Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summit, Was Held at The: Listing of Proposed Actions
Summit, Was Held at The: Listing of Proposed Actions
Summit, Was Held at The: Listing of Proposed Actions
The conference was preceded by the Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisionsscientific
conference, which took place in March 2009 and was also held at the Bella Center. The negotiations
began to take a new format when in May 2009 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moonattended the World
Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen, organised by theCopenhagen Climate
Council (COC), where he requested that COC councillors attend New York's Climate Week at the Summit
on Climate Change on 22 September and engage with heads of government on the topic of the climate
problem.[3]
Connie Hedegaard was president of the conference until December 16, 2009, handing over the chair to
Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen in the final stretch of the conference, during negotiations
between heads of state and government.[1] On Friday 18 December, the final day of the conference,
international media reported that the climate talks were "in disarray".[4][5][6] Media also reported that in lieu
of a summit collapse, solely a "weak political statement" was anticipated at the conclusion of the
conference.[7][8]
Japan −25%
CO2e w/o LULUCF @ 20%
EU −20 to −30%
CO2e w/- LULUCF @ 30%
−4 to −24% CO2e w/o LULUCF
Australia
United
−4% CO2e w/o LULUCF
States
Brazil +5 to −1.8%
During the conference some countries stated what actions they were proposing to take if a binding
agreement was achieved. In the end, no such agreement was reached and the actions will instead be
debated in 2010. Listing by country or political union. Sections in alphabetic order, table according to
higher objectives.
[edit]Australia
To cut carbon emissions by 25% below 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious
global deal to stabilise levels of CO2e to 450 ppm or lower.[19][20]
To cut carbon emissions by 15% below 2000 levels by 2020 if there is an agreement where major
developing economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies take on
commitments comparable to Australia.[19][20][21]
It is clearly stated in proceedings from the Australian Senate[22] and policy statements from the
government[21][23][24] that the Australian emission reductions include land use, land-use change and
forestry(LULUCF) with the form of inclusion remaining undecided and whilst acknowledging that they are
subject to the forming of accounting guidelines from this Copenhagen conference. In contention is the
Australian Government's preference for the removal of non-human inducedLULUCF emissions – and
perhaps their abatement – from the account, such as from lightning induced bushfires and the
subsequent natural carbon sequestering regrowth.[25]
Using Kyoto accounting guidelines, these proposals are equivalent to an emissions cut of 24%,[22]
[23]
14%[22][23] and 4%[22][23] below 1990 levels by 2020 respectively. Raw use of UNFCCC CO2e data
including LULUCF as defined during the conference by the UNFCCC for the years 2000 (404.392
Tg CO2e[26][27][28][29][30]) and 1990 (453.794 Tg CO2e[27][28][29][30][26]) leads to apparent emissions cuts of 33%
(303.294 TgCO2e), 25% (343.733 Tg CO2e) and 15% (384.172 Tg CO2e) respectively.[31]
Canada
To cut carbon emissions by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020. This is equivalent to
3% below 1990 levels by 2020.[20][21][31][34]
The three most populous provinces disagree with the federal government goal and
announced more ambitious targets on their jurisdictions.Quebec, Ontario and British
Columbia announced respectively 20%, 15% and 14% reduction target below their
1990 levels while Alberta is expecting a 58% increase in emissions. [35]
[edit]People's Republic of China
Member country Germany has offered to reduce its CO 2 emissions by 40% below
1990 levels by 2020.[42]
[edit]Iceland
To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. [20][45]
[edit]Kazakhstan
To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15% below 1992 levels by 2020. [20]
[edit]Liechtenstein
To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20-30% below 1990 levels by 2020. [20]
[edit]Maldives
The financial crisis has been linked to reckless and unsustainable lending practices compounded by
government intervention and the growing trend of securitization of real estate mortgages in the United
States.[4] The US mortgage-backed securities, which had risks that were hard to assess, were marketed
around the world. A more broad based credit boom fed a global speculative bubble in real estate and
equities, which served to reinforce the risky lending practices.[5][6] The precarious financial situation was
made more difficult by a sharp increase in oil and food prices. The emergence of Sub-prime loan losses
in 2007 began the crisis and exposed other risky loans and over-inflated asset prices. With loan losses
mounting and the fall of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008, a major panic broke out on the inter-
bank loan market. As share and housing prices declined many large and well
established investment and commercial banks in the United States and Europe suffered huge losses and
even faced bankruptcy, resulting in massive public financial assistance.
The recession has renewed interest in Keynesian economic ideas on how to combat recessionary
conditions. Fiscal and monetary policieshave been significantly eased to stem the recession and financial
risks. Most economists believe that the stimulus should be withdrawn as soon as the economies recover
enough to "chart a path to sustainable growth"
Commodity boom
Further information: 2000s energy crisis and 2007–2008 world food price crisis
See also: 2008 Central Asia energy crisis and 2008 Bulgarian energy crisis
The decade of the 2000s saw a global explosion in prices, focused especially incommodities and housing,
marking an end to the commodities recession of 1980–2000. In 2008, the prices of many commodities,
notably oil and food, rose so high as to cause genuine economic damage, threatening stagflation and a
reversal ofglobalization.[17]
In January 2008, oil prices surpassed $100 a barrel for the first time, the first of many price milestones to
be passed in the course of the year.[18] In July 2008, oil peaked at $147.30[19] a barrel and a gallon
of gasoline was more than $4 across most of the U.S.A. The economic contraction in the fourth quarter of
2008 caused a dramatic drop in demand and prices fell below $35 a barrel at the end of the year.[19] Some
believe that this oil price spike was the product of Peak Oil.[20][unreliable source?] There is concern that if the
economy was to improve, oil prices might return to pre-recession levels.[21]
The food and fuel crises were both discussed at the 34th G8 summit in July 2008.[22]
Sulfuric acid (an important chemical commodity used in processes such as steel processing, copper
production and bioethanol production) increased in price 3.5-fold in less than 1 year while producers
of sodium hydroxide have declared force majeure due to flooding, precipitating similarly steep price
increases.[23][24]
In the second half of 2008, the prices of most commodities fell dramatically on expectations of diminished
demand in a world recession.[25]
[edit]Housing bubble
UK house prices between 1975 and 2006.
By 2007, real estate bubbles were still under way in many parts of the world,[26]especially in the United
States, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Italy,Australia, New
Zealand, Ireland, Spain, France, Poland,[27] South Africa, Israel,Greece, Bulgaria, Croatia,
[28]
Canada, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden,Finland, Argentina,[29] Baltic
states, India, Romania, Russia, Ukraine and China.[30]U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan said in mid-2005 that "at a minimum, there's a little 'froth' (in the U.S. housing market) ... it's
hard not to see that there are a lot of local bubbles".[31] The Economist magazine, writing at the same
time, went further, saying "the worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history".[32]Real
estate bubbles are (by definition of the word "bubble") followed by a price decrease (also known as
a housing price crash) that can result in many owners holding negative equity (a mortgage debt higher
than the current value of the property).
[edit]Inflation
In February 2008, Reuters reported that global inflation was at historic levels, and that domestic inflation
was at 10–20 year highs for many nations.[33] "Excess money supply around the globe, monetary easing
by the Fed to tame financial crisis, growth surge supported by easy monetary policy in Asia, speculation
in commodities, agricultural failure, rising cost of imports from China and rising demand of food and
commodities in the fast growing emerging markets," have been named as possible reasons for the
inflation.[34]
In mid-2007, IMF data indicated that inflation was highest in the oil-exporting countries, largely due to the
unsterilized growth of foreign exchange reserves, the term “unsterilized” referring to a lack of monetary
policy operations that could offset such a foreign exchange intervention in order to maintain a country's
monetary policy target. However, inflation was also growing in countries classified by the IMF as "non-oil-
exporting LDCs" (Least Developed Countries) and "Developing Asia", on account of the rise in oil and
food prices.[35]
Inflation was also increasing in the developed countries,[36][37] but remained low compared to the
developing world.
