allaboutwomen

We live in an increasingly-divided society; on an increasingly-divided planet; competing with others for limited resources, and a limited number of jobs transforming those resources into consumable food and other products. Our social structure rewards individual effort over community effort; corporate competition over corporate cooperation; individual wealth over community wealth; and ultimately selfishness over sharing, even with regard to our common needs; so much so that many millions are in want while many thousands cannot consume their personal wealth. This increasing political and economic divisiveness in our society is rooted in a core social belief in, and preference for, discrimination against others via exclusion; which is rooted in philosophies of individual superiority and social pecking order; and which in every form promotes inequality and a house divided. Whether that core belief stems from our religions, ethnic background, race, political persuasion, or economic standing, it is our nature to divide our society into groups that promote narrow philosophies, which by their narrowness exclude others.

On the other hand there is a lot of political activism from portions of the middle and lower classes to continually try to legislate inclusiveness in our society (every form of equality), simply because the have-nots want to share in the advantages of those who have the power and resources to practice economic, political, and social exclusion. Many laws enacted to increase inclusiveness in our society often create more social tension and political division that offsets the intended desire for social cohesion, because the equality of inclusion cannot increase unless the inequality of exclusion declines. Our chief problem is that almost everyone wants personal wealth and privilege over and above being socially and economically equal to all other citizens; so equality of wealth and opportunity, for all, continually looses the battle to the individual pursuit of wealth; because too many of us strive to be included into the portion of our society that is by its economic status and perceived pecking order, the most exclusive. Individual pursuits are exclusive, not inclusive, in all areas of our society.

The pursuit of individual wealth creates an economic structure that is in the form of a pyramid, while our political structure also operates as a pyramid of legislative power (unequal power of Congress-persons and Senators), creating laws to support the exclusive nature of the economic pyramid. The longevity and law-making-power of members of Congress protects the longevity of private wealth and its economic power, and vice versa. In a pyramid, the exclusivity of a few at the top can only be supported by the forced inclusivity of many at the bottom. Periodically those at the bottom get riled and seek reform; but reforms over the past fifty years have mostly failed, while bailouts of failing private businesses and deregulation of many industries has led to a decline in wealth and real wages for most workers; fostered increases in wealth for only a few percent; resulting in massive borrowing of that wealth to pay for our annual expenses for national defense, education, medical care, and infrastructure; and guaranteeing even greater poverty in the future for most citizens. It is lamentable, if not tragic, that the social decay we are witnessing via increasing private wealth for a relative few and increasing poverty for many, and special interest politics to promote individual wealth over communal needs, is not reversible within the current framework of our Congress; because it is not against the law for private wealth, corporate wealth, and foreign wealth to purchase the power of Congress to enact laws that secure wealth to a few, at the expense of many; nor is it against the law for the private banks, which includes the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, to milk our economy for their expenses, profit, and security against failure; even if it means destroying the wealth flowing through them by devaluing our labor, our savings, and our assets, by pumping instantly created dollars into their electronic balance sheets that is unsecured by productive labor within our economy; an act that can only devalue the dollar, i.e. reduce the dollars' purchasing power.

As a society we interact with a multitude of behaviors that for the most part promote our self interests over the interests of society. In order to form a society that barely keeps us one level above savage behavior we implement and enforce laws to regulate our social interactions. Government, in all ages, is the creation of regulations and the enforcement of regulations; to abandon regulations or fail to enforce them, is to abandon government; which can only lead to exclusion, economic and political disparity, discrimination in many social areas, and ultimately social anarchy that can only be followed by political revolution. And yet deregulation is the mantra of the rich and their political minions; these people really do want no government, outside of a police state that protects their wealth and opportunities to increase it.

In order to form a government that will regulate our social activities in a fair manner we attempt to elect our legislatures and Congress in a grassroots form of Democracy; but in our society the majority of voters lose all influence over those elected because of the agendas and influence of Congressional Leaders and paid lobbyists. Lobbyists seek to thwart the creation and enforcement of laws that regulate the activities of their special interest clients. Our politicians are often bribed with campaign contributions, gifts, favors, and threats of political retaliation, to gain their support for de-regulation that benefits special interests at the expense of our communal interests. The success of special interests leads to a nation divided, and government via an oligarchy that promotes self-interest and exclusion in place of sharing and inclusion. Such a government is in declension, because it is neither inclusive nor long-term sustainable as it creates a rising tide of poverty and inequality. Increasing wealth and political power for a few can only come from increasing poverty and despair for many, until the impoverished have no more to give and everyone's future becomes uncertain.

The greatest ally of the lobbyist in preventing new laws and regulations to govern their clients is the social stagnation brought about by the increasingly diverse interests of a growing population. As a community, state, and nation increase in population, new laws that affect everyone become more difficult to pass, while new laws to support deregulation that affect or benefit a few become easier to pass; under the guise that government is too big and too intrusive; the hue and cry of special interests is to deregulate, and is ever-present in the halls of Congress. As population increases, each Congressperson and Senator either has more constituents to represent; or at the very least more constituents of other representatives to compete against; and since our personal interests become more diverse with more people in the mix, they also become more diluted in the ability to influence our representatives; allowing those representatives to pursue their own agendas of supporting special interests that will ensure their re-election. The social momentum that increases with population tends toward benefiting the politics of special interests and economic exclusion, such that the produce and profits of our economy are not divided nor taxed in a manner that maintains social equality. Special interests delay the implementation of all manner of social reform; leading to public debt, social despair, infrastructure decay, and uncertainty regarding our future internal security.

Oddly enough in these hi-tech times, as our country rises in population, our citizens are becoming more isolated from each other; making them less cohesive politically and thereby more manageable by the actions of special interests and politicians. People are using the technological advances in communication to cocoon themselves away from community relationships that require social engagement for shared interests. The majority of youth now seek vicarious life experiences from computer games that require little physical effort. The social networking that develops from this technology is one of exclusion via individual isolation, more than inclusion via group contact. Along with this increased social isolation comes the philosophy of acting only for self-interest above all other interests. Self-interest can be a builder of society when it limits itself to efforts that promote the health, wealth and wellbeing of the whole society under the social axiom that what is good for the interests of the community and nation is also good for the self-interest of each individual; but self-interest is a destroyer of society when it seeks only individual health, wealth and wellbeing, regardless of any harm or other consequences to members of that society.

Obviously we produce all that we consume. We have shown over and over in our history that we are capable of producing huge surpluses of any of our consumption requirements, but we are more often than not incapable of sharing the jobs to produce what we need, or sharing the profits made on our production and the taxation requirements to fund our communal expenses. In short, we have debt because we have social inequality that springs from economic inequality. For some inexplicable reason, it is not understood by the majority of people, that you cannot have debt, public or private, without surplus wealth; wealth that stems from, and depends on, the inequality of economic opportunity. You can only borrow from those that have a surplus over and above their needs. If there is no surplus there can be no borrowing and hence no debt. In our economy the banks are agents for the wealthy; they borrow the surplus of their wealthy clients and lend it to individuals and businesses. They manage debt, such that the expenses and profits of the banks and the increase in wealth for their clients, all comes from the wages and profits of the borrowers; more wealth accruing at the top of the pyramid. It is unfortunate for our society that banks can only increase profits by increasing the amount of debt they manage; if we reduce our overall debt in any way the banks will suffer less profits; if we eliminate debt altogether we will not have banks.

In a society that has legitimate communal expenses; taxes should be collected at rates that reflect the ability to pay relative to the amount required, so that borrowing is never a part of our social actions. Because we live in a bifurcated society, with a political system that is subservient to the economic system (the opposite of what should be, because our current system creates and supports exclusion in place of inclusion), we have limited taxes on wealth below our needs and then allowed those with surplus wealth to loan us their unneeded wealth to cover the cost of our communal needs; guaranteeing them greater future wealth to secure their futures at the expense of others; while if we had taxed their wealth we would have no debt, they would continue to live as well as they do, less some of their surplus, and society would thereby be more secure. Increasing debt does not lead to greater security for the lender, their future is as uncertain as the debtor, because it depends on the future abilities of the debtor to pay said debts. The destruction of the middle class (producing class) will be the destruction of the ability to have taxable income to pay the public debt, or even the interest due annually on that debt. Recent politics in Congress suggest that the upper class is now hell-bent on destroying, through catastrophic debt, the middle class, which is the class that by its applied labor has produced their wealth. Representatives of wealth are now seeking to reduce and limit wages for current labor, reduce pensions, and reduce the old age benefits of Social Security and Medicare. We are well on our way toward spiraling into economic suicide, because unbridled greed has everyone acting for their own individual wellbeing and no longer considering the wellbeing of the whole society. The haves are seeking to be rid of any social responsibilities to the have-nots.

