Khushwant Toor writes from Toronto

Surveys at private-sector companies forecasts greater job losses and worsening economic conditions in the months to come. The current recession – one of its kind- will be worsening in 2009 warn prominent economists and profound businessmen around the world.

Companies will lay off more workers and try to stockpile more cash during the next 12 months, unanimously predict the economists. In a latest U.S. survey conducted by National Association for Business Economics, vast majority of the 105 economists polled believe the country's gross domestic product will continue to sink in 2009. Similar is the case with Canada.

At a gathering of Canadian economists at the Economic Club of Canada on January 28, chief economist Don Drummond of Toronto based Toronto-Dominion Bank said that the challenges faced by the U.S. will start to be felt more keenly in Canada during the first three months of this year. First half of 2009 looks pretty terrible for Canada, and Scotiabank economist Warren Jestin said layoffs are just starting in Canada.

At the same meeting, Royal Bank of Canada’s chief economist Craig Wright said average Canadians will feel the pain more this year.

Avery Shenfeld, a senior economist at the CIBC world Markets, said company earnings on Canada's main stock exchange will drop 15 to 20 percent. He predicted that the decline will likely push Canada's central bank to further slash interest rates, to as low as 0.5 percent, in an effort to fend off deepening economic problems.

Last month, Canada's central bank slashed its key interest rate by 1.5 per cent, to its lowest level in half a century taking the current prime lending rate down to 3%. A report from BMO Capital Markets suggested real Canadian GDP will contract just over two percent, while unemployment will rise to eight percent by the end of the year in Canada. In wake of tighter consumer spending, home prices in Canada are also expected to erode further.

In spite of the lower interest rates the tight credit conditions have started to haunt not only the businesses but the common consumer too. It is becoming seemingly hard to approach the banks for any kind of loan these days. It is not just the housing market which takes the major share of recession blame; there are more factors such as commercial real estate, consumer loans, student loans which are collectively driving the economy down.

Job layoffs around the world are making the situation worse and many families are at the verge of falling into depression if not already in it. In December, job losses were large and widespread across most major industry sectors.

In Canada December's employment loss was the result of a large decline in full-time work (-71,000), partly offset by an increase in part-time employment (+36,000). Most of the decline in full-time employment occurred in Quebec and Alberta. In December, private sector losses (-59,000) were partially offset by gains in the public sector (+21,000). Canadian economy is relatively doing better than the U.S. economy, however Canada is 80% dependent upon U.S. as its trading partner and would feel a further pinch as U.S. economy further slows.

In the U.S. during the last month, the U.S. unemployment rate rose from 6.8 to 7.2 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported on January 30, 2009. Payroll employment fell by 524,000 over the month and by 1.9 million over the last 4 months of 2008. The number of unemployed persons increased by 632,000 in December alone to 11.1 million as the unemployment rate rose to 7.2 percent.

In the latest series of job cuts which made headlines around the world - Battery maker NEC Tokin of Japan said it would offer early retirement packages to about 450 employees in Japan and planned to cut about 9,000 workers overseas. The Swiss specialty chemicals company Clariant said it was cutting 1,000 jobs this year.

Home Depot, Caterpillar, Sprint Nextel and at least eight other companies announced last Monday that they would cut more than 75,000 jobs in the United States and around the world. Texas Instruments said it would eliminate 3,400 jobs, or 12 percent of its work force. Pfizer said it would cut the combined work force by 19,500 employees. After the worst holiday shopping season in decades, retailers are eliminating jobs in large numbers. More than 66,600 American retailing jobs were shed in December, the worst period since the late 1930s.

Meanwhile, A survey of Japanese leading car makers in Japan say they are planning to have cut 25,000 jobs by the end of Japanese financial year in March. Despite being in better shape than the big three US car-makers, Japan's auto manufacturers are taking drastic measures to weather the global financial storm. The survey also says the leading 12 auto manufacturers also plan to cut their combined production by at least three million cars from their original output targets.