[edit]Causes
The central debate about the origin has been focused on the respective parts played by the public
monetary policy (in the US notably) and by private financial institutions practices.
On October 15, 2008, Anthony Faiola, Ellen Nakashima, and Jill Drew wrote a lengthy article inThe
Washington Post titled, "What Went Wrong".[39] In their investigation, the authors claim that former Federal
Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, andSEC Chairman Arthur
Levitt vehemently opposed any regulation of financial instruments known as derivatives. They further
claim that Greenspan actively sought to undermine the office of theCommodity Futures Trading
Commission, specifically under the leadership of Brooksley E. Born, when the Commission sought to
initiate regulation of derivatives. Ultimately, it was the collapse of a specific kind of derivative,
the mortgage-backed security, that triggered the economic crisis of 2008.
While Greenspan's role as Chairman of the Federal Reserve has been widely discussed (the main point
of controversy remains the lowering of Federal funds rate at only 1% for more than a year which,
according to the Austrian School of economics, allowed huge amounts of "easy" credit-based money to
be injected into the financial system and thus create an unsustainable economic boom),[40][41] there is also
the argument that Greenspan actions in the years 2002–2004 were actually motivated by the need to take
the U.S. economy out of the early 2000s recession caused by the bursting of the dot-com bubble —
although by doing so he did not help avert the crisis, but only postpone it.[42][43]
Some economists- those of the Austrian school and those predicting the recession such as Steve Keen -
claim that the ultimate point of origin of the great financial crisis of 2007–2009 can be traced back to an
extremely indebted US economy. The collapse of the real estate market in 2006 was the close point of
origin of the crisis. The failure rates of subprime mortgages were the first symptom of a credit boom tuned
to bust and of a real estate shock. But large default rates on subprime mortgages cannot account for the
severity of the crisis. Rather, low-quality mortgages acted as an accelerant to the fire that spread through
the entire financial system. The latter had become fragile as a result of several factors that are unique to
this crisis: the transfer of assets from the balance sheets of banks to the markets, the creation of complex
and opaque assets, the failure of ratings agencies to properly assess the risk of such assets, and the
application of fair value accounting. To these novel factors, one must add the now standard failure of
regulators and supervisors in spotting and correcting the emerging weaknesses.[44]
Based on the assumption that subprime lending precipitated the crisis, some have argued that the Clinton
Administration may be partially to blame, while others have pointed to the passage of the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act by the 106th Congress, and over-leveraging by banks and investors eager to achieve high
returns on capital.
Some believe the roots of the crisis can be traced directly to subprime lending by Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, which are government sponsored entities. The New York Times published an
article that reported the Clinton Administration pushed for subprime lending: "Fannie Mae, the nation's
biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton
Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people" (NYT, 30 September
1999).
In 1995, the administration also tinkered with Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 by regulating
and strengthening the anti-redlining procedures. It is felt by many that this was done to help boost a
stagnated home ownership figure that had hovered around 65% for many years. The result was a push by
the administration for greater investment, by financial institutions, into riskier loans. In a 2000 United
States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends for 305 cities from 1993 to 1998 it was shown
that $467 billion of mortgage credit poured out of CRA-covered lenders into low- and mid-level income
borrowers and neighborhoods. (See "The Community Reinvestment Act After Financial Modernization,"
April 2000.)
Others have pointed to deregulation efforts as contributing to the collapse. In 1999, the 106th
Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.
This repeal has been criticized by some for having contributed to the proliferation of the complex and
opaque financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis. However, some economists object to
singling out the repeal of Glass-Steagall for criticism. Brad DeLong, a former advisor to President Clinton
and economist at the University of California, Berkeley and Tyler Cowen of George Mason University
have both argued that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis by allowing for
mergers and acquisitions of collapsing banks as the crisis unfolded in late 2008.[46]
[edit]Over-leveraging,
credit default swaps and collateralized debt
obligations as causes
Another probable cause of the crisis—and a factor that unquestionably amplified its magnitude—was
widespread miscalculation by banks and investors of the level of risk inherent in the
unregulated Collateralized debt obligation and Credit Default Swap markets. Under this theory, banks and
investors systematized the risk by taking advantage of low interest rates to borrow tremendous sums of
money that they could only pay back if the housing market continued to increase in value.
According to an article published in Wired, the risk was further systematized by the use of David X.
Li's Gaussian copula model function to rapidly price Collateralized debt obligations based on the price of
related Credit Default Swaps.[47] Because it was highly tractable, it rapidly came to be used by a huge
percentage of CDO and CDS investors, issuers, and rating agencies.[47] According to one wired.com
article: "Then the model fell apart. Cracks started appearing early on, when financial markets began
behaving in ways that users of Li's formula hadn't expected. The cracks became full-fledged canyons in
2008—when ruptures in the financial system's foundation swallowed up trillions of dollars and put the
survival of the global banking system in serious peril...Li's Gaussian copula formula will go down in history
as instrumental in causing the unfathomable losses that brought the world financial system to its
knees."[47]
The pricing model for CDOs clearly did not reflect the level of risk they introduced into the system. It has
been estimated that the "from late 2005 to the middle of 2007, around $450bn of CDO of ABS were
issued, of which about one third were created from risky mortgage-backed bonds...[o]ut of that pile,
around $305bn of the CDOs are now in a formal state of default, with the CDOs underwritten by Merrill
Lynch accounting for the biggest pile of defaulted assets, followed by UBS and Citi."[48] The average
recovery rate for high quality CDOs has been approximately 32 cents on the dollar, while the recovery
rate for mezzanine CDO's has been approximately five cents for every dollar. These massive, practically
unthinkable, losses have dramatically impacted the balance sheets of banks across the globe, leaving
them with very little capital to continue operations.[48]
But the created credit is not backed by any real savings nor is in response to any change in the real
economy, hence, there are physically not enough resources to finance either the malinvestments or the
consumption rate indefinitely. The bust occurs when investors collectively realize their mistake. This
happens usually some time after interest rates rise again. The liquidation of the malinvestments and the
consequent reduction in consumption throw the economy into a recession, whose severity mirrors the
scale of the boom's excesses.
The Austrian School argues that the conditions previous to the crisis of the late 2000s correspond exactly
to the scenario described above. The central bank of the United States, led by Federal Reserve
Chairman Alan Greenspan, kept interest rates very low for a long period of time to blunt the recession of
the early 2000s. The resulting malinvestment and overconsumption of investors and consumers prompted
the development of a housing bubble that ultimately burst, precipitating the financial crisis. This crisis,
together with sudden and necessarydeleveraging and cutbacks by consumers, businesses and banks, led
to the recession. Austrian Economists argue further that while they probably affected the nature and
severity of the crisis, factors such as a lack of regulation, the Community Reinvestment Act, and entities
such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are insufficient by themselves to explain it.[49]
Austrian economists[who?] argue that the history of the yield curve from 2000 through 2007 illustrates the
role that credit creation by the Federal Reserve may have played in the on-set of the financial crisis in
2007 and 2008. The yield curve (also known as the term structure of interest rates) is the shape formed
by a graph showing US Treasury Bill or Bond interest rates on the vertical axis and time to maturity on the
horizontal axis. When short-term interest rates are lower than long-term interest rates the yield curve is
said to be “positively sloped”. When short-term interest rates are higher than long-term interest rates the
yield curve is said to be “inverted”. When long term and short term interest rates are equal the yield curve
is said to be “flat”. The yield curve is believed by some to be a strong predictor of recession (when
inverted) and inflation (when positively sloped). However, the yield curve is believed to act on the real
economy with a lag of 1 to 3 years.[citation needed]
A positively sloped yield curve allows Primary Dealers (such as large investment banks) in the Federal
Reserve system to fund themselves with cheap short term money while lending out at higher long-term
rates. This strategy is profitable so long as the yield curve remains positively sloped. However, it creates
a liquidity risk if the yield curve were to become inverted and banks would have to refund themselves at
expensive short term rates while losing money on longer term loans.[citation needed]
The narrowing of the yield curve from 2004 and the inversion of the yield curve during 2007 resulted (with
the expected 1 to 3 year delay) in a bursting of the housing bubble and a wild gyration of commodities
prices as moneys flowed out of assets like housing or stocks and sought safe haven in commodities. The
price of oil rose to over $140 dollars per barrel in 2008 before plunging as the financial crisis began to
take hold in late 2008.