Our nation has a long history of being dominated and controlled by two political parties, rather than a system where everyone running for office is an independent. Though more and more people claim that their political affiliation is independent, they still are for the most part only offered choices representing the two controlling philosophies. Those that win an election and assume to lead are not necessarily representing the majority, nor always willing to lead where the majority wants to go socially. I look at our fracturing society and remind myself of the story of a group of people wanting to cross a wilderness; they select a leader to guide them and begin their journey; they start out as one group, but soon the leader is faced with the problem that impatient younger persons have surged ahead, while older persons are lagging behind; dividing his time and leadership becomes more difficult, until the initial group becomes many smaller groups that become so separated that the leader cannot guide any of them and they all parish in the wilderness. Our society is fracturing into groups that will be ungovernable (un-leadable) as our economy fails. And our economy is certain to fail if our leaders allow our system of food, clothes, shelter, medical care, education, etc. to be so divided, limited, and subject to failure by the self-interest of wealth and debt creation, that many will have less so that a few can have more. Austerity is a relative term; the majority of our citizens already live in very austere economic conditions; if we do not share our economic wealth in an inclusive communal way, we will all share in an abundance of privation, despair, and anarchy.

Social momentum of a status quo aside; how things operate today is no guarantee that they will operate similarly tomorrow; both sudden shocks to our affairs and slow burning desires for social change can unleash powerful forces to redirect social momentum. There are serious social conflicts going on in our society, with strong forces for change pitted against strong forces to keep the status quo. It would be a fallacy to think that we will find civil solutions to bridge the increasing disparity of our social and economic philosophies. When we have an economic meltdown that leads to social chaos, it is certain that the security forces of the states (city police, state police, and sheriffs) will be unable to control crime. Hoodlums and gangs will partition our communities and highways. Mexico is currently developing and honing the armed gang and social corruption model for our social declension; there it is drugs and money; here it will be food and fuel. Though each governor will call out their contingent of National Guard troops to enforce martial law, their numbers will still be inadequate to control our communities. Similar to the last two revolutions in Russia, 1917-1919 and 1990-1992 where the military were much more a part of revolution than a protector of the old regime, we will find that the self-interest and need to fend for themselves, of each law enforcement officer and soldier, will be much more in concert with self-preservation in place of social preservation of the disparity of wealth, such that wealth and supplies will be confiscated and bartered for personal gain; our system of courts and laws will cease to function; everyone will have to defend their own life and property; and guns, ammunition, and fuel will become the chief forms of money for purchasing dwindling goods and services. If martial law is able to prevent rampant crime, gangs, and chaos, we will find that the police and soldiers will enforce a sharing of limited and possibly scarce food, cloths, shelter, medical care, etc. Such that like the scene from the film Dr. Zhivago, about the Russian revolution of 1917, where a wealthy family living in a mansion experiences that revolution by suddenly having several more impoverished families living with them; and no one has more personal wealth than others; all enforced by some form of local martial law. Our current social exclusivity of wealth and poverty will give way to inclusivity of poverty and privation, because by our unique American heritage of vigilante action and our proximity of wealth and poverty residing near each other, we are all going together or we are not going at all. Social extremes of wealth and poverty, along with unequal protection of the laws will always lead to chaos, privation, and ultimately revolution. There is no social or political equality possible in an environment of increasing economic inequality that is aggravated by increasing private and public debt.

A house divided cannot stand; a society of exclusion leading to privation cannot stand; the increasing wealth of a few and increasing debt for many is the guarantee of the eventual destruction of wealth. The current socially perverse operation of our Congress, relative to taxes, is trying to create a social and economic disparity that has failed 100% of the time in past civilizations. It is simply a matter of numbers. There are approximately 250 citizens for each law enforcement officer and National Guard soldier to control in a martial law scenario; and of each contingent of 250 citizens only a few will have great wealth; making the job of protecting those few and their wealth impossible. The only way for wealth to protect itself is to ensure that it is taxed sufficient to pay our communal bills and to provide for everyone's basic needs. Eventually we will all be living in Zhivago's mansion and sharing our productive wealth, because the alternative will be continuous robbing and killing of each other until we are no longer a nation.

A great deal of our present social and economic disparity arises because technology is continually driving us toward a society where machines will provide most of our food, clothes, construction, education, medical requirements, etc. Improving technology continually requires fewer people to operate the machines that produce our goods. We need to make division of labor changes now, similar to those made in the past; to allow us to progress toward a technology dominated society that would be much more like the Starship Enterprise in the Star Trek TV show, where everyone has equal access to the same food, clothes, recreation, and medical facilities, without the need for any money; and each citizen is only ranked in that society by skills and responsibility (and not ranked by private wealth). Imagine a spaceship with thousands of people on board, living and exploring our galaxy; what reason would any commander have to promote inequality in food rations, living quarters, education, training, recreation, medical needs, etc. It would not make sense to have a portion of the crew to have no responsibilities, being lay-abouts; consuming resources and requiring others to provide services to them without contributing any useful services to the mission of that spacecraft, while jeopardizing the availability of resources for those that operate and maintain the ship. Yet here we are on spaceship Earth doing exactly that; while our leaders essentially ignore the perils to our society through the increasing disparities dividing our citizens.

Even our military, which requires a strong and rigid command structure to complete missions, is aware that it must require equality in the training, equipping and supporting of our troops. Soldiers in the field, including officers, all eat the same food, carry the same weapons and ammunition, are covered in the same body armor and other equipment, receive the same medical care for wounds. Training millions of men and women over the past decades to operate with an equality of access to goods and services does not bode well for the purpose of asking those same soldiers to defend and preserve a society that is pursuing extreme wealth disparity in every part of our society and economy, while shipping their civilian jobs overseas. Though there is disparity and discrimination in the military of higher pay and privilege for officers, this is a sore spot with many enlisted soldiers that engenders the same resentment toward officers that is experienced by the poor and middle class toward the rich, since everyone in a war zone, military and civilian, shares the equality of the threat of loosing life or limb. The failure of our society will certainly put all of us in a civil war zone in which our military structure will not be able to act to support security of wealth for some at the expense of poverty or death for others.

Our society is operating in such a convoluted manner that we are terrified of unemployment. Similar to multiple industrial revolutions in the past two hundred years (steam, telegraph, telephone, electricity, assembly lines, and satellite communications) the present digital revolution of personal computers, cell phones, internet, and robotics has increased our worker productivity a tremendous amount in the past 25 years. What we have not done in this digital revolution, to match social changes made in the previous technical advances, is to shorten the work day or work week to create more jobs. Industries were operating on 12-hour days and 6-day weeks 150 years ago; by 100 years ago this had shortened to 10-hour days and 5-day weeks; and during the great depression the work week was further shortened to 8-hour days while maintaining a 5-day work week to share the required amount of production for society amongst all of the available workers. We now need fewer people to produce all that we consume, which is a good thing; actually a very good thing; because our standard of living can only rise when we increase our productivity, which follows from more goods and services being produced with fewer hours of labor, freeing workers to be available to continually develop and make additional products that serve society and continually elevate our standard of living. We just need to share the workload to produce all that we consume without lowering the compensation for a workweek or creating a need for welfare and more unemployment compensation. Considering that our society is nearly active 24-hours a day, 7-days a week, we should make a work week no more than 35-hours; and have many businesses offer many employees a work week consisting of three 10-hour days and one 5-hour day allowing two employees to cover one 10-hour shift over a seven-day week.

Unemployment is rising in the United States, while it is falling in many other countries; US corporations are exporting high paying production jobs overseas, to lower wage costs and thereby increase profits. As long as the customer base for their products is worldwide they have no reason to preserve jobs in the US. Our banking system and corporate bond market, stock market, etc. all encourage businesses to locate production where the wage expense is lowest; China, India, soon any poorer nation. They have not discovered that as we lower our production and export, we are forced to lower our consumption and import, and loose the ability to pay the increasing debt of our borrowing for unearned consumption privileges; the credit that is being extended at this time to fund both private consumption and all levels of government consumption does not have a sufficient income base to draw on to ever pay our increasing debts; we are past the tipping point that would allow us to reduce our public debt; now we will continuously cut social services and maintenance of our infra-structure until we sink into third world status amid deadly social chaos.

At this writing (January 2011) the Federal Reserve Banks are pursuing a program to pump liquidity (spendable dollars) into our economy, hoping to cause economic expansion, and thereby increased employment and consumption; a reverse of direction after a decade of encouraging the exporting of jobs to foreign countries. The Federal Reserve Banks have lowered interest rates to near zero and still businesses are not borrowing or expanding. Wealth in our society arises from profits on sales of goods and services, and the profit of interest acquired on investments and savings. Whether it be individuals or corporations, money is not put at risk if there is no return; and since the Federal Reserve Banks have dropped interest rates to essentially zero, while promoting inflation, it is actually working against the savings of individuals and corporations such that the devaluing of the dollar devalues all savings, causing individuals and businesses to reduce their consumption and causing businesses to reduce their overhead (usually employees) to make up for the lost value of their savings and profits. The Federal Reserve Banks need to raise interest rates, which is the cause of much of the endemic annual inflation they seek anyway, so that businesses will use their savings to expand production, or loan their savings through banks, for the profit of interest income, to the business expanding marketplace. There is always unlimited demand to expand our consumption, but when businesses and individuals see their savings stagnating, along with the prospect of those savings being devalued by the gross devaluing of the dollar, they will reduce their consumption to preserve the longevity of that declining wealth.