Leaving aside the ailing auto sector that is again running out of cash, prominent companies such as Microsoft, Citigroup, General Electric, Nokia and Harley-Davidson, Sony, G.M. etc. has long been cutting their job force. Workers from Britain to China have all been losing jobs. So much so that mass protests paralyzed parts of France yesterday as demonstrators urged the governments across the globe to take drastic steps to tame the wide spreading recession. With President Obama in the office, all eyes are upon him and people are hopefully waiting for him to unleash his magic wand to control this already deep U.S. economic recession. The fate of the Canadian economy is directly tied to the U.S. progress. In an effort to control the steep unemployment rate President Barack Obama on January 26 urged the U.S. Congress to approve a $825 billion economic stimulus package of tax cuts, emergency benefits and public spending projects. While stimulus spending on public works may take some time to get going, some companies could bring back displaced workers relatively quickly if the government initiatives generate new business orders.

The bottom line is year 2009 will be a tough one for not only the companies but dreading for families who were already dependent upon their day to day earnings for survival.

BACK

Messiah of minorities Barack Obama takes oath as the 44th President of America

Harjap Singh Aujla

NEVER before in the history of American Presidential Inaugurations, as much enthusiasm was witnessed as was seen on the frozen winter morning of Tuesday January 20, 2009 in the Mall Area of Washington D.C. In excess of two and a half million people, from all walks of life, the young and the old, the healthy and the infirm, the rich and the poor, traveled to the American Federal Capital. to witness history being made The bulk of revelers and enthusiasts hailed from the African American community and they came in hundreds of thousands. Slavery was officially abolished in 1863. But it took one hundred and forty six years for an African American male to occupy the coveted throne of authority, the White House, the seat of power and pelf of the most powerful man on earth.

The Democratic nominees have several times been elected to the powerful Presidency of America, but they barely scrambled home by margins not exceeding 51% to 49%. But Barack Obama not only won the election, he won it by a whopping plurality of 53%. Some people now believe that during the currency of present economic recession, Hillary Clinton, if nominated could have won by a plurality exceeding 55% of popular vote. What Brack Obama has achieved is a record of sorts, which may not be broken for decades to come.

Prior to the date of inauguration of the forty fourth President of the United States of america, I talked to a lot of common folks on the streets in New Jersey, New York and while traveling to and from Los Angeles and heard several explanations for Barack Obama’s record breaking victory at the polls. One rare, but highly thought provoking opinion concerning the political make up of the U.S. Supreme Court as a reason for this historic shift sounded very convincing to me.

A middle aged white man told me that by and large, the people of America believe in balance of power evenly distributed between the Republicans and the Democrats. But in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the democratic system of this nation has failed to establish a balance between the two major political ideologies. Ideally the judges of the apex court should not believe in any political ideologies, they must deliver judgments based on presented facts and evidence. But unfortunately the respective presidents have been picking up judges leaning towards their own political ideologies. Of course otherwise they are all brilliant attorneys and advocates. He said during the past twenty eight years, the Republicans have ruled the nation for twenty years against eight year rule of the Democrats. Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush ruled for eight years each and the elder Bush ruled for four years. Bill Clinton has been the only democratic president, who ruled for eight years. On account of the imbalance of 20 : 8 in favour of the Eepublicans, the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court has shifted overwhelmingly in favour of the Republican Ideology in the precise ratio of 6 : 3. Out of nine judges of the U.S. Supreme Court six are believed to be leaning Republican and three are leaning Democratic.

According to one observer, that is one reason that probably led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s year 2000 decision to stop the counting of votes in the State of Florida and this split decision led to the election of George W. Bush to the Presidency of America. According to that gentleman, a lot of young white voters decided to vote for a balanced U.S. Supreme Court. At least one or possibly two judges are expected to retire during the coming four years and ideologically they are leaning towards the Democratic Party. If a Republican President would have been elected in 2008 also, he would have nominated both judges professing pro-Republican philosophy. That would have tilted the balance in the U.S. Supreme Court heavily in favour of the Republican Philosophy. A man on the street does not want such imbalances even in the highest court of judiciary. Emergence of such scenarios pushed a lot of middle of the road Americans in the fold of the Democratic Party and Obama became the beneficiary of this psychosis.

