barons of the 1800’s, those men of years gone by don’t hold a candle. I believe the ratio between CEO and average worker is so out of whack that it only highlights the disappearing middle class.
Many even make fortunes while running the corporation they were hired to steer right into the ground. Consider Pfizer, Eddie Bauer, Hewlett Packard, and Ford as examples…..where so called critical talent (people with less average experience and time with the company than the company’s median employee) were brought in, given obscene pay, stock options, and golden parachutes, and then promptly made poor decisions that cost 1/2 of the company’s net value for their stockholders. Each was then rewarded for their lack of acumen with bonuses. Pay for failure.
Good work, when you can get it!