Tax credits to encourage businesses to hire more people is the long road to increasing consumption and thereby production. Such tax credits should go toward promoting increased consumption by the middle class through increased wage wealth for the middle class and toward a real interest profit on savings. The Federal Reserve Banks should be using their printing press to support higher interest for small savers while subsidizing lower interest for borrowers; both for domestic manufacturing and retail consumption. The Federal Reserve Banks cannot create wealth and they cannot create jobs; they can only slow the loss of domestic jobs by lowering real wages through inflation, which facilitates the transfer of wealth (through debt) from those descending into poverty, to the already rich; a situation that can only be economically destructive of the producing class.

In our economy, banks have long since taken control of the flow of the majority of our productive wealth, directing its use by individuals and businesses to maximize the portion they charge to pay their expenses and profits. If the economy falters and productive wealth ceases to flow at a profitable level, then some banks must fail; and others must use their own reserves, profits, or wealth of their stockholders to be able to lower interest rates to attract more borrowers, while paying higher interest rates to depositors to increase capital and lend even more to businesses, thus expanding the productive economy. But because our banking system got themselves into such bad shape by supporting a real estate bubble; such that when it burst there were not sufficient reserves to equal the losses; the economy tanked; the flow of wealth shrank, both from government and business; leaving a scenario where many banks must fail. But since banks (private corporations) control the creation, circulation, and value of the dollar, they simply created an artificial flow of dollars through themselves; made it look like they were borrowing from taxpayers, while those same taxpayers were running a government deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and personal losses of equity in the trillions of dollars. Wealth is derived from debt and the wealth that has revived the banks in the middle of the worst recession in eighty years came from public debt; it did not come from the anemic activity of our economy.

Our house is not only divided, the divisions are deepening. The division between poverty and wealth, between debtors and debt holders, between those who need medical care and cannot afford it and those that can afford medical care even if they do not need it, between those that can afford higher education and those that cannot, between those that cannot find sustainable employment and those whose wealth allows them to never need to be productive, are all increasing and thereby leading to social conflict. Our population is not docile and will not accept the complete destruction of the middle class, or a society where the majority live in poverty so that a few can revel in wealth.

In early 2008 the real estate market was operating as if nothing was wrong long after its eventual meltdown was certain. Those that were complicit in the economic carnage (owners and operators of the banks) were preserved at public expense. What the bankers and politicians do not seem to realize is that the damage is still being assessed, the social bleeding is still occurring, and like the Titanic, which was doomed in a few seconds, but took hours to sink, we may have no future but to sink into an economic abyss, because we cannot yet fully measure the outcome of our past actions. The continuing philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street, that all is fine until it is shown to be not fine; is not a valid philosophy; all is not fine much earlier than it is discovered to be not fine. After all, the increasing debt of cities, counties, and states; increasing business and private debt; increasing student and unfunded pension debt; increasing federal debt; all comes from surplus wealth; and ultimately all of the debt is not securitized by anything that will maintain a certain and stable value. Increasing debt is increasing doom, spawned by increasing wealth gleaned from increasing poverty; they are two sides of the same coin and cannot be separated. Not to worry though, through the ignorance, conniving, and miss-guided agendas of our politicians we will eventually only have the option to live with Zhivago in a real wood or brick house, not divided by wealth, but shared for our most basic needs; and we will all be unwealthy until we discover how to establish real social equality and responsibility.

The golden era of the manual and CNC machine shop has long been forgotten. He leaves many questions what exactly "fair trade". We talked to many machine shops and studied 2 stores in the depth and the conclusions are startling. Almost all shops votes to that if something is done to change the way that operates the United States with other countries, manufacturing slowly will extinction in our country. The main concerns and finger-pointing was unions in today's marketplace, "fair trade" and introduced high restrictions on small businesses.

The Trade Union or trade union was a great springboard for improving quality of life in the United States during the 19th century. Unfortunately is one of the common response at the interview manufacturer, increased control of the Government child labour, minimum wages and other laws the Union made obsolete due to was. Many believe that the Union UAW (united auto workers) led what doomed the US car manufacture. It is believed that paid workers and were for jobs you perform that significantly affects the price and you make more than offset the quality of the product. Some think that unions total should be abolished, while others think it would be impossible because with or without a Union nor would strike and disagreements that can happen even in non-Union shops. It's hard to turn back time and find out what with, would it be different, but maybe in the future we can make changes to help manufacturing in the US in the future.

The "fair trade" legislation our Government has drawn increased control by manufacturers in the United States. Some question me, as for other counties on fair of tax products from the United States during hardly taxation of products in the United States can be expected. Businesses claimed that the purchase of containers filled with parts for pennies on the dollar and money save, parts completed on CNC machines that shipped in the United States was there you from China for less than the cost of the raw materials that could get necessary to create the component stories, by all parts and devices regarding more than half, the not tolerances. With competition as, how is that fair? We believe our country to a high standard of living, high wages, insurance, environmental regulations, but nothing about products that support the environment with almost no regulations from countries, even slavery and destruction. The person shall appear at the end of production in our country, or in line at Walmart is only changing the tides of our Nations economic power?

The last complaint was constraints on companies, including Workmans comp set. It is clearly important to creating a fair job, an employee health. But with constant high levels of unemployment, it seems odd that money nothing has been done with all the bail out, and to minimize the risk of hiring an employee, which could be the system with a workers comp was report or to try to get back fired on unemployment. Most of those who know a risk of starting a business and adding staff that it took, is unfortunately ony a matter of time before someone attempts to use the system and set the burden of additional costs to you.

Manufacturers generally are not happy with the things go, there are some try to take advantage of the current state of the markets. A few CNC machine stores have new and used CNC machines purchase. Some have also embraced buy Taiwanese and Chinese machinery such as Birmingham and GMC machine tools. What may be the case, everyone seems to agree that a lot can be done, the United States pull out the hole helping, we have dug.

The United States is a largest and most energy economy international. The US economy is based heavily on the behavior of the financial market to make individuals and companies in which the decision. The future of business is predicted by certain key economic indicators. Gross domestic product (GDP), employment, inflation and unemployment are major economic indicators. These indicators must achieve the priority that is set by the Federal Reserve who set monetary goals for the economy. Predicting how the economy will be this current economic indicators in the near future.

During the recession, this current economic indicator turned negative, that certainly is the transgression of an economy. These current economic indicators hazard to the health of the economy. The health of the economy is defined by the employment rate, business growth, monetary value, and so on. To predict the future, it is important to study the current economic indicators. Current statistics show that the United States a per capita GDP of $48,000. According to the Bureau of economic analysis 2010 reported the rise of 2.6 percent of the annual gross domestic product (GDP) in the third quarter. GDP indicators State which there is a substantial growth in the economy and employment.

GDP indicates companies and recruitment staff. Inflation rate, which is one of the current indicators showed the 0.5 percent increase in December. Last year inflation by 1.5 percent. However, the increase of 0.5% is certainly commendable improving the stability and growth in the economy. The U.S. unemployment rate in December fell by 0.4 per cent, which indicates that increase the availability of employment. There is that it an increase in employment rates. Current indicators means that it is an improvement in the overall U.S. economy.

Trees are seen as a valuable economic asset but only once they have been cut down for their timber. Our economic system in fact values dead trees as being assets, not live ones. In its way, the plight of the world's forests and the attempts to manage and preserve them is indicative of the whole reappraisal of the "meta economics" that is demanded by the need to fight climate change and reclaim a safe climate.

Trees cover about 30% of the Earth's total land area, but the forests are unevenly distributed around the world, with just 10 countries possessing two thirds of the total, whilst 64 countries have less than 10% of their land area as forest cover. Just over a third of the world's forests are truly wild places with no clearly visible indications of human activity. Only 4% are forest plantations, growing trees to order mostly for the paper industry. The remainder of the world's forests are a somewhat haphazard alliance between people and plants, supporting the livelihood of an estimated 1.6 billion people. Some of them mange to do this sustainably, but an awful lot do not.

Generally speaking, the richest biodiversity, measured in terms of the variety of plants, birds and other species in any given place, is to be found in the wild forests that are remote from humans.