Other observers have doubted the role that the yield curve plays in controlling the business cycle. In a
May 24, 2006 story CNN Money reported: “...in recent comments, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke repeated
the view expressed by his predecessor Alan Greenspan that an inverted yield curve is no longer a good
indicator of a recession ahead.”[citation needed]
[edit]Oil prices
Economist James D. Hamilton has argued that the increase in oil prices in the period of 2007 through
2008 was a significant cause of the recession. He evaluated several different approaches to estimating
the impact of oil price shocks on the economy, including some methods that had previously shown a
decline in the relationship between oil price shocks and the overall economy. All of these methods
"support a common conclusion; had there been no increase in oil prices between 2007:Q3 and 2008:Q2,
the US economy would not have been in a recession over the period 2007:Q4 through
2008:Q3."[50] Hamilton's own model, a time-series econometric forecast based on data up to 2003,
showed that the decline in GDP could have been successfully predicted to almost its full extent given
knowledge of the price of oil. The results imply that oil prices were entirely responsible for the recession;
however, Hamilton himself acknowledged that this was probably not the case but maintained that it
showed that oil price increases made a significant contribution to the downturn in economic growth.[51]
An empirical study by John B. Taylor concluded that the crisis was: (1) caused by excess monetary
expansion; (2) prolonged by an inability to evaluate counter-party risk due to opaque financial statements;
and (3) worsened by the unpredictable nature of government's response to the crisis.[57][58]
It has also been debated that the root cause of the crisis is overproduction of goods caused
by globalization[59] (and especially vast investments in countries such as China and India by
western multinational companies over the past 15–20 years, which greatly increased global industrial
output at a reduced cost). Overproduction tends to cause deflation and signs of deflation were evident in
October and November 2008, as commodity prices tumbled and the Federal Reserve was lowering its
target rate to an all-time-low 0.25%.[60] On the other hand, Professor Herman Daly suggests that it is not
actually an economic crisis, but rather a crisis of overgrowth beyond sustainable ecological limits.[61] This
reflects a claim made in the 1972 book Limits to Growth, which stated that without major deviation from
the policies followed in the 20th century, a permanent end of economic growth could be reached
sometime in the first two decades of the 21st century, due to gradual depletion of natural resources.[62]
In laissez-faire capitalism, financial institutions would be risk-averse because failure would result
in liquidation. But the Federal Reserve's 1984 rescue of Continental Illinois and the 1998 rescue of
the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund, among others, showed that institutions which failed to
exercise due diligence could reasonably expect to be protected from the consequences of their mistakes.
The belief that theycould not be allowed to fail created a moral hazard which was a contributing factor to
the late-2000s recession.[63]
[edit]Effects
[edit]Overview
Real gross domestic product (GDP) began contracting in the third quarter of 2008, and by early
2009 was falling at an annualized pace not seen since the 1950s.[65]
Capital investment, which was in decline year-on-year since the final quarter of 2006, matched
the 1957–58 post war record in the first quarter of 2009. The pace of collapse in residential
investment picked up speed in the first quarter of 2009, dropping 23.2% year-on-year, nearly four
percentage points faster than in the previous quarter.
Domestic demand, in decline for five straight quarters, is still three months shy of the 1974–75
record, but the pace – down 2.6% per quarter vs. 1.9% in the earlier period – is a record-breaker
already.
[edit]Trade and industrial production
In middle-October 2008, the Baltic Dry Index, a measure of shipping volume, fell by 50% in one week, as
the credit crunch made it difficult for exporters to obtain letters of credit.[66]
In February 2009, The Economist claimed that the financial crisis had produced a "manufacturing crisis",
with the strongest declines in industrial production occurring in export-based economies.[67]
In March 2009, Britain's Daily Telegraph reported the following declines in industrial output, from January
2008 to January 2009: Japan −31%, Korea −26%, Russia −16%, Brazil −15%, Italy −14%, Germany
−12%.[68]
Some analysts even say the world is going through a period of deglobalization and protectionism after
years of increasing economic integration.[69][70]
Sovereign funds and private buyers from the Middle East and Asia, including China,[71] are increasingly
buying in on stakes of European and U.S. businesses, including industrial enterprises.[72] Due to the
global recession they are available at a low price.[73][74] The Chinese government has concentrated on
natural-resource deals across the world,[75] securing supplies of oil and minerals.[76]
[edit]Pollution
[edit]Unemployment
The International Labour Organization (ILO) predicted that at least 20 million jobs will have been lost by
the end of 2009 due to the crisis — mostly in "construction, real estate, financial services, and the auto
sector" — bringing world unemployment above 200 million for the first time.[78] The number of unemployed
people worldwide could increase by more than 50 million in 2009 as the global recession intensifies, the
ILO has forecast.[79]
In December 2007, the U.S. unemployment rate was 4.9%.[80] By October 2009, the unemployment rate
had risen to 10.1%.[81] A broader measure of unemployment (taking into account marginally attached
workers, those employed part time for economic reasons, and discouraged workers) was 16.3%.[82] In July
2009, fewer jobs were lost than expected, dipping the unemployment rate from 9.5% to 9.4%. Even fewer
jobs were lost in August, 216,000, recorded as the lowest number of jobs since September 2008, but the
unemployment rate rose to 9.7%. In October 2009, news reports announced that some employers who
cut jobs due to the recession are beginning to hire them back. More recently, economists announced in
January 2010 that economic growth in the U.S. resumed in the fourth quarter of 2009,[83] and some have
predicted that limited job growth will begin in the spring of 2010.[84]
The average numbers for European Union nations are similar to the US ones. Some European countries
have been hit by recession very hard, for instance Spain's unemployment rate reached 18.7% (37% for
youths) in May 2009 — the highest in the eurozone.[85][86]
The rise of advanced economies in Brazil, India, and China increased the total global labor pool
dramatically. Recent improvements in communication and education in these countries has allowed
workers in these countries to compete more closely with workers in traditionally strong economies, such
as the United States. This huge surge in labor supply has provided downward pressure on wages and
contributed to unemployment.
[edit]Financial markets
Main article: Financial crisis of 2007–2010
For a time, major economies of the 21st century were believed to have begun a period of
decreased volatility, which was sometimes dubbed The Great Moderation, because many economic
variables appeared to have achieved relative stability. The return of commodity, stock market, and
currency value volatility are regarded as indications that the concepts behind the Great Moderation were
guided by false beliefs.[87]
January 2008 was an especially volatile month in world stock markets, with a surge in implied
volatility measurements of the US-based S&P 500 index,[88] and a sharp decrease in non-U.S. stock
market prices on Monday, January 21, 2008 (continuing to a lesser extent in some markets on January
22). Some headline writers and a general news columnist called January 21 "Black Monday" and referred
to a "global shares crash,"[89][90] though the effects were quite different in different markets.
The effects of these events were also felt on the Shanghai Composite Index in China which lost 5.14
percent, most of this on financial stocks such as Ping An Insurance and China Life which lost 10 and 8.76
percent respectively.[91] Investors worried about the effect of a recession in the US economy would have
on the Chinese economy. Citigroup estimates due to the number of exports from China to America a one
percent drop in US economic growth would lead to a 1.3 percent drop in China's growth rate.