The African Americans have been trying for decades to have one of their own in the White House. In Barack Obama’s election, they feel that their dream has come true. The African American men have always been complaining that White male cops have been unjustifiably targeting African American drivers for stopping while they are driving and unnecessarily and unjustifiably checking of their driving licenses and other documents. They allege such a profiling is racially inspired. Under Obama administration, they believe there will be marked decrease in this kind of racial profiling. Things may not improve drastically for the community, but psychologically they are likely to feel more secure.

The illegally arriving Mexican Americans farm labourers and other unskilled workers feel that they will be admitted as legal aliens and shall not be subjected to humiliation at the hands of federal agents. On the campaign trail Obama had made some such promises, but how far the American law will permit such illegal entrants to seek legal status is anybody’s guess

Most other minorities also feel that they will have a more dignified existence in this cradle of liberty and freedom under the Obama Administration. Every ones wishes can never be granted, but if something is dome to improve the lot of the downtrodden, that should be accepted with gratitude.

The economy is the main problem these days. Barack Obama is worried about it, and he wants to do something big and immediately to kick start it. We should all give him a real chance, without getting restless, to find a lasting solution for it. Once the economy gets going, he will have time to grapple with other issues too.

BACK

 
We need a new world order

Dr. Sawraj Singh writes from Washington

BARACK Hussein Obama was elected as president of America because people wanted a fundamental change. The American policies, particularly the policies of Bush, have miserably failed and have led to a global economic crisis and instability in the world. America has had its worst recession since the great depression of the thirties. This is not just an economic crisis but it is a much more serious crisis which can be called a crisis of the consumerist culture and the world order based upon the traditional capitalist system and its highest stage "Globalization".

The present globalization is economic-only globalization and completely lacks any ethical aspect. America, the undeclared leader of the present globalization, has not pursued policies which are beneficial for the majority of the world population as well as for the majority of the American people. We can call this a globalization without a global perspective.

If Obama really wants America and the rest of the world to come out of the present crisis, then he has to fundamentally change the American unilateralist policies. The ground reality of the world is that it is no longer a unipolar world led by America and the western domination can not last. Asia, with China in the leading place, has now become the leading region of the world. The world has already become a multi polar world. No country or region can now dominate the entire world. Relations between the east and the west should now be based upon equality and mutual respect.

The global institutions such as the United Nations, World Bank and the international monetary fund should all be revised to reflect the realities of the world. At present all of these institutions are dominated by the west.

The problems between India and Pakistan and the problems of the entire South Asia region can be solved by making a South Asian Economic Alliance on the pattern of the European Union. The Indian subcontinent is a multinational, multicultural, and multi religious entity bound together by a common civilization and a shared valued system. Therefore, a South Asian Economic Alliance can be stronger than the European Union. Such an alliance can be a great impetus for a new world order based upon the principles of equality, mutual respect, universal concern, and universal welfare.

The present world order lacks a balance between the material and the spiritual aspects of life. In the new world order, there should be a balance between western materialism and eastern spirituality. The west should learn from the eastern wisdom. Guru Granth Sahib is the zenith of the eastern spirituality and philosophy. Guru Granth Sahib advocates love, tolerance, peaceful coexistence, universal concern, universal welfare, and promotes unity in diversity. These are the principles upon which a new world order can be established.

Obama has to change the extreme rightist policies of Bush which are responsible for the present global economic crisis. The American policies should benefit the majority of Americans and not the privileged few, which was happening under the Bush administration. America should stop acting like the only super power in the world and start acting like a member of the global community.