Broadly speaking, the world's forests grow in two great lateral bands, one stretching across northern latitudes and incorporating the forests of North America, Scandinavia and Russia. This band is of the type of forest known as 'temperate and boreal'. These contain the type of trees that are most familiar to people in Britain, with a mix of broadleaf trees such as oak, ash, sycamore and chestnut along with evergreen and needle leaf varieties such as pine, spruce and larch. The other major band runs across latitudes in the southern hemisphere and incorporates the forests of South America, Central Africa and Asia. These are tropical forests and are not all rainforests, as some of them are at higher altitudes or by the coast where they form mangrove forests. Mangroves are particularly important. They are tidal forests and have important functions as natural sea defences, breeding grounds for fish, and habitats for lots of other species.

The probability of sea-level rises and extreme weather events caused by climate change raises the importance of mangroves as a buffer protecting coastlines in the tropics and subtropics. Despite this, mangroves worldwide have been subjected to an appalling rate of destruction resulting from over-harvesting for timber and fuel wood, clearing for shrimp farms, agriculture, coastal development and tourism. Mangroves have been destroyed much faster than any other forest type.

Forest exploitation, just like fossil fuel exploitation, occurs in line with the same economic system that pays no price for the cost of environmental destruction. Indeed, destroying forests for timber is big business, with the global value of wood imports worth $160 billion in 2006 and the rate of cutting them down outstrips the rate of replanting by about 7m hectares a year (which is the space occupied by around 85 billion trees).

Although forests have lots of different possible uses, policymakers, particularly in the developing world, often do not consider forest to have a value other than timber, and defend their exploitation on the basis that the developed world destroyed their forests years ago as part of the development process. Besides timber, forests can also produce other direct use products such as latex, cork, fruit, nuts, spices, natural oils and resins, and medicines. Many of the medicines we use today have come from forest products and nobody knows what else may be discovered.

Forests can also be used for recreation and even spiritual respite. As these uses are related to the existence of a range of tree, plant, animal and other species, forests have an important role in providing habitat for the preservation of these species, particularly in tropical areas. In fact, tropical rainforests contain a phenomenal range of species, more than twice as many as any other forest type and many more of them are unique to their own forest. Forests also have important benefits for the countries in which they are located in terms of recycling nutrients in the soil and providing watershed protection. Forested watersheds act like a sponge that slowly lets out the water so providing a more constant water flow into the rivers and so reducing floods. Cutting down the forests also leads to the soil being washed away, taking its nutrients with it and leading to build ups of mud in water reservoirs and rivers. What's more, forests have a big impact on climate both locally and on a wider scale. Local rainfall can be reduced once a forest has been cut down because the sponge dries out and the trees are no longer giving out water vapour.

Lastly, of course, once you have cut down a tree and turned it into timber, it is no longer breathing and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And that is a big contributor to the global greenhouse gas problem. Not only have we been putting pressure on the atmospheric system by pumping out extraneous gases from industrial, transport and farming activities, we have been cutting down the lungs of the planet at an alarming rate. So much so that around a fifth of the GHG problem is due to deforestation.

International discussions about deforestation and the GHG emissions it creates have been going on for more than a decade under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention but it concluded that as emissions from forest loss were impossible to accurately measure or control, they could not be included in the Kyoto Protocol's carbon accounting and trading scheme. As a result, the Kyoto

Protocol provided few incentives for reforestation and none to maintain existing forests. This was always recognised as a major missed opportunity although the delicate political issues between developing and developed nations about how to value trees and who pays for them made for slow progress in negotiations. The entire principal of paying to retain forests is also extremely controversial among civic society groups in the with many arguing that the ownership rights lies with the indigenous people so are not the governments to "sell" the rights to.

The first proposals for how an agreement might look were made by Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea and these were eventually worked up into a proposal called REDD, which stood for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. At the 2010 Cancun meeting of United Nations Conference of Parties there was, finally initial agreement on a scheme called REDD+. This agreement clearly states that REDD+ is not only about reducing emissions but halting and reversing forest loss. This is important as it emphasizes that REDD+ actions must result in maintaining existing forests and carbon stocks. It also encourages all countries to find effective ways to reduce the human pressures on forests that result in greenhouse gas emissions. This element is important as it, correctly, puts part of the responsibility of slowing, stopping and reversing forest cover loss and associated emissions on those countries and actors (e.g., companies and consumers) that create the demands that drive deforestation (e.g. demands for timber, oil palm, soy, and cattle).

The agreement in Cancun, however is only a step forward and leaves important questions left unanswered that makes practical implementation impossible. This is because while the agreement recognizes various activities - i.e., reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks, and sustainable management of forests - most of these activities have not been defined. Without definitions it is not possible to measure progress or pay for performance, unless there is a true market for these goods when the buyer want to "consume" the offer and makes her own judgment as to whether the offer being made is providing "value" in return. There is also the "grubby politics" of setting the base level of emissions levels from which the "reduced emissions" will come from. Allied to that is the question of how countries will develop an information system to track how safeguards are addressed and respected for the agreement. Then, lastly there is finance. Once again the world is struggling to try and manage a planned economy in the midst of a notionally free market world when actually it should be looking at the underlying functioning of the economic system.

Economics is supposed to answer the question of how best humans can maximise scarce resource but the way we account for our economic activity makes the ludicrous assumption that the planet's resources and services are not only unlimited but that there is no cost attached to their use.

Business has long been use to the idea that it is necessary to have a depreciation charge to put aside cash so that when a capital item needs replacing there is money to do it. It is time that business was also made to pay for the depreciation of natural capital. If they were obliged to spend that charge on restoration projects of their choice (e.g. restocking oceans, protecting biodiversity, taking carbon out of the atmosphere through reforestation or protecting existing ones) it would by-pass government administration (but not verification) and so couldn't be accused of being a tax. Projects could, of course be either in the country of origin of the depreciation charge or overseas. This in keeping with the competitive nature of the way the existing system works. It would also put us onto a rapid course of making thing better and stimulate the needed creativity that has, so far, ensured our species has thrived.

Climate change is a fundamental challenge to the way humans social and economic systems operate. Finding lasting solutions to climate change require that we find a way to make our economic system work with the ecosystem. At present the ecosystem literally "fuels" the economic system with the current generation giving no value to the needs of the next. One of Britain's most famous Prime Minsters, Margaret Thatcher once said "No generation has a freehold on this Earth, all we have is a life tenancy with a full repairing lease". REDD+ is a decent attempt to start to get the repairs done but a full blown depreciation charge would a faster route to finding one of the solutions to climate change.

There are many people at the moment to see a little scared that slowly creeping inflation and food prices affect. Has some prices on the shelves have double and tripled in just a few weeks. It has panicked not only mothers and fathers, but also investors be more selectively on where you put your money are.

If you are not sure where you put your money in inflationary times or just hedge against inflation, which you must realize that there are many options available are. Especially when the price of food increased dramatically.

Can a lot of the smart investors ETF traded funds or the commodity futures market increase in food prices in 2011 to bet. FUD ETF Fund can, the various commodity Indicies title. These include diluted such pigs and cattle. But there are many other options available.

There are other means to us markets such as DBA, that food (commodities) to invest in you, some of them allow to reduce the risk as you distributed to soy, corn, wheat and sugar in one. Thus you cannot diversified investments into one so to have all your eggs in one basket. It pursues also eat and its prices above one time.

Realistically, it seems that the cost will play on us inflation. And the best place is to be invested is agriculture sectors in the coming months.

What is the Federal Government in the economy is beyond the pale. While figures show official inflation was consumer prices up 1.5% in 2010 there is no doubt that inflation is here.

The only place look and where to take a peek metals and agricultural commodities and of course what we have seen is all economists, prices skyrocketing big time with in recent months is no end in sight.

The cause of inflation and what each well trained economists say the economy is because the Federal Reserve money supply increases as quantitative easing and the expenditure stimulus as a way to get back on track is exactly the wrong thing to do. Any economist worth salt will tell you, what you can spend your way out of recession, just expand it.

What we see is that now is the Federal Government affecting what does by running huge deficits, stimulate the economy. It is very easy to understand. The Federal Reserve prints money to buy to Treasury notes, which increases the money supply, but decreasing the purchasing power of money.

Now, if you are elected in a specific income, as a salary, weekly wage or fixed income simply your purchasing power declines and you won't be able to buy items you have previously done in the past. Their purchasing power decreases when you have a built-in protection to your income of inflation, not the most working Stiffs.

So in reality it is we taxpayers, bad efforts go through charm to it attached pays a reduced standard of living more expensive simply because the Federal Government wants to pay his bills with inflated dollars.

Most of the United States to stop debt in government bonds of the only way it can heal its inflation bomb have to with China to import it from the United States. In the end you have to leave that will be an absolute disaster here in the United States sparking hyper-inflation, this country hasn't seen since the depression of the 1920s and 30s years currency rise.

Hyper-inflation will be the monster that eats all our hard earned money alive, to reduce cause global economies and once again, like Depression era Governments of the past, the Hitler's Nazis Stalin's killing machine Musolini of Italian debacle produced, that cause and the rise of despot and ruin of mankind. There is an old saying, if you learn from history it condemns, to repeat it. The world is at a crossroads, where you take?

