Global Economic Crisis

None of us can honestly believe that financial institutions did not know the consequences of the abuses they made concerning the use of private real-estate debt as an investment option. It would be unfathomable to believe that the unavoidable Global Economic Crisis was completely unforeseen by the mathematical brains employed by the world’s most powerful banks. It must have at the very least occurred to them that offering incentives for private citizens to incur into debt beyond their capacity for credit and then using the re-financing of that debt as the means to fill investors’ pockets was a flawed concept to say the least. Also, to even think that they could not have know that lending the same values in digital “pixie money” many fold, thus generating an illusion of a greater availability of funds that there really existed, was obviously going to have penalties down the road.

I think it is perfectly logical to believe that a financial institution that is replete with economists, mathematicians, strategists and what not, makes scenario studies for whatever options they decide to make available to the market in general. It would be irresponsible of them not to. So, if they did run scenarios, it is reasonable to think that the consequences we face today were indeed predicted; even if not precisely. After all, even through plain common sense it is easy to figure that lending money to someone who cannot repay you is bound to end up badly, more so even if you have the brilliant idea of using the debt to attract more money into your pocket by saying that the payment of the bad debt is the thing that will generate a return to your investors. Come on! We cannot be naive to the point of thinking these institutions were not well prepared to anticipate and counter these effects.

So, if they knew – and I say again that they had to know – why did they do it anyway? The unsurprising answer is quite simple: For Profit!

This scheme perpetrated by these institutions must have generated such a flow of funds to them that it was all worth it; at least to those men and women who controlled these institutions. Some say we are the ones paying the bill for it, and they are correct. We happy investors and private citizens, but can we blame them? Certainly we can, but not only them because we were greedy too. Each of us, investors, has a share in the guilt for the current crisis. Why? Because we CHOSE to believe in a continuous growth of world economy that could not possibly be. We CHOSE to let them mislead us into thinking that constant economic growth was a good thing and that it would make us all very rich. We chose to surrender to the allure of consumerism and easy money.

The dynamics of the world economy in the age of globalisation is a very perverse thing. It is wicked in the sense that it is totally dehumanised. Investors see only the return upon their investment as a collection of numbers on a computer screen. They are not privy to the consequences of those numbers in terms of the human, social and ecological cost of their profits. Banks and corporations have a glimpse, though. They should know better but greed is supreme to them; it’s their nature. As for us, we let them do it because it is comfortable to us. Now, we pay the bill and rightly so.

The Global Economic Crisis is an opportunity for us to re-think our ways. It is a time of reflection for the lot of us, greedy consumers, who were doing everything for easy money so that we could own luxury cars and travel with style to exotic destinations. In the process, we ruined our economy, our society and our planet. Shall we try something different now?

Do You Really Like Your Car?

It has been a while since I wrote last. Like many of us, I’ve been busy trying to stay afloat during the phenomenon we all have come to know and cherish as the Global Economic Crisis. The good side of the crisis in my personal life is that the lack of orders and new projects – I work with international commerce – leaves me a little extra time to partake in more idealistic activities.

Yesterday, during a conference with representatives from a few prominent NGO’s and associates of Mr. Jim Garrison, I was exposed for the first time to the certainty that global warming will influence our daily lives as of 2015 and to the palpable possibility that we will all face famine and water shortage by 2100. There is no mistake about it; the scientific community has presented conclusive evidence to this effect. Truth be said, I should not have been so surprised as this theme is present in the back of all our minds for decades. I remember having seen Carl Sagan talk about it on TV during the 1980’s in his series “Cosmos”. Yet, we – as a species – have done next to nothing to work towards the prevention or at least the minimisation of the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It simply isn’t “economically interesting”.

Of course some of us do a little here and there to help and to feel good about ourselves, and this is where I include myself so I know what I’m talking about. We recycle, abdicate from our cars once or twice a month – maybe share one “green” car between husband and wife, take short showers, turn off the lights when no one is using the room, buy the occasional “green” product and watch cultural programmes about ecology on the tele so we can talk intelligently about the subject. This is all commendable, but it frankly isn’t enough! Nevertheless, the sad truth is that we, as individuals, can do very little beyond incorporating sustainability and preservation into our habits.