[Sawraj Singh, M.D. F.I.C.S is Chairman, Washington State Network for Human Rights]

BACK

 
Zaidi and me: The angry Iraq journalist

Gurpreet Singh writes from Vancouver

THE Iraqi journalist who threw shoes at the former US President, G.W. Bush on his last visit to the country before leaving his office this year has sparked a vigorous debate among the South Asian media people Muntadar al Zaidi not only threw shoes at Bush but also called him a dog during a press conference in Baghdad. Zaidi had said while tossing his shoes, ``This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq’’. Zaidi, who now in detention has been mercilessly beaten, is facing charges for insulting a state guest. Obviously, as some assert he did this as an angry Iraqi. He crossed his journalistic boundaries to insult a leader, who is responsible for the destruction of his country. The Iraq was invaded by the US army after Bush claimed that the country possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, something his administration had failed to prove. Bush had admitted his disappointment over this failure in his parting TV address.

While many professional journalists have rejected his action as ``unethical’’ and ``uncivilized’’, others describe him as a journalist of conscience. A shoe rally in support of Zaidi was organized in Toronto by a group called Journalists of Conscience. Undoubtedly Zaidi cannot take the plea of having used his freedom of expression. The journalists have every right to grill the politicians, expose them through writings, but however bad they may be, they are not expected to throw shoes or eggs on them or raise angry slogans. In this case, what Zaidi did, he did as a deeply hurt Iraqi nationalist. In a country where more than a half people including children and women have been butchered, what normal behavior could be expected from a journalist?

Condemning his action without analyzing the whole situation is also unfair. Rather the journalists or the commentators should look at the Zaidi story more objectively. Since Zaidi has now become a subject of the story they should look into the question, why a reporter, who is also a part of the society and a human being would do this? If Zaidi has crossed the line, the mainstream journalists representing the US corporate media or the journalists embedded with the US troops in Iraq have also violated the journalistic ethics by simply selling the war propaganda. That is worse than shoe throwing They didn’t question the Bush administration when it was determined to attack Iraq despite warnings from the United Nations. Some of them had to apologize for trusting the Bush administration after so many deaths in Iraq. What about the embedded journalists, who rarely go and talk to the Iraqi public? Shouldn’t the US media take some responsibility for the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq instead of portraying one reporter who was upset with the deaths of his compatriots and who simply attacked the US president with shoes and not the hand grenades? Is insulting a state guest more criminal than killing a population by falsely accusing it of possessing weapons?

Though some of my colleagues in the Punjabi media also described Zaidi as shoe journalist and denounced his action as shameful, but most of them justify the assassination of the former Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. Didn’t they cross their line? Whatever they did, they did as Sikhs. After all Gandhi had ordered a military raid on the holiest shrine of the Sikhs in 1984. This had enraged the Sikhs across the world. If her bodyguards turned killers did a heroic action, how come Zaidi should not be considered a hero?

I would rather say that Zaidi is man of conscience. I myself have passed through a phase when I crossed my journalistic boundaries. Our radio station had decided to support Laiber Singh, a paralyzed failed refugee claimant from India. The Canadian government had refused to grant him asylum in this country despite lot of petitioning from the people who were seeking his permanent stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. While the mainstream media remained hostile towards this man, the Punjabi media had launched a full scale campaign to support his cause. A senior commentator of a very powerful daily had written that he had a $5 bet with a colleague over the fate of Laiber Singh, who in all probability will be sent back to India. Similarly, the major TV channels had virtually blacked out the coverage of a rally in the middle of snowfall that was attended by 250 people, including women, children and seniors in support of Laiber Singh outside the Immigration and Citizenship office in Surrey.

The rally at the Vancouver Airport on December 10, 2007 that was attended by nearly 2,000 people drew more curiosity and the mainstream media tried to portray it as something organized by the Sikh separatists, where sectarian slogans were raised. This was totally false. Everybody right from my employer to me had raised slogans condemning the government. We became a participant in the campaign. We had crossed our line. I do agree that we should have maintained some distance from the rally rather becoming a part of it. But wasn’t the mainstream media pushing us too mush to do this? If the media is more inclusive and more people oriented rather becoming a tool of the establishment, there won’t be any anger, disgust or frustration that might eventually divide the media itself on professional and ethnic lines.

BACK