Newport's University has released concerning details on the possible loss of jobs with a projected funding cut by ?2 millions from the higher education funding Council for Wales. This is in addition to talks about a merger with other local higher eduction could mean further Newport job losses institutions by redundancies.

This will not come as news for job seekers Newport or currently welcomes employment because it adds the list to cut the proposals on the jobs at Newport City Council and other State funding institutions including national statistics and the Passport Office.

We are already aware staff-led and Union-supported campaign, jobs Newport town Passport Office to hold, and there are already a lot of information that any plans cutting jobs at Newport's University with the same defensive tactics - would be met, but is all action prove futile and a waste of time, energy and money that could be better spent on financing the private sector in creating more jobs for Newport?

Its clear that the private sector just like those in need, as the public at the try, jobs – to save other concerns were apparent this week as local businesses Bevan & sons and Stroat traffic, the two carriers, real fears of closing citing increasing costs, especially stated expensive fuel prices.

All messages that seems related to Newport jobs at the moment to be negative and if projections are to believe the worst yet to come. Newport, of course, differs from the rest of the UK and its residents, local business owners and Councils not must return ditch this economic time deeply to ensure the town is set at times from its huge investment and regeneration.

Since the mid 1990s, two worlds have been somewhat reluctantly colliding. Far from this being a universal and magical cosmic event, the fusion of culture into economic regeneration has been controversial and has split opinion on both sides.

"Mozart is Mozart because of his music and not because he created a tourist industry in Salzburg.... Picasso is important because he taught a century new ways of looking at objects and not because his paintings in the Bilbao Guggenheim Museum are regenerating an otherwise derelict northern Spanish port....." John Tusa, as Chairman of the University of Arts (1999)

Whilst some in the cultural sector feared being swallowed up into the mainstream and a watering down of artistic integrity by buying into wider agendas, many with a traditional economic perspective espoused that the cultural sector is not a major driver for economic growth as it generates little new wealth and is a by-product of people having more disposable income and more leisure time.

Historically, it has been difficult to quantify the value of artistic goods, as value is often derived entirely from the perception of the buyer, museum/gallery or critic, which makes it difficult to calculate potential returns on investment. Many artistic goods such as films or performances have very high investment costs up front and relatively short life spans with which to generate a return, hence the concern behind the planned demise of the UK Film Council. This makes it extremely hard to calculate what the demand for particular artistic goods might be and increases the risks on investment (the historic reason why much investment in the arts is in the form of public sector or charitable grants).

Long standing economic arguments about the role of culture in economic development have also criticised the levels of public subsidy required within the sector. There is a view that subsidy to the arts is largely geared towards audiences that are relatively well off, and that it is neither broadening the 'market place' place for the arts, nor acting as a genuinely re-distributive form of public investment. More commonly this argument centres on the suggestion that resources may be more productive if invested elsewhere within the economy, for example in manufacturing.

Throughout the 1990s however, there was a growing discourse about the role culture could play in Economic Development and Regeneration. As the millennium wore on the service sector increasingly globalised, technology turned information into products and the consumption economy expanded. On the back of change and momentum, the Economic Development profession began to buzz with a growing interest and appreciation of the creative and cultural industries, which seemed to epitomise a new regional economic confidence.

Across the UK, cultural and regeneration agencies invested in upgraded and new iconic cultural facilities, very noticeably in the Midlands. To name but a few examples, the Midland Arts Centre in Birmingham, Curve in Leicester, Nottingham Contemporary and Broadway Cinema in Nottingham, QUAD in Derby and The Public in West Bromwich. New cultural quarters were designated; major festivals initiated and public spaces upgraded which, assisted by a loosening of licensing laws, were colonised by coffee shops and trendy bars.

The creative sector was increasingly seen as the spearhead of the knowledge-based post-industrial economy, with booming exports in popular culture built around Brit flicks, music and broadcasting. Universities up and down the country developed new courses in Computer Games Design, Popular Music and Cultural Economy studies. Richard Florida became an economic guru and the economic development profession toyed with how to attract the creative classes to their back yards.

However, during the cultural regeneration heyday, some across the cultural sector overlooked the need to address underlying economic narratives and radically transform a generally weak and intangible evidence base. We now find that the good old days of public sector cultural investment are being increasingly consigned to history. The creative industries across the board have suffered markedly from the recession, many cultural venues and attractions are looking at life on the brink over the next few years and the big wheels and outdoor ice rinks that have graced our public spaces may not be a long term feature.

Since the recession, it is easy to re-appraise much of this investment as having being built on shaky foundations. Personal disposable income has fallen off drastically and what was an everyday activity such as a trip to the theatre now seems more like a luxury treat. The squeeze on the public purse is major knock-on effect on a broad range of cultural attractions. Now, as a double whammy, public investment is looking like being a second 'financial lemming', with budget cuts looming from both Local Authorities and the cultural agencies that so far have survived the quango shuffling at Whitehall.

Subsequently, a renewed clamour has begun to prove the economic value of the cultural sector. However, in dusting off many of the original business plans, maximising economic impact was often seen as an add-on to the project, not its raison d'etre. A paucity of locally based evidence meant extrapolations from national data sets were the norm, allowing creative accounting in calculating some of the impacts. The evidence of impact has either been brash arguments with little evidence, or brash evidence with little argument. This has allowed the age old economic arguments to resurface about a Cinderella sector having little place in a serious 21st century economy.

In the brave new world of 'doing something with nothing' economic development, it is all too easy to throw out the baby with the bath water. Our 'new' economic paradigm revolves around exports to emerging markets, wealth generation and job creation, welfare to work reform, a high tech manufacturing renaissance, economic localism and a strong third sector delivering public services.

The truth is of course, apart from rhetoric, micro economic policy has changed little; therefore all the potential that the creative and cultural sector can offer hasn't dissipated either. Manufacturing still needs high quality design and cultural resonance, the new 'staycation' phenomenon will need more than just a good donkey ride and a stick of rock to attract high spending urban elites and in terms of encouraging exports to emerging markets, we can no longer bank on Cool Britannia or a reputation for building successful global companies such as British Airways, BP and RBS to get us a gig! The starting point for our reputation within developing nations has never been fantastic and now we are classed as one of the main exporters of the current economic crisis.

The fact of the matter is now we have some serious economic questions to answer; there probably hasn't been a time that the creative and cultural sectors have been more important to national and local economies. When the inevitable creative destruction process has subsided, the remaining leaner and meaner cultural and creative sector ought to be a massive asset to our profession.

Culture and creativity still has a major role to play in defining the distinctiveness and quality of place, particularly as once again, the Midlands and northern Britain de-regionalise and fight for attention from under the shadow of London. Within the annual Place Survey, culture is always seen as a major priority for investment, especially in the more affluent localities within the Midlands. Whilst this may be a reflection of social harmony and a more educated electorate, it does also reflect a thirst for a rich and varied cultural life from the regional bourgeoisies.

It is also often overlooked that, probably with the exception of a certain Swedish furniture shop, catchments for leisure purposes are much broader than those for retail. Cultural and leisure facilities, along with festivals and events, have a major role to play in re-positioning and attracting new audiences back into city centres, including those that were lost before the recession. Many cultural venues have shown significant innovation to sustain and develop audiences during the recession. S4W's work with Derby Fest? is providing new and localised evidence to articulate the role the festival is playing in attracting occasional visitors into the city centre from areas that really should be well within Derby's retail catchment.

Creativity and innovation will also need to be revisited if tailored exports to new markets are to be an enhanced economic platform for the future. Products and services will need to be responsive to new circumstances and a new emphasis on design within supply chains will be critical. In terms of the Creative Industries, 78% of firms within the sector are active innovators with 52% attributing increases in their turnover to new and improved products, compared to 40% for other sectors (Creative Britain: New Talents for the New Economy (2008)). Cultural exchange will also be critical in opening up new markets, either in terms of attracting inward investment (these days just as likely to be overseas students) or outward missions.

Equally in terms of enterprise, where there is a clear and sustainable market opportunity, the creative sector represents an opportunity to increase the local enterprise base as businesses are increasingly outward focused and are actors in national and international markets. There are also high rates of self employment within the sector (in the East Midlands it has been estimated at 25% of the business base). From an economic development perspective, this traditionally has been seen as a structural weakness, but may provide a latent talent pool from which to develop and grow larger businesses from sole traders. In terms of working with our 'doing something with nothing' profession - a sector that has low barriers to entry, soaks up skilled labour and is not dependent on expensive imports to complete its product/service offer - ought to be an attention grabber!