There are certain individuals who are catalysers for the type of change we need, and these include politicians, industrialists, bankers and a lot of such notable people around the world, who detain the power to effect the change with the necessary expedience. Unfortunately, they are also much more concerned with their own priorities and will not act unless we, as a group, tell them that they must. Greed, self preservation and self promotion all take precedence over taking courageous action to prevent the worst and most immediate crisis in the history of Mankind: Global Warming.

Yesterday’s conference was aimed at making preparations for the State of the World Forum (http://www.worldforum.org/state-2009.htm). The World Forum itself is an entity created by Mikail Gorbachev and Jim Garrison to prompt global leaders and influential individual to act in the creation of creative solutions to critical global challenges. While Jim Garrison himself was in a meeting with President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva in Brasilia, we were in Sao Paulo – one of the largest and most populated cities in the world – discussing global warming at an abnormal 34ºC weather. We could see through our open window to the outside the perpetual cloud of brownish-grey carbon dioxide that hovers over the commercial and industrial heart of Brazil; a by-product of the city’s primary mode of transportation.

The problem is, we’ve been telling people to own cars for 50 years. We told ourselves that we need them and that they make us more important and happier. Now, it has become difficult to reverse that process, but it is paramount that we do. Ministries and regulatory bodies around the world should tell individuals of the consequences of utilising an automobile on a daily basis. Governments should work towards making automobiles unnecessary by providing quality public transportation that’s based on an energy matrix different than fossil fuel. We, as civil individuals, should realise and press for these changes in our habits lest we are forced to change much more than that by the effects of global warming. This is something we, as individuals, can do. We can get together to change this one thing common to every nation on the globe. We can unite, as a species, to do away with the petrol era and replace it with a different model. The current economic crisis has affected the automotive industry very gravely and it will have to rethink itself and rebuild its foundations. Perhaps now is the time for that change.

The Price of Consistency

Why is it that some people can't let the Catholic Church be? The Vatican keeps being viciously criticised for its standpoint on themes such as Abortion, Use of Condoms, Stem-cell Research etc. and it seems to me that most of these critics have not stopped to think that all the Vatican is doing is to pursue consistency between what it preaches and what it condones.It is my view that the Catholic Church is no-longer the political influence it once was during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and doesn’t wish to be. Unlike what critics seem to suggest between the lines of their blind condemnation of the Church’s morality, the Catholic Church has distanced itself from politics considerably and seeks to act more in the area of its competence, which is to say matters of Faith, Charity and Ethics. It is true that the Vatican State pronounces itself before the world about issues of political relevance, but it is clear to me that this is done where political events overlap with humanitarian issues, questions of ethics and matters of faith. I don’t think that the Vatican seeks to overthrow the sovereignty of any country, as I see no sign at all to that effect.

Yet, how can the Vatican remain silent about what it perceives to be destructive to Christians and, in fact, destructive all Mankind? This is because the Church nowadays remains the guardian of the Universal Truth as Catholics see it. As such, it is the Church’s obligation to safeguard and preach this Universal Truth to those who want to listen to it, and as a consequence, the Church must be consistent with what it preaches. Remember that Catholics and the Catholic Church believe that we received this Universal Truth from God and from Christ whilst he walked among us here on Earth. This means that the Vatican cannot resort to a democratic process to change Truth; after all it is a Universal Truth and we cannot hope to supplant God’s wisdom.

Hence, I think anyone with a sparkle of logic in them will see that the Catholic Church cannot advocate one behaviour and then condone another that presents stark contrast to the first. In order to preserve its consistency with the Universal Truth it defends, the Catholic Church must be unswerving where new trends and new technologies endanger the object of its precepts. For example, if the Church preaches that all life is precious, that murder is wrong and that human life begins at conception, how could it accept abortion? If the Church advocates monogamy and no pre-marital sex, how could it condone the use of condoms? Moreover, why would a monogamous married couple that is not supposed to prevent child birth need condoms at all? The Church must advocate and support only that which is consistent with what it expects of its followers, regardless of what the world thinks of it and what the current scientific trends are.

Finally, let’s face it: Nowadays being Catholic is a personal choice. It is not a compulsory act, nor is it socially mandatory. In the eyes of the Christian Faith, we are each and all free to chose, but the Church’s responsibility is to inform us of the Truth and the consequence of our choices. In this sense, one could think of the Church as a private club where you are not obliged to enrol, but if you so choose, you must follow the rules of the club. You either choose to be Catholic or you choose not to be, so why criticise the Church when it is only preaching to those who chose to be Catholics?