There were several large Monday declines in stock markets world wide during 2008, including one in
January, one in August, one in September, and another in early October. As of October 2008, stocks in
North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region had all fallen by about 30% since the beginning of the
year.[92] The Dow Jones Industrial Average had fallen about 37% since January 2008.[93]
The simultaneous multiple crises affecting the US financial system in mid-September 2008 caused large
falls in markets both in the US and elsewhere. Numerous indicators of risk and of investor fear (the TED
spread, Treasury yields, the dollar value of gold) set records.[94]
Russian markets, already falling due to declining oil prices and political tensions with the West, fell over
10% in one day, leading to a suspension of trading,[95] while other emerging markets also exhibited
losses.[96]
On September 22, the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) delayed opening by an hour[99] after a
decision was made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to ban all short
selling on the ASX.[100] This was revised slightly a few days later.[101]
As is often the case in times of financial turmoil and loss of confidence, investors turned to assets which
they perceived as tangible or sustainable. The price of gold rose by 30% from middle of 2007 to end of
2008. A further shift in investors’ preference towards assets likeprecious metals[102] or land[103][104] is
discussed in the media.
In March 2009, Blackstone Group CEO Stephen Schwarzman said that up to 45% of global wealth had
been destroyed in little less than a year and a half.[105]
[edit]Travel
According to Zagat's 2009 U.S. Hotels, Resorts & Spas survey, business travel has decreased in the past
year as a result of the recession. 30% of travelers surveyed stated they travel less for business today
while only 21% of travelers stated that they travel more.[106] Reasons for the decline in business travel
include company travel policy changes, personal economics, economic uncertainty and high airline
prices. Hotels are responding to the downturn by dropping rates, ramping up promotions and negotiating
deals for both business travelers and tourists.[106][107]
According to the World Tourism Organization, international travel suffered a strong slowdown beginning in
June 2008,[108] and this declining trend intensified during 2009 resulting in a reduction from 922 million
international tourist arrivals in 2008 to 880 million visitors in 2009, representing a worldwide decline of
4%, and an estimated 6% decline in international tourism receipts.[109] The decline caused by the
recession was further exacerbated in some countries due to the outbreak of the AH1N1 virus.[109]
[edit]Insurance
A February 2009 study on the main British insurers showed that most of them do not plan to raise
their insurance premiums for the year 2009, in spite of the prediction of a 20% raise made by The Daily
Telegraph and The Daily Mirror. However, it is expected that the capital liquidity will become an issue and
determine increases, having their capital tied up in investments yielding smaller dividends, corroborated
with the £644 million underwriting losses suffered in 2007.[110]
[edit]Small-Business Lending
New York Times reported that the U.S. Treasury Department found a sizable decrease in small-business
lending by the 22 largest bank recipients of federal bailout money. The banks reduced their small-buiness
lending by US$12.5 billion, a decline of 4.6 percent during a seven-month period ended in November
2009. During that time, the two biggest small-business lenders, Wells Fargo and Bank of America
reduced their lending to small-business by 4.4 percent and 6.2 percent, repectively. Bank of America
explained that about half of the decline was attributable to decrease demand, and a decline in sales and
creditworthiness among small businesses furthered the drop.[111]
In December 2008, Greece experienced extensive civil unrest that continued into January and then again
in late February many Greeks took part in a massive general strike because of the economic situation and
shut down schools, airports, and many other services in Greece. In January 2009, the government
leaders of Iceland were forced to call elections two years early after the people of Iceland staged mass
protests and clashed with the police due to the government's handling of the economy.[113] Hundreds of
thousands protested in France against President Sarkozy's economic policies. Prompted by the financial
crisis in Latvia, the opposition and trade unions there organized a rally against the cabinet of premier
Ivars Godmanis. The rally gathered some 10–20 thousand people. In the evening, the rally turned into
a riot. The crowd moved to the building of the parliament and attempted to force their way into it, but were
repelled by the state's police. Police and protesters also clashed in Lithuania. In addition to various levels
of unrest in Europe, Asian countries have also seen various degrees of protest. Communists and
others rallied in Moscow to protest the Russian government's economic plans. Protests have also
occurred in China as demands from the West for exports were dramatically reduced and unemployment
increased.
Beginning February 26, 2009, an Economic Intelligence Briefing was added to the daily intelligence
briefings prepared for the President of the United States. This addition reflected the assessment of United
States intelligence agencies that the global financial crisis presented a serious threat to international
stability.[114] In March 2009, British think tank Economist Intelligence Unit published a special report titled
'Manning the barricades' in which it estimated "who's at risk as deepening economic distress foments
social unrest". The Report envisioned the next two years filled with great social upheavals, disrupted
economies and toppled governments around the globe.[115]
Business Week in March 2009 stated that global political instability is rising fast due to the global financial
crisis and is creating new challenges that need managing.[116] The Associated Press reported in March
2009 that: United States "Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has said the economic weakness
could lead to political instability in many developing nations."[117] Even some developed countries are
seeing political instability.[113] NPR reports that David Gordon, a former intelligence officer who now leads
research at the Eurasia Group, said: "Many, if not most, of the big countries out there have room to
accommodate economic downturns without having large-scale political instability if we're in a recession of
normal length. If you're in a much longer-run downturn, then all bets are off."[118]
"The recent wave of popular unrest was not confined to Eastern Europe. Ireland, Iceland, France,
the U.K. and Greece also experienced street protests, but many Eastern European governments
seem more vulnerable as they have limited policy options to address the crisis and little or no
room for fiscal stimulus due to budgetary or financing constrains. Deeply unpopular austerity
measures, including slashed public wages, tax hikes and curbs on social spending will keep
fanning public discontent in the Baltic states, Hungary and Romania. Dissatisfaction linked to the
economic woes will be amplified in the countries where governments have been weakened by
high-profile corruption and fraud scandals (Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania and
Bulgaria)."[119]
[edit]Policy responses
Main article: 2008-2009 Keynesian resurgence
Main article: National fiscal policy response to the late 2000s recession
The financial phase of the crisis led to emergency interventions in many national financial systems.
As the crisis developed into genuine recession in many major economies, economic stimulus meant
to revive economic growth became the most common policy tool. After having implemented rescue
plans for the banking system, major developed and emerging countries announced plans to relieve
their economies. In particular, economic stimulus plans were announced in China, the United
States, and the European Union.[120] Bailouts of failing or threatened businesses were carried out or
discussed in the USA, the EU, and India.[121] In the final quarter of 2008, the financial crisis saw
the G-20 group of major economies assume a new significance as a focus of economic and financial
crisis management.
The US Pension Protection Act of 2006 included a provision which changed the definition of
Qualified Default Investments (QDI) for retirement plans from stable value investments, money
market funds, and cash investments to investments which expose an individual to appropriate levels
of stock and bond risk based on the years left to retirement. The Act required that Plan Sponsors
move the assets of individuals who had never actively elected their investments and had their
contributions in the default investment option. This meant that individuals who had defaulted into a
cash fund with little fluctuation or growth would soon have their account balances moved to much
more aggressive investments.
Starting in early 2008, most US employer-sponsored plans sent notices to their employees informing
them that the plan default investment was changing from a cash/stable option to something new,
such as a retirement date fund which had significant market exposure. Most participants ignored
these notices until September and October, when the market crash was on every news station and
media outlet. It was then that participants called their 401(k) and retirement plan providers and
discovered losses in excess of 30% in some cases. Call centers for 401(k) providers experienced
record call volume and wait times, as millions of inexperienced investors struggled to understand
how their investments had been changed so fundamentally without their explicit consent, and
reacted in a panic by liquidating everything with any stock or bond exposure, locking in huge losses
in their accounts.