The cultural and creative sector has a major role to play in developing the labour market and supporting people back into work. In times of reduced resources for worklessness interventions, the cultural and creative sector could act as a major provider of alternative employment and training provision, especially amongst young people. A strong tradition of volunteering exists within the arts and creative industries sector. In 2004 for example it was estimated by the University of Sheffield that some 16,000 people were undertaking voluntary activity within theatres across the UK (Shellard 2004).

Many of the best arts and cultural organisations often work at the front line of engaging young people, operating as a bridge, building skills and confidence to allow them to enter formal education or the labour market. Soft Touch in Leicester is of particular note in this field. The effective utilisation of youth interest in specific arts and cultural genres can be used as a catalyst for broader skills development. Moreover, the sector offers a range of employment at a variety of levels, together with flexibility in terms of work patterns that suits the requirements of many individuals.

There is also a potential to look at the role of the cultural and creative sector in developing and enhancing transferable skills development that has not been fully exploited. The National Employers Skills Survey of 2007 reported that of all employees, 31% lack team working skills; 28% lack customer handling skills; 24% lack oral communication skills and 23% lack management skills.

However, if the arts and culture is to continue to enjoy a centralised role in local economic development, this time around it is absolutely essential that economic impacts, sound business planning and sustainability are the central tenet of any scarce regeneration investment.

"The single most important step is to move from a paradigm in which support for the creative industries is interpreted in terms of subsidies and grants, to one where it is instead understood in terms of investment with important economic and cultural paybacks. There is clearly more work to be undertaken in understanding the complex linkages and spill-overs within the core creative industries...........and the wider economy not least in organising hard data and systematic statistics on which evidence based judgement can be made." Will Hutton, Chief Executive Work Foundation, 2007.

The evidence for investment has to become much more sophisticated and move away from a reliance on mapping studies or impact studies that can be easily misinterpreted or even discredited. The evidence has to revolve around sound economic arguments, relevant to local circumstances and also has to have one eye on overcoming some of the criticism that will undoubtedly be received. Cultural investors will have the core role to play in ensuring projects and programmes work to this agenda and build strong local evidence.

Very famous are the tales of One Thousand and One Nights, recounted repeatedly since their compilation during the Islamic Golden Age. Composed of interweaved stories collected over the centuries, the epic tale never ceased to introduce new episodes as it progressed. Throughout the plotline, the storyteller, Scheherazade, would every dawn leave her King tantalized with yet another cliff-hanger, postponing what seemed to be the tale's finale to the following night.

Nowadays, a saga of multiple twists and turns is strikingly similar to these ancient Arab folk tales. The Gulf dream to create a unified currency among its states stands as a story of numerous chapters linked together by cliffhangers that leave spectators wondering why this dream has not yet been achieved.

The idea of a unified Gulf currency initially surfaced with the establishment of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in 1981 as one of the group's primary future goals. Based on the notion of a strong economic bloc, in 1982, the six-member group ratified an agreement "to coordinate their financial, monetary and banking policies and enhance cooperation between monetary agencies and central banks, including an endeavor to establish a joint currency." Apart from establishing a free trade zone in 1983, progress was modest. As time went by, the goals of the past did not seem in any way foreseeable in the near future.

It was not until 20 years later that the idea was put to a second and significantly more serious discussion. Inspired by the success of the third stage of the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) through which 11 European nations adopted the Euro as their unified currency in 1999, the GCC members decided to resurrect their reverie. In January 2001, the members agreed to draw up legislation that would unify their monetary policies as a primary step towards currency unification. A timetable for the synchronization of Gulf monetary and banking policies was formed whereby the creation of monetary union legislation was scheduled for 2005 followed by a monetary and currency union in 2010. This in turn entailed an agreement to peg GCC country currencies to the US dollar until the new currency took effect.

Gradually, the currency unification plan gained momentum triggered by the GCC's establishment of a customs union in addition to an external tariff in 2003 at which point all members had collectively pegged their currencies to the US dollar.

The agenda promised splendid remuneration for Gulf neighbors, potentially making the GCC bloc the largest economic region outside the Euro zone if all went according to plan. The region's control over 45 percent of the world's oil resources has forced its countries to depend heavily on oil revenues. And there is nothing that the GCC countries would appreciate more than to alleviate pressure off their stocks of black gold and jumpstart other sectors of their economies. The currency union was expected to enhance policy coordination and transparency in the region, which would in turn lead to increased cross border investment and boost trade as a result of the elimination of transactions costs.

Theoretically, the path towards full economic integration was a sure thing. Realistically however, there were numerous deficiencies in planning, coordination of efforts and the implementation of pre-arranged schemes. Not to mention that international turbulences had a big say in preserving Gulf currency unification as a mirage during the second half of the past decade.

To Peg or not to Peg?

Initially, the six members announced that the currency would be pegged to the US dollar as soon as it sees light. Based on that, an agreement was reached to peg the GCC currencies to the US dollar in hopes of achieving monetary union prior to coining the new currency. The first half of the past decade saw the six states peg their currencies to the American dollar based on the stability of its high value at the time.

With the emergence of the economic crunch the value of the dollar depreciated, losing its attractiveness and leading to a debate concerning the usage of the dollar as an anchor. Accordingly, Gulf nations began considering the option of pegging their currency to a selected basket of currencies including the Euro, or furthermore, a floating exchange regime.

Some nations have gone as far as to demand that the unified currency be anchored to gold to eradicate the forbidden riba (usury) from the Gulf Islamic financial systems. At the end of the day, the issue remains uncertain.

The British Syndrome

But the hearsay doesn't end there. Amidst striking inconsistencies among GCC members, in 2007, Kuwait removed its dollar peg, hitting the GCC monetary union where it hurts most. This was followed by the agreement among Gulf Arab central bankers to develop separate policies in dealing with rising inflation.

When the UK willingly abandoned the Euro, it had reservations concerning the economic, financial and consequently, political commitments it would have to abide by. Likewise, Oman in 2008, took the decision to withdraw from the monetary union based on its "monetary immaturity" and inability to meet the pre-requisites for a monetary union in 2010.

To save face and try regaining lost ground, in 2008 the Gulf central bankers drafted a final monetary union agreement and agreed to establish a monetary council in order to pave the way to a common central bank in 2008. That however did not prevent the Emirati withdrawal in 2009.

At first glance, the UAE's withdrawal may have been explained by the GCC's decision to locate the common central bank in Saudi Arabia and not UAE. Parochial as the reasoning may be, it made sense bearing in mind that the UAE was the first country to submit an application to host the GCC Central Bank in 2004, in addition to the fact that it does not currently host any GCC establishments.

Nonetheless, further scrutiny shows that the UAE had reservations concerning the union as well. Taking the EU as an example, the UAE believed that "a gradual adoption of a unit of account by the GCC countries for a reasonable period was necessary to test their collective monetary policy and assess what can be amended before moving it into the economy, and its impact on the GCC banking systems." Clearly, this did not happen, and the UAE, to avert risk like Oman, booked a ticket back home.

A Broken Brick

The establishment of the Gulf Monetary Council in 2008 may have marked the beginning of the institutionalization of the unified currency. Even so, this belated step still suffers from several shortcomings. The council should play the same role the European Monetary Institute had before being replaced by the European Central Bank.

Being the first brick in the awaited Central Bank, the monetary council was meant to coordinate the policies of the four states and plan the gradual introduction of the Central Bank. Ever since its establishment in 2008 however, the council has spent more time conducting research than building an institutional framework for the monetary union. The council has not yet decided the pegging policies of the union, nor has it defined common monetary tools or a financial crises system.

The unanimous election of the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency governor as the first chairman of the Gulf Monetary Council last monthhas conversely come to renew aspirations for the future of the council and in turn, the monetary union. Muhammad Al-Jasser, the new chairman announced that the council's priority will be to "draw up the legal and organizational framework for the Central Bank in coordination with the central banks or monetary agencies of the member countries."

With the European tale in mind

Having taken one blow after the other, the GCC's decision to delay the monetary union to 2013 came as no surprise. But why hasn't the Arabian tale had a European ending?

If preparation was silver, execution would be gold. And this is where the European experiment excelled, unlike its Gulf counterpart thus far. Supposedly modeled on the EU example, the GCC fell short of implementing many of its plans due to ineffective coordination among its members and their inability to move from the planning phase to the action phase. Part of the EU's success can be seen in its well thought-out plan to coin its currency, which was divided into a number of phases to which its members abided. Not surprisingly, GCC states are still trailing behind on their agenda, having only established a semi-functional monetary council as a primary step.

The EU's incorporation of a large number of economically stable states has also made it immune to the absence of the UK, whereas the Emirati and Omani withdrawals have taken a lot of economic heave out of the Gulf mass.

Before its initiation, the European currency unification agenda was criticized for prioritizing the monetary union over the political one. The EU was also subject to criticism pertaining to an expected failure in moderating the discrepancy in unemployment rates due to the inflexibility of its labor markets and the difficulty of migration between regions. When directed towards the Gulf monetary union, this critique is somewhat accurate. Gulf countries have indeed been unable to establish a coherent political agenda among them, which was a reason for the withdrawal of two member states and the delay of the union as a whole.