When governments opt to fight a nation’s perceived enemy by pre-emptively striking at their homes overseas, more often than not the initiative results in a new and bitterer generation of enemies. When citizens forgo common sense and let themselves be fooled by foolhardy politicians even in the face of evidence, they surrender themselves to convenience and corruption and condemn their offspring to perpetual strife.

A Little Bit of Hope

The World never needed Hope like it does today. That is not to say that the World, as the term translates to our Global Society, hasn’t always needed and continues to need hope. Yet, as a Society we once had several sources from which to draw this hope, in the form of Religion, Values, Family, even Government, but these things are less in vogue nowadays (in fact one can be severely criticised by his intellectual peers for being a religious person or for wishing to build a family, so many simply keep quiet about it).

Claiming independence from all these sources of Hope of the past through Science and Humanist Wisdom (both aspects I value when not misused to drive other important things away), we have replaced the old sources of Hope with Consumerism and the desire for Fame, Wealth and Power at any cost and without regard for the consequences. This was supposed to keep us placated in the present that we would not need to hope for the future. As usual in History, this served the purposes of a relative few to the detriment of all (including them), until now we find ourselves victimised by our own global-social-greed to an extent where we desperately need Hope and have almost nowhere from which to draw it.

A week ago, I have refilled my personal bucked of Hope a little bit more by witnessing the conclusion of the 6th Jogo da Cidadania (roughly translates to Citizenship Game). In short, this event selects, tests and congregates college undergraduates of different disciplines into teams and coaches them with an impressive infrastructure of dedicated employees and volunteers to enable these idealists to come up with original projects in CSR that are judged and implemented by leading frontline national and multi-national enterprises. It is a demanding process that exacts these youths to their limit, and more than a few drop-out as they realise the practicalities of doing good may not be easy at all if you want it to be sustainable over a long period.

Yet, those that hang on and deliver often produce projects of such quality as to impress seasoned professionals. Having seen the winners and the runners-up delivering hope in those pages and presentations; and then being rewarded for it was once more an experience of hope that our Society may have begun its healing process.

If you don’t speak your mind against a wrong, you are consenting to it by your silence.

Is Self Extinction our Answer?

Something impresses me today and that is our inability to say NO to our children. It used to be that when a child came with any absurd proposal to his parents, the parents themselves would filter that proposal by simply saying NO to it. Yet, nowadays when we are too consumed with our daily chores and ambitions to raise our children properly, we find ourselves feeling guilty of the fact and inundating them with material gifts and facilities to compensate for our absence. Naturally, as a result of our complacency, our children grow to become selfish and tyrannical; sometimes becoming frustrated and delivering themselves into the use of drugs, the practice of violence and utter hopelessness that affects our world. Their destructive approach to frustration is, first and foremost, the product of all the NO's we have not said to them that they would not learn that the world goes beyond their needs and wants.

Ironically, instead of arguing this point as it should, post-modern couples argue instead that the cruel world that our parents created through us, their offspring, is far too hazardous for new children. I have heard countless times that "it is an irresponsibility to put a child in this world" or that "it is a selfish act to have children". Such defeatism is the product of nothing but fear and is itself the selfishness it pretends to avoid.I for one wish to share with my children the wonder that is to be alive. The beauty that the world insists to offer us despite our many faults to it. The summer sunsets and the winter frost, the sound of rainfall and of the waves, the flowers and the creatures that I have had a joy to know. How can I deny posterity to the sensation of love and love's first kiss, the experience of an adventure, the thrill that is learning nature's secrets and man's minds. I firmly believe that these things far outweigh the murders on TV, street violence, the wars and the poverty of so many; each and all ugly reflections of the evil that is human greed.

No. Denial to generate new life will not solve our responsibility to our children, which goes beyond making them content and goes well into making them truly capable of happiness. As with all things, we must take responsibility for our actions and we must have faith in that there is more than our own competence to thank for the successes necessary to bring new hope to our battered reality. Hope lies not in our extinction, but in our good conduct in upbringing the next generation that they become reflections of our love for them.