Due to the speculation and uncertainty in the market, discussion forums filled with questions about
whether or not to liquidate assets[125] and financial gurus were swamped with questions about the
right steps to take to protect what remained of their retirement accounts. During the third quarter of
2008, over $72 billion left mutual fund investments that invested in stocks or bonds and rushed into
Stable Value investments in the month of October.[126] Against the advice of financial experts, and
ignoring historical data illustrating that long-term balanced investing has produced positive returns in
all types of markets,[127] investors with decades to retirement instead sold their holdings during one
of the largest drops in stock market history.
[edit]Loans to banks for asset-backed commercial paper
During the week ending September 19, 2008, money market mutual funds had begun to experience
significant withdrawals of funds by investors. This created a significant risk because money market
funds are integral to the ongoing financing of corporations of all types. Individual investors lend
money to money market funds, which then provide the funds to corporations in exchange for
corporate short-term securities called asset-backed commercial paper(ABCP). However, a
potential bank run had begun on certain money market funds. If this situation had worsened, the
ability of major corporations to secure needed short-term financing through ABCP issuance would
have been significantly affected. To assist with liquidity throughout the system, the US Treasury and
Federal Reserve Bank announced that banks could obtain funds via the Federal Reserve's Discount
Window using ABCP as collateral.[122][128]
[edit]Federal Reserve lowers interest rates
Federal reserve rates changes (Just data after January 1, 2008 )
Date Discount rate Discount rate Discount rate Fed funds Fed funds rate
Primary Secondary
new interest
rate change new interest rate rate change new interest rate
rate
October 8,
-.50% 1.75% 2.25% -.50% 1.50%
2008*
April 30, 2008 -.25% 2.25% 2.75% -.25% 2.00%
March 18, 2008 -.75% 2.50% 3.00% -.75% 2.25%
March 16, 2008 -.25% 3.25% 3.75%
January 30, 2008 -.50% 3.50% 4.00% -.50% 3.00%
January 22, 2008 -.75% 4.00% 4.50% -.75% 3.50%
– * Part of a coordinated global rate cut of 50 basis point by main central banks.[129]
In January 2009, the Obama administration announced a stimulus plan to revive the economy with
the intention to create or save more than 3.6 million jobs in two years. The cost of this initial
recovery plan was estimated at 825 billion dollars (5.8% of GDP). The plan included 365.5 billion
dollars to be spent on major policy and reform of the health system, 275 billion (through tax rebates)
to be redistributed to households and firms, notably those investing in renewable energy, 94 billion
to be dedicated to social assistance for the unemployed and families, 87 billion of direct assistance
to states to help them finance health expenditures of Medicaid, and finally 13 billion spent to improve
access to digital technologies. The administration also attributed of 13.4 billion dollars aid to
automobile manufacturers General Motors and Chrysler, but this plan is not included in the stimulus
plan.
These plans are meant to abate further economic contraction, however, with the present economic
conditions differing from past recessions, in, that, many tenets of the American economy such as
manufacturing, textiles, and technological development have been outsourced to other
countries. Public works projects associated with the economic recovery plan outlined by the Obama
Administration have been degraded by the lack of road and bridge development projects that were
highly abundant in the Great Depression but are now mostly constructed and are mostly in need of
maintenance. Regulations to establish market stability and confidence have been neglected in the
Obama plan and have yet to be incorporated.
[edit]Federal Reserve response
In an effort to increase available funds for commercial banks and lower the fed funds rate, on
September 29 the U.S. Federal Reserveannounced plans to double its Term Auction Facility to $300
billion. Because there appeared to be a shortage of U.S. dollars in Europe at that time, the Federal
Reserve also announced it would increase its swap facilities with foreign central banks from $290
billion to $620 billion.[134]
As of December 24, 2008, the Federal Reserve had used its independent authority to spend $1.2
trillion on purchasing various financial assets and making emergency loans to address the financial
crisis, above and beyond the $700 billion authorized by Congress from the federal budget. This
includes emergency loans to banks, credit card companies, and general businesses, temporary
swaps of treasury bills for mortgage-backed securities, the sale of Bear Stearns, and the bailouts
of American International Group (AIG), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, andCitigroup.[135]
China's export driven economy is starting to feel the impact of the economic slowdown in the United
States and Europe, and the government has already cut key interest rates three times in less than
two months in a bid to spur economic expansion. On November 28, 2008, theMinistry of Finance of
the People's Republic of China and the State Administration of Taxation jointly announced a rise in
export tax rebate rates on some labor-intensive goods. These additional tax rebates will take place
on December 1, 2008.[137]
The stimulus package was welcomed by world leaders and analysts as larger than expected and a
sign that by boosting its own economy, China is helping to stabilize the global economy. News of the
announcement of the stimulus package sent markets up across the world. However, Marc
Faber January 16 said that China according to him was in recession.
In Taiwan, the central bank on September 16, 2008 said it would cut its required reserve ratios for
the first time in eight years. The central bank added $3.59 billion into the foreign-currency interbank
market the same day. Bank of Japan pumped $29.3 billion into the financial system on September
17, 2008 and the Reserve Bank of Australia added $3.45 billion the same day.[138]
In developing and emerging economies, responses to the global crisis mainly consisted in low-rates
monetary policy (Asia and the Middle Eastmainly) coupled with the depreciation of the currency
against the dollar. There were also stimulus plans in some Asian countries, in the Middle East and in
Argentina. In Asia, plans generally amounted to 1 to 3% of GDP, with the notable exception
of China, which announced a plan accounting for 16% of GDP (6% of GDP per year).
The European Central Bank injected $99.8 billion in a one-day money-market auction. The Bank of
England pumped in $36 billion. Altogether, central banks throughout the world added more than
$200 billion from the beginning of the week to September 17.[138]
On September 29, 2008 the Belgian, Luxembourg and Dutch authorities partially nationalized Fortis.
The German government bailed out Hypo Real Estate.
In early December German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück indicated that he does not believe in a
"Great Rescue Plan" and indicated reluctance to spend more money addressing the crisis.[140] In
March 2009, The European Union Presidency confirms that the EU is strongly resisting the US
pressure to increase European budget deficits.[141]
[edit]Global responses
Most political responses to the economic and financial crisis has been taken, as seen above, by
individual nations. Some coordination took place at the European level, but the need to cooperate at
the global level has led leaders to activate the G-20 major economies entity. A first summit
dedicated to the crisis took place, at the Heads of state level in November 2008 (2008 G-20
Washington summit).
Another G-20 summit was held in London on April 2009. Finance ministers and central banks
leaders of the G-20 met in Horsham on March to prepare the summit, and pledged to restore global
growth as soon as possible. They decided to coordinate their actions and to stimulate demand and
employment. They also pledged to fight against all forms of protectionism and to maintain trade and
foreign investments. They also committed to maintain the supply of credit by providing more liquidity
and recapitalizing the banking system, and to implement rapidly the stimulus plans. As for central
bankers, they pledged to maintain low-rates policies as long as necessary. Finally, the leaders
decided to help emerging and developing countries, through a strengthening of the IMF.
Australia has avoided a technical recession after experiencing only one quarter of negative growth in
the fourth quarter of 2008, with GDP returning to positive in the first quarter of 2009.[148][149]
Denmark went into recession in the first quarter of 2008, but came out again in the second quarter.
[151]
Iceland fell into an economic depression in 2008 following the collapse of its banking system.