Additionally, discussing the fiscal and monetary policies that will be used to regulate unemployment rates, along with other secondary issues, is premature, considering the members have yet to fulfill the prerequisites for an optimum currency area. That is not to mean that the regulation of unemployment rates among Gulf countries is impossible; on the contrary. Gulf countries do not suffer from the migration problems, and the diversity of customs and languages that European countries experience. For that reason, as soon as the monetary union takes effect, handling unemployment should be far easier for the Gulf than it has been for the EU.

Ironically, where the EU took time to adapt, the GCC wanted to jump in headfirst. The EU used a unit of account to test drive its monetary policy until eventually reaching the point of implementing a floating exchange rate. The GCC, however, still stands confused between pegging its currency to the dollar, a currency basket or opting for a floating exchange rate, without considering a transition phase. The indecision has augmented speculation among the GCC nations, who seem to be-up to this moment-tentative in their actions.

The road to a unified Gulf currency may have been paved with European-like intentions, but the continuous battle against inconsistency and the current economic disarray have postponed what should have been a happy ending. The upcoming phase should see the four remaining states undertake considerable changes in coordination among them. If not, the tale of the unified Gulf currency would remain endless like the Arabian nights.

Hard-edge painting refers to an oil painting style that is associated with various movements and features that an abrupt transition between areas of solid color includes many different painting techniques.

In response to some of the forms of abstract expressionism, hard-edge painting rather developed a movement in its own right, but a trend that first found in many artists who grouped, keep, 1959 at the Los Angeles County Museum of art "Four abstract classicists." the artists who participated in this exhibition were called an exhibition of the art form John McLaughlin, Frederick Hammersley, Lorser Feitelson and Karl Benjamin.

If the exhibition later moved to the United Kingdom, it was also "California hard edge" by Lawrence Alloway, British art curator and critic after California pulled Center and birthplace of this type of oil painting. Coined the term "hard-edge painting" actually times Jules Langsner 1959 Los Angeles by Peter Selz and art critic for the, involved in the implementation of cooperation of artists for the first representative exhibition this form of painting.

Even before that representative exhibition are works of hard-edge painting to pursuing American artist Josef Albers (1888-1976) - Bauhaus artist who began his series of oil paintings in Asheville, North Carolina's Black Mountain College in 1949 - and Ellsworth Kelly's 1949 work from his private collection, window, Museum of art, Paris. Another early example is "Counter Composition V" (1924) by Theo van Doesburg (1883-1931), the Dutch painter and founder of the De Stijl movement.

Hard-edge painting is characterized by not only abrupt acrylic or oil blends, but also the theme of painting, the dominating the entire screen. According to Lawrence Alloway "the whole picture is one..." Unlike most other forms of painting, it is not the appearance or feel like the theme, placed in a scenario or background. There is generally no free space in a hard-edge painting. The most common acrylic or oil paints be used with the number of sounds on two or three limited and solid colors without variations in the shade. Sharp and precise contours, wide light areas and representation of geometric shapes rather than abstract images are distinctive features of hard-edge style.

Hard-edge painting has many influences in movements such as synthetic Cubism, geometric abstraction, colour field painting, Bauhaus and De Stijl. Arising from color field post-painterly abstraction is hard-edge painting a branch.

Since the first 1959 exhibition spread hard-edge painting in the 1960s with artists to create in the West Coast and Eastern of seaboard representational works hard-edge style. The most famous works include Ellsworth Kelly's "Broadway" (1958), "blue, green, yellow, orange and Red" (1966) and "Dark Blue Curve" (1995), Frank Stella's "Hyena Stomp" (1962) and "Harran II" (1967) and Richard Anuszkiewicz's "Temple of the radiant yellow" (1982).

Hard-edge painting has a form adopted by many artists established itself as an important form of modern art, which has absorbed influences from many movements and yet developed. A recent exhibition in 2005 in Los Angeles shows its continued popularity.

I love painting and like many people, I feel as it releases me from daily life where you have to deal me money, bills, shopping and General things with your family. The problem is that although I love painting I also find it difficult to make my equipment and stock. How many people costs a lot of money, my new screens, paper to buy me brushes, and colors. I often long distances to travel if I feel to paint me as a landscape. Many people are unable, for the cash to your hobby support so unfortunately you've had to stop painting as you run out of equipment as much as you want to find. I wrote that article help tell different things you may like to check to make more money for your hobby, hopefully, find informative and useful article below.

Don't forget that friends, family and the Internet is also great sources of information for more help and support when it comes to additional money to help support your hobby.

Firstly you have considered, selling some of your painting it is a fantastic way to get your name out there get? Even if you don't think you're good find enough, often people like your style of painting is dependent on price.

You could give people painting lessons, that is to learn from people already in the field. Can it truly enjoyable, a way to make money and a fantastic source friendships.

If you want to make only money, have you considered the cell phone recycling? It is a fantastic way to make money on mobile phones, you no longer need. You simply all your old phones go online make and type something like "Cash for mobile phones" and check out the money you may be given, go, can to your hobby.

Learning to paint with oils can be compared with creating a gourmet meal-first you must have a recipe. But, you ask, doesn't putting oil on canvas require some artistic talent to begin with? Well...yes and...no. Here's what I mean.

I believe that talent is a gift from our Creator-we are born with certain talents. The trouble is that many of us never discover just what talents we have been given. Blame it on the complications of everyday life. As we mature we take on a load of responsibilities: marriage, family, the career and so on.

And all too often our talents lie dormant...and that's a shame.

You found this article because you were searching for information about oil painting. So right off the bat I realize that you are serious about learning more about the subject of painting with oils. But you may have doubts about your ability to learn this subject. You may be wondering if you have the talent to create strikingly beautiful oil paintings!

Talent vs. Skill

We are born with talents that may or may not be utilized. Do surgeons, architects, lawyers and college professors have talents? Of course they do, but having a talent and making some use of it requires something else-it requires skill-and skills are not God-given, they are learned!

Do you see where I'm going with this? What I am leading to is for you to recognize that regardless of whether you possess any artistic talent-you can learn the skills necessary to be a successful artist!

OK, it isn't as simple as that. Any number of books are available at your local art store, and even on the Internet. I know because over the years I bought a stack of them. You see, I believe that my talent is as a writer. But I wanted to paint! And I wanted to be good at it!

Where do your talents lie?

Writing is a fulfilling pursuit for me. And I took that talent and coupled it with the skills I needed to be a good writer. But if I can develop skill as a writer, then I can certainly develop skill as an artist. But creating an oil painting takes time and I was impatient. I wanted instant results-so I packed up my tubes of oil and my brushes and tucked them away. I turned to photography, and when digital photography came along I got that instant gratification I was seeking.

But something was still missing. It took a trip to the NC Museum of Art to awaken the muse in me. As I stood before the works of Monet, Degas and Renoir I began to feel a sense of excitement! Shortly after returning home I pulled out my painting supplies, and the first thing I did was to locate my sketch pad.

I was shocked to see what I had created! Sketches in charcoal and colored pencil were actually pretty good. They were dated 1996-it was time to add new life to my sketch pad so I set about drawing a scene I photographed a few months before at a marina along the North Carolina coast.

Yes...I thought. I do indeed have the basic talent but converting a raw sketch to canvas is another matter. This would take skill, and just like you I began to search the Internet. I "Googled" the keywords, "learn to paint with oils." You probably used similar words to find this article.

I found an abundance of courses, most of which sounded like they would provide me with what I needed. I looked through a collection of oils I completed years ago and stored in a closet. It was apparent that what I needed most was a complete course that took me by the hand, step-by-step so I could unlearn what I knew and could start from scratch.Learning to paint with oils can be compared with creating a gourmet meal-first you must have a recipe. But, you ask, doesn't putting oil on canvas require some artistic talent to begin with? Well...yes and...no. Here's what I mean.

I believe that talent is a gift from our Creator-we are born with certain talents. The trouble is that many of us never discover just what talents we have been given. Blame it on the complications of everyday life. As we mature we take on a load of responsibilities: marriage, family, the career and so on.

And all too often our talents lie dormant...and that's a shame.

You found this article because you were searching for information about oil painting. So right off the bat I realize that you are serious about learning more about the subject of painting with oils. But you may have doubts about your ability to learn this subject. You may be wondering if you have the talent to create strikingly beautiful oil paintings!

Talent vs. Skill

We are born with talents that may or may not be utilized. Do surgeons, architects, lawyers and college professors have talents? Of course they do, but having a talent and making some use of it requires something else-it requires skill-and skills are not God-given, they are learned!

Do you see where I'm going with this? What I am leading to is for you to recognize that regardless of whether you possess any artistic talent-you can learn the skills necessary to be a successful artist!