(see Icelandic financial crisis)
The following countries went into recession in the second quarter of 2008: Estonia,[152] Latvia,
[153]
Ireland[154] and New Zealand.[155]
The following countries/territories went into recession in the third quarter of 2008: Japan,
[156]
Sweden,[157] Hong Kong,[158] Singapore,[159]Italy,[160] Turkey[150] and Germany.[161] As a whole the
fifteen nations in the European Union that use the euro went into recession in the third quarter,
[162]
and the United Kingdom. In addition, the European Union, the G7, and the OECD all
experienced negative growth in the third quarter.[150]
The following countries/territories went into technical recession in the fourth quarter of 2008: United
States, Switzerland,[163] Spain,[164] and Taiwan.[165]
South Korea "miraculously" avoided recession with GDP returning positive at a 0.1% expansion in
the first quarter of 2009.[166]
Of the seven largest economies in the world by GDP, only China and France avoided a recession in
2008. France experienced a 0.3% contraction in Q2 and 0.1% growth in Q3 of 2008. In the year to
the third quarter of 2008 China grew by 9%. This is interesting as China has until recently
considered 8% GDP growth to be required simply to create enough jobs for rural people moving to
urban centres.[167] This figure may more accurately be considered to be 5–7% now that the main
growth in working population is receding. Growth of between 5%–8% could well have the type of
effect in China that a recession has elsewhere. Ukraine went into technical depression in January
2009 with a nominal annualized GDP growth of −20%.[168]
The recession in Japan intensified in the fourth quarter of 2008 with a nominal annualized GDP
growth of −12.7%,[169] and deepened further in the first quarter of 2009 with a nominal annualized
GDP growth of −15.2%.[170]
On March 2009, U.S. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said in an interview that he felt that if banks
began lending more freely, allowing the financial markets to return to normal, the recession could
end during 2009.[3][171] In that same interview, Bernanke said Green shoots of economic revival are
already evident.[172] On February 18, 2009, the US Federal Reserve cut their economic forecast of
2009, expecting the US output to shrink between 0.5% and 1.5%, down from its forecast in October
2008 of output between +1.1% (growth) and −0.2% (contraction).[173]
The EU commission in Brussels updated their earlier predictions on January 19, 2009, expecting
Germany to contract −2.25% and −1.8% on average for the 27 EU countries.[174] According to new
forecasts by Deutsche Bank (end of November 2008), the economy of Germany will contract by
more than 4% in 2009.[175]
On June 11, 2009, the World Bank Group predicted for 2009 for the first time a global contraction of
the economic power, precisely by −3%.[180]
"We've frightened consumers to the point where they imagine there is a good prospect of a Great Depression.
That certainly is not in the prospect. No reputable forecaster is producing anything like a Great Depression."[185]
Differences explicitly pointed out between the recession and the Great Depression include the facts
that over the 79 years between 1929 and 2008, great changes occurred in economic philosophy and
policy,[186] the stock market had not fallen as far as it did in 1932 or 1982, the 10-year price-to-
earnings ratio of stocks was not as low as in the '30s or '80s, inflation-adjusted U.S. housing prices
in March 2009 were higher than any time since 1890 (including the housing booms of the 1970s and
'80s),[187] the recession of the early '30s lasted over three-and-a-half years,[186] and during the 1930s
the supply of money (currency plus demand deposits) fell by 25% (where as in 2008 and 2009 the
Fed "has taken an ultraloose credit stance").[188] Furthermore, the unemployment rate in 2008 and
early 2009 and the rate at which it rose was comparable to most of the recessions occurring
after World War II, and was dwarfed by the 25% unemployment rate peak of the Great Depression.
[186]
Price-to-earnings ratios have yet to drop as low as in previous recessions. On this issue, "it is
critically important, though, to recognize that different analysts have different earnings expectations,
and the consensus view is more often wrong than right."[189] Some argue that price-to-earnings ratios
remain high because of unprecedented falls in earnings.[190]
Three years into the Great Depression, unemployment reached a peak of 25% in the U.S.[191] The
United States entered into recession in December 2007[192] and in March 2009, U-3 unemployment
reached 8.5%.[193] In March 2009, statistician[194] John Williams "argue[d] that measurement changes
implemented over the years make it impossible to compare the current unemployment rate with that
seen during the Great Depression".[194]
On February 22, NYU economics professor Nouriel Roubini said that the crisis was the worst since
the Great Depression, and that without cooperation between political parties and foreign countries,
and if poor fiscal policy decisions (such as support of zombie banks) are pursued, the situation
"could become as bad as the Great Depression."[197] On April 27, 2009, Roubini expressed a more
upbeat assessment by noting that "the bottom of the economy [will be seen] toward the beginning or
middle of next year."[198]
Market strategist Phil Dow "said he believes distinctions exist between the current market malaise"
and the Great Depression. The Dow's fall of over 50% in 17 months is similar to a 54.7% fall in the
Great Depression, followed by a total drop of 89% over the next 16 months. "It's very troubling if you
have a mirror image," said Dow.[199] Floyd Norris, chief financial correspondent of The New York
Times, wrote in a blog entry in March 2009 that the decline has not been a mirror image of the Great
Depression, explaining that although the decline amounts were nearly the same at the time, the
rates of decline had started much faster in 2007, and that the past year had only ranked eighth
among the worst recorded years of percentage drops in the Dow. The past two years ranked third
however.[200]
In his final press conference as president, George W. Bush claimed that in September 2008 his
chief economic advisors had said that the economic situation could at some point become worse
than the Great Depression.[205]
On April 6, 2009 Vernon L. Smith and Steven Gjerstad offered the hypothesis "that a financial crisis
that originates in consumer debt, especially consumer debt concentrated at the low end of the
wealth and income distribution, can be transmitted quickly and forcefully into the financial system. It
appears that we're witnessing the second great consumer debt crash, the end of a massive
consumption binge."[207]
On April 17, 2009, head of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn said that there was a chance that
certain countries may not implement the proper policies to avoid feedback mechanisms that could
eventually turn the recession into a depression. "The free-fall in the global economy may be starting
to abate, with a recovery emerging in 2010, but this depends crucially on the right policies being
adopted today." The IMF pointed out that unlike the Great Depression, this recession was
synchronized by global integration of markets. Such synchronized recessions were explained to last
longer than typical economic downturns and have slower recoveries.[208]
[edit]In Ireland
The Republic of Ireland "technically" entered into an economic depression in 2009.[212] The ESRI
(Economic and Social Research Institute) predict an economic contraction of 14% by 2010,
[213]
however this number may have already been exceeded with GDP dropping 7.1% quarter on
quarter during the fourth quarter of 2008,[214] and a possible greater contraction in the first quarter of
2009 with the fall in all OECD countries with the exception of France exceeding the drop of the
previous quarter.[215] Unemployment is up 8.75%[216] to 11.4%.[217][218][219]Government borrowing and
the financial bailout and Nationalisation of one of Ireland's banks[220] which were loaded with debt
due to the Irish property bubble.
Many jobs have been lost worldwide. In the US, job loss has been going on since December 2007,
and it accelerated drastically starting in September 2008 following the bankruptcy of Lehman
Brothers.[221]
Since the start of 2008, 6.7 million jobs have been lost, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[226]
The unemployment rate for October rose slightly due to population growth and other factors leading
to 35,000 people looking for work, even though 24,500 jobs were created.
In general, throughout the subdued economic growth caused by the recession in the rest of the
world, Australian employers have elected to cut working hours rather than fire employees, in
recognition of the skill shortage caused by the resources boom.
INDIA CHINA
Sino-Indian relations, also called India-China relations, refer to the ties and relations between
the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India. The economic and diplomatic importance of
China and India, which are the two most populous states and the world's fastest growing
major economies, has in recent years increased the significance of their bilateral relationship.
Relations between China and India date back to ancient times. China and India are two of the world’s
oldest civilizations and have coexisted in peace for millennia.[1]Trade relations via the Silk Road acted as
economic contact between the two regions. However, since the early 1950s, their relationship has been
characterized by border disputes,[1] resulting in military conflict (the Sino-Indian War of 1962, the Chola
incident in 1967, and the 1987 Sino-Indian skirmish).
Both countries have in recent years successfully attempted to reignite diplomatic and economic ties, and
consequently, the two countries' relations have become closer. Today, China is India's largest trading
partner
Country comparison
With Indian President K. R. Narayanan's visit to China, 2000 marked a gradual re-engagement of Indian
and Chinese diplomacy. In a major embarrassment for China, the 17th Karmapa, Urgyen Trinley Dorje,
who was proclaimed by China, made a dramatic escape from Tibet to theRumtek Monastery in Sikkim.
Chinese officials were in a quandary on this issue as any protest to India on the issue would mean an
explicit endorsement on India's governance of Sikkim, which the Chinese still hadn't recognised. In 2002,
Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji reciprocated by visiting India, with a focus on economic issues. 2003
ushered in a marked improvement in Sino-Indian relations following Indian Prime MinisterAtal Bihari
Vajpayee's landmark June 2003 visit to China. China officially recognized Indian sovereignty
over Sikkim as the two nations moved toward resolving their border disputes.
2004 also witnessed a gradual improvement in the international area when the two countries proposed
opening up the Nathula and Jelepla Passes in Sikkim which would be mutually beneficial to both
countries. 2004 was a milestone in Sino-Indian bilateral trade, surpassing the $10 billion mark for the first
time. In April 2005, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited Bangalore to push for increased Sino-Indian
cooperation in high-tech industries. In a speech, Wen stated "Cooperation is just like two pagodas
(temples), one hardware and one software. Combined, we can take the leadership position in the world."
Wen stated that the twenty-first century will be "the Asian century of the IT industry." The high-level visit
was also expected to produce several agreements to deepen political, cultural and economic ties between
the two nations. Regarding the issue of India gaining a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, on his
visit, Wen Jiabao initially seemed to support the idea, but had returned to a neutral position on the subject
by the time he returned to China. In the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation(SAARC)
Summit (2005) China was granted an observer status. While other countries in the region are ready to
consider China for permanent membership in the SAARC, India seems reluctant.
A very important dimension of the evolving Sino-Indian relationship is based on the energy requirements
of their industrial expansion and their readiness to proactively secure them by investing in the oilfields
abroad - in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. On the one hand, these ventures entail competition
(which has been evident in oil biddings for various international projects recently). But on the other hand,
a degree of cooperation too is visible, as they are increasingly confronting bigger players in the global oil
market. This cooperation was sealed in Beijing on January 12, 2006 during the visit of Petroleum and
Natural Gas Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar, who signed an agreement which envisages ONGCVidesh Ltd
(OVL) and the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) placing joint bids for promising projects
elsewhere. This may have important consequences for their international relations.
On July 6, 2006, China and India re-opened Nathula, an ancient trade route which was part of the Silk
Road. Nathula is a pass through theHimalayas and it was closed 44 years prior to 2006 when the Sino-
Indian War broke out in 1962. The initial agreement for the re-opening of the trade route was reached in
2003, and a final agreement was formalized on June 18, 2006. Officials say that the re-opening of border
trade will help ease the economic isolation of the region.[19] In November 2006, China and India had a
verbal spat over claim of the north-east Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. India claimed that China was
occupying 38,000 square kilometres of its territory in Kashmir, while China claimed the whole of
Arunachal Pradesh as its own.[20] In May 2007, China denied the application for visa from an Indian
Administrative Service officer in Arunachal Pradesh. According to China, since Arunachal Pradesh is a
territory of China, he would not need a visa to visit his own country.[21]Later in December 2007, China
appeared to have reversed its policy by granting a visa to Marpe Sora, an Arunachal born professor in
computer science.[22][23] In January 2008, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited China and met with
President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao and had bilateral discussions related to trade, commerce,
defense, military, and various other issues.
Until 2008 the British Government's position remained the same as had been since the Simla Accord of
1913: that China held suzerainty over Tibet but not sovereignty. Britain revised this view on 29 October
2008, when it recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet by issuing a statement on its website.[24][25]
[26]
The Economist stated that although the British Foreign Office's website does not use the word
sovereignty, officials at the Foreign Office said "it means that, as far as Britain is concerned, 'Tibet is part
of China. Full stop.'"[27] This change in Britain's position affects India's claim to its North Eastern territories
which rely on the same Simla Accord that Britain's prior position on Tibet's sovereignty was based upon.
[28]
In October 2009, Asian Development Bank formally acknowledging Arunachal Pradesh as part of India,
approved a loan to India for a development project there. Earlier China had excercised pressure on the
bank to cease the loan,[29] however India succeeded in securing the loan with the help of USA and Japan.
China expressed displeasure at ADB[30][31] for the same.
TELANGANA.
The emotions and forces generated by the movement were not strong enough, however, for a continuing
drive for a separate state until 1990s when Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), promised a separate Telangana
state if they came to power. BJP created Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh andUttarkhand states in year 2000 as
promised. But the BJP could not create a separate Telangana state because of the opposition from its
coalition partner, Telugu Desam Party. These developments brought new life into the separatist
Telangana movement by year 2000. Congress party MLAs from the Telangana region, supported a
separate Telangana state and formed the Telangana Congress Legislators Forum.[11][12][13][14][15] In another
development, a new party called Telangana Rashtra Samithi (or TRS) was formed with the single point
agenda of creating a separate Telangana state, with Hyderabad as its capital lead by Kalvakuntla
Chandrasekhar Rao popularly known as KCR.[16][17][18]
Proponents of a separate Telangana state feel all the agreements, accords, formulas, plans and
assurances on the floor of legislature and Lok Sabha, in last 50+ years, could not be honoured and
Telangana was forced to remain neglected, exploited and backward. The experiment to remain as one
state proved to be a futile exercise and therefore, separation is found to be the best solution.[19][20][21]
Flag of TRS
In 2004, for Assembly and Parliament elections, the Congress party and the TRS had an electoral
alliance in the Telangana region with the promise of a separate Telangana State.[22] Congress came to
power in the state and formed a coalition government at the centre. TRS joined the coalition government
in 2004 and was successful in making a separate Telangana state a part of the common minimum
program (CMP) of the coalition government.[23] In September 2006 TRS withdrew support for the
Congress led coalition government at the centre on the grounds of indecision by the government over the
delivery of its electoral promise to create Telangana.[24][25][26]
In December 2006, the TRS won the by-election to the Karimnagar parliamentary constituency with a
record margin.[27]
There was pressure on the Congress party to create a Telangana state in 2008.[28][29][30]
All TRS legislators in Parliament and in State (4MPs, 16MLAs, 3MLCs) resigned in the 1st week of March
2008 and forced by-elections to increase the pressure on Congress party, and to intensify the movement.
[31][32]
By-elections for the 16 MLA seats, 4 MP seats were held May 29, 2008. During the election campaign the
TRS party said it is a referendum on a Telangana state but both Congress and TDP parties said it is not a
referendum on Telangana and also said that they are not opposed to the formation of Telangana state.
[33] [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]
To the disappointment of Telangana proponents TRS retained only 7 out of 16
MLA seats and 2 out of 4 MP seats after the by-elections.[43]
In June 2008, Devender Goud, who is considered number two in the TDP, a politbureau member and
Deputy Leader of the Telugu Desam Legislature Party, resigned from the party saying he would devote
his time and energy to the formation of a separate Telangana state.[44] In July 2008, Mr Goud along with
some other leaders like Mr. E Peddi Reddy formed a new party called Nava Telangana Praja Party.[45]
On 9 October 2008, in a historical turnaround from its 26-year history TDP announced its support for the
creation of Telengana.[46]
Ahead of the 2009 General Elections in India all the major parties in Andhra Pradesh supported the
formation of Telangana.[49] The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) again announced their policy of having
smaller states and would create two states, Telangana and Gorkhaland, if they won the election.[50].