OK, it isn't as simple as that. Any number of books are available at your local art store, and even on the Internet. I know because over the years I bought a stack of them. You see, I believe that my talent is as a writer. But I wanted to paint! And I wanted to be good at it!

Where do your talents lie?

Writing is a fulfilling pursuit for me. And I took that talent and coupled it with the skills I needed to be a good writer. But if I can develop skill as a writer, then I can certainly develop skill as an artist. But creating an oil painting takes time and I was impatient. I wanted instant results-so I packed up my tubes of oil and my brushes and tucked them away. I turned to photography, and when digital photography came along I got that instant gratification I was seeking.

But something was still missing. It took a trip to the NC Museum of Art to awaken the muse in me. As I stood before the works of Monet, Degas and Renoir I began to feel a sense of excitement! Shortly after returning home I pulled out my painting supplies, and the first thing I did was to locate my sketch pad.

I was shocked to see what I had created! Sketches in charcoal and colored pencil were actually pretty good. They were dated 1996-it was time to add new life to my sketch pad so I set about drawing a scene I photographed a few months before at a marina along the North Carolina coast.

Yes...I thought. I do indeed have the basic talent but converting a raw sketch to canvas is another matter. This would take skill, and just like you I began to search the Internet. I "Googled" the keywords, "learn to paint with oils." You probably used similar words to find this article.

I found an abundance of courses, most of which sounded like they would provide me with what I needed. I looked through a collection of oils I completed years ago and stored in a closet. It was apparent that what I needed most was a complete course that took me by the hand, step-by-step so I could unlearn what I knew and could start from scratch.

I found such a course by a very well-known artist whose teaching has helped literally thousands of struggling artists like me. I'd like to share a little about this chap and what he is offering. I have put together a blog with more information. Please take a moment: Visit Don's Blog.

From the Middle Ages until 18 portrait played the role, the King and his family and all other oil painting post, viewers were. As long as the public and private not disconnected, the King hired that portrait painters, the stars at the time such as Diego Velázquez. Famous painters in the great age of were the oil paintings: Agnolo Bronzino, Titian, Giovanni Battista Moroni, Pissanelo, Georg GIESE, Raphael, Jan van Eyck, Leonardo da Vinci, Rembrandt and many others.

The bourgeois public sphere, which comes in the eighteenth century, became more and more a specialized area of rational-critical debate the oil painting. The portrait began subjectivity promoted to capture in the bourgeois family. The portrait was increasingly differentiated in modern times, landscape, pet and human were painters specialized skills required for painting portrait. Portrait of the opinion of painting critics was relevant for the recruitment of oil. With the advent of modern times the formation of oil was painter portrait also extremely relevant. The setting of oil portrait artist started to depend on his/her education and training rather than its origin.

In the early modern era began to develop civil society and oil began portrait painters social institutions (that exist today) set up representing the interests of the painter oil and the art of painting portraits of the public. Century culture industry became mass and the oil painting portrait and it became fashionable oil painters of the artist to hire companies such as American Society of portrait artists.

However, the boundaries between the public and private sectors are shaken the globalization. The company was transformed into a global village and possibilities, globalizes a painting portrait also. These days more and more Internet rent of portrait painters is popular. This is easier for the customer and the customer can source quality portrait painters from all over the world, rather than forced to take less-skilled portrait artist next door. Also it does not more for many days require sitting at the oil painting portrait and photos of special moments can also be painted. Now find online at a great price best oil portrait painters for your subject!

Check portfolio of artists on the Internet. Review your previous work, cost and quality. Then you hire a pro with best portfolio quality and affordable price.

What can you do with paintings, within your storage room kept? We paint because it is a way of life. It is a means of communication and challenging the average. We do it as we take a shower on a daily basis. It is just what, we do.

Now the question is - are getting many of my works. And parents or partner force non-artist myself to the pile "useless" clean artwork.

If you arrive at this point, place taking into account likely begin your artwork for sale. While most of us psychological bond about our recent work - our first piece, it is time, put those out and move forward to get more experience. Of course you keep a few that you should.

We have found ourselves in the situation we need to know that we go ahead and invent constantly, ourself. Art work is important to wear to a higher level. Place your past paintings for sale will be liberating.

If it the first time to sell on your own art we have an instant list as you can do this given:

1. Galleries and dealers

Galleries can be a good first step. Although you are careful in your choice, you never know when is your kind of art in demand. Gallery keepers branch development understand really well and you are in contact with all the art buyers. Therefore it can give you at least your work tell you well do. You never know, maybe lucky accepted and appear.

A disclaimer though — like the gallery it is also advisable to interview the Gallery interviews,. Some galleries based Deal-, while some efforts to maintain and constantly work (maybe in foreign branches and) show set. Cheap ones have opportunities to help, other painters working that pick up on Commission and are happy to place your art in museums.

Take a look at your financial stability. The Gallery organization is not a secure due to the uncertain nature of business. The typical lifetime of galleries has proved to be about two years.

Select a large Gallery, and you will not fail.

2. Personal networks

Personal networks is a strong concept to market your work. You might get some good gains of relatives and friends who are very happy to offer your support. Does flattering most as an artist, when an unknown person to purchase your artwork. Family and friends, could be as much as I would like to talk more to you, biased be especially if you are backgrounds non type.

Most of us are focused on personal networks. It is impressive to see how this has your work could you directly to a gallery or retail, interested.

Place your artwork for sale on FB or on your own blog for family and friends. Have on your artwork with your friends to talk.

3. Self service levels

Do it yourself. Visit e-commerce platforms. Search excellent online sites to support artists like you. Many artists continue officially be represented by this type of galleries.

However, you stay away from websites to reduce the creditworthiness of your work. The structure, product you have, painters, you and all play a role in promoting your work. For example, adding your work on E-Bay inadvisable, art created due to the variety of factory and low quality products you have.

When one discovered you, you spend time writing about yourself and your art. It'll do wonders in over time.

You may wonder how much talent is required to create oil paintings. I see talent as a God given gift that you were born. Talent is a blessing-what is required, but skill is to paint with oils. And this is an advantage.

You see, skills can be developed. We can skills learn when we decided that anything. Surgeon, heart, and general practitioners have talent? Of course, but the basic talents you have are not enough, have to learn the skills necessary to excel in your chosen specialty you.

I think this is true for artists. I got a basic talent, I got the opportunity to see the beauty all around me but I had no idea how I could transfer this beauty on the canvas. So much of my life has been dedicated to jobs writing and photography.

But I knew something was missing. I lived with empty in thought, until I finally decided to try my hand at oil painting. Now my first attempts at best been rough. Some art supplies use passed down from my mother, I started to put oil on canvas. And when I finally a painting I finished overjoyed or sadly disappointed.

You ever did Gallery or a Museum and stand in awe one, what you saw? Have you asked the artist's canvas or panel looked like, he started to work? Sketch the scene with charcoal or had he thinned oils use?

I was obsessed with the "Impressionists." This is the style I wanted to emulate. What style painting is drawing? Is there still life, landscapes or portraits? Want to learn painting with oils can be difficult? There is only one way to answer this question get started!

Talent vs. skill?

You can not develop talent either have it or not. Unfortunately many people never take the step to find out. I have a knack for the wonderful things that surround my life sehen-but I have the ability to capture what I saw?

It became apparent that I needed skill and my options in the development of skills were limited. Many years ago I watched those artists in television, which took a blank canvas and create a completed painting in only half an hour. And my ability to increase began my skills.

But I knew that something was missing. My mind was filled with unanswered questions. So I packed away my art supplies and sat with photography. But I recently had an awakening. With my family in tow, we visited the NC Museum of art.

Here was a kind of rebirth, I felt so too. Once again I reveled in the Impressionists. Monet is my favorite.

Oil painting from scratch learn the best way to really to start in my struggles, I made too many mistakes and ended up covering what I had done and start again.

This article begins with a question, how hard it is to paint with oils. You with the talent were born to do, perhaps a child prodigy, unless you find very difficult it jump straight into it. If you are serious, and I think you need or you read this page, you allow yourself some notes.

You can help to art lessons, and you. I tried that ended before long time up very disappointed. Maybe I never found the right teacher someone who would take me by the hand and lead me along the way.

Unearthed after my visit to the art museum I some of the books I had collected over the years, and served as motivation, again in the painting. But neither of you really stirred the fire. Then I myself Internet - only turned as you- and I was lead to a painter named Ethan Semmel.

Ethan has the answer for anyone who seriously painting and doing it well. It offers a series of step-by-step guides and CDs, the literally it everything-all you need to get started and cover not frustrated if you run into trouble with your work. All the answers you'll ever need to start 3 manuals and almost 500 pages, create stunning works of art.

I'm excited again in painting with this CHAP as my guide. I hope you take a few minutes and visit my blog where I'll list of a few of the specific benefits for you if you want to take this course. Click here for more information: visit Don's blog