The Congress Party still says it is committed to Telangana statehood,[51] but claims Muslim minorities are
opposed to creation of separate state along with majority of people. Some analysts, however, feel that the
"Muslim reluctance card" has been very smartly played by Chief Minister Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, who
is staunchly opposed to the formation of the new state.[52][53]
The Telugu Desam Party(TDP) has promised to work for Telangana statehood. Telangana Rashtra
Samithi (TRS) joined a Mahakutami (or grand alliance) with TDP and left parties to defeat the Congress
party for denying statehood for Telangana.[54][55][56]
The Praja Rajyam Party (PRP), newly founded by film star Chiranjeevi, supported Telangana statehood
prior to elections, but later changed its stance.[57] Nava Telangana Party merged with PRP after it realized
that there is not enough political space for two sub-regional Telangana parties with Telananga statehood
as main agenda.[58][59]
Several political parties, including some Telangana congress leaders, criticized Chief Minister, Y.S.
Rajasekhara Reddy (YSR), when he changed his stand from pro-Telangana and gave anti-Telangana
statements after the polls.[60][61][62]
Congress returned to power both at center and state. TRS and the grand alliance lost the elections in
overwhelming fashion.[63]
In September 2009, Chief Minister Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy (YSR) died in a chopper crash while flying in
bad weather.[64]
In the first week of Dec 2009, the TRS president, K. Chandrashekar Rao (KCR) started a fast-unto-death
demanding that the Congress partyintroduce a Telangana bill in the Parliament.[65][66][67][68][69] Student
organizations, employee unions and various organizations joined the movement. Scores of people
commited suicide in support of Telangana state.[70][71] [72] Telangana bandh (strike) shuts down Telangana
on Dec 6th and 7th.[73] Student organizations planned a massive rally at state legislature(Assembly) on
Dec 10th. Government warned that the rally does not have permission and deployed police troops though
out Telangana. [74] The decline of KCR's health has contributed to a sense of urgency for the central
government to take a decision on the issue of Telangana statehood. [75] [76]
[edit]Telangana state formation process
On Dec 9th 2009, 11:30 PM, Mr. P. Chidambaram, Union Minister of Home Affairs announced that Indian
government has started the process of forming a separate Telangana state and that a resolution would be
introduced in Andhra Pradesh assembly for this soon.[77] KCR ending his 11 day fast said from his hospital
bed that this a true victory of the people of Telangana. The central government has asked Andhra
Pradeshstate government to pass of a resolution in the legislative assembly . However, as per article 3 of
Constitution, Parliament does not require Assembly resolution to create a new state.[78]
Telangana celebrated the central government decision while non-Telangana regions of Coastal
Andhra and Rayalaseema regions (Andhraregion) protested.[79][80]
Several members of Andhra Pradesh's legislature submitted their resignations to protest the creation of
the new state.[81] As of 16 December, at least 147 legislators (including Praja Rajyam
Founder Chiranjeevi[82]) and many Members of Parliament had resigned in protest of the Government's
decision to carve out a new state of Telangana. 22 Ministers form the State Cabinet have submitted their
resignation.[83] All of the Legislators/MPs' resigned belong to Andhra (Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema)
region.[84] [85]
On Dec 16, media reports confirmed that there is split in Praja Rajyam Party (PRP) over Telangana issue,
with its leader Chiranjeevi as well as 16/18 party MLAs opposing the division of Andhra Pradesh, while
Telangana leaders in the party are unhappy with the shift in the party's views.[86][87][88]
WOMEN QUOTA.
Women's Reservation Bill or the The Constitution (108th Amendment) Bill, is a pending bill
in India which proposes to provide 'thirty three per cent of all seats in the Lower house of Parliament of
India the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies shall be reserved for women.The proposed
legislation to reserve 33.3 percent seats in Parliament and state legislatures for women was drafted first
by the H D Deve Gowda-led United Front government. The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on
September 12, 1996. Though it has been introduced in Parliament several times since then, the Bill could
not be passed because of lack of political consensus.[1] The Upper House Rajya Sabha passed it on 9
Mar 2010 [1].
The seats to be reserved in rotation will be determined by draw of lots in such a way that a seat shall be
reserved only once in three consecutive general elections.
Women's reservations
Women get 33% reservation in gram panchayat (meaning village assembly, which is a form of local
village government) and municipal elections. There is a long-term plan to extend this reservation to
parliament and legislative assemblies.[2][3][4] In addition, women in India get reservation or preferential
treatments in education and jobs. Certain men consider this preferential treatment of women in India as
discrimination against them in admissions to schools, colleges, and universities. For instance, several law
schools in India have a 30% reservation for females.[5]Progressive political opinion in India is strongly in
favour of providing preferential treatment to women in order to create a level playing field for all of its
citizens.
The Women's reservation Bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 9 March 2010 by a majority vote of 186
members in favour and 1 against [1].It will now go to the Lok Sabha, and if passed there, would be
implemented.
[edit]Possible benefits
The Constitution (One Hundred and Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2008 seeks to reserve one-third of
all seats for women in the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies.
One third of the total number of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall
be reserved for women of those groups in the Lok Sabha and the legislative assemblies.
Reserved seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in the state or union
territory.
Reservation of seats for women shall cease to exist 15 years after the commencement of this
Amendment Act.
[2]
Addressing a meeting of Congress office bearers and state party chiefs at New Delhi, she said : "Women
reservation bill... when it comes to fruition, it would be the realisation of Rajiv Gandhi's vision to empower
women politically." [3]
The BJP has promised full support for the bill, though a few members of the party have been opposing
the bill.Upset with some of its party MPs for speaking their minds against the Women's Reservation Bill
and fearing a virtual revolt, the Bharatiya Janata Party has cracked the whip and said every party MP will
vote in favour of the Bill as and when it is taken up in the Lok Sabha.
At a meeting of MPs at senior leader L.K. Advani's residence here on Thursday, it was made clear that
every MP must toe the party line and refrain from adversely commenting on the Bill. That, however, did
not prevent them from voicing their dissent and even charging the leadership with being “unnecessarily”
proactive on the issue. Some urged it not to issue a whip and others questioned the wisdom of the party
agreeing to “rotation” of reserved seats, saying the MPs will not nurture their constituencies. [4]
[edit]Possible drawbacks
This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made
and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed.
More details may be available on the talk page. (March 2010)
Passing the Women’ Reservation Bill may cause bias in the democratic process because of the following
reasons:
It may hurt the self respect of women who have come up on their own ability, it may result in
lesser respect for women in the society. It may also bring down the quality of leaders.
It is likely to begin/increase the hatred between genders as male may feel deprived of certain
privileges, in turn create more social issues.
Parties will be forced to find women whether or not the women identify with the overall party
agenda and the rest of the issues concerning all citizens, as opposed to just women’s issues. There
are no provisions to prevent discrimination against men because of finding women who are inclined
towards women’s issues alone, or, in other words, biased against men.
Powerful male members of parties will be tempted to find female relatives to ‘reserve’ the seat for
themselves during the following cycle.
It is feared that reservation would only help women of the elitist groups to gain seats, therefore
causing further discrimination and under-representation to the poor and backward classes (According
to a National Election Study, 68 per cent of today's women MPs are crorepatis).
[edit]Opposition To The Bill
Various political parties have staunchly opposed it because they fear many of their male leaders would
not get a chance to fight elections if 33.3 percent seats are reserved for women. The Bill has also been
opposed by politicians from the socially and economically backward classes. They argue that reservation
would only help women of the elitist groups to gain seats, therefore causing further discrimination and
under-representation to the poor and backward classes.
From day one, Lalu Prasad Yadav of the Rashtriya Janata Dal and Mulayam Singh Yadav of the
Samajwadi Party have been the main political forces opposed to the Bill. The SP and RJD are opposed to
the bill in its present form and want a quota within quota for women from backward classes.
Lalu says the Bill 'would deny adequate representation to other sections of society.' He favours 10 to 15
percent reservation for women. 'My party is not opposed to women's reservation, but the case of Dalits,
backward classes, Muslims and other religious minorities should not be overlooked,' is his argument.
"I want to see women like Kalawati and Bhagwati Devi to be included in the quota. There should be
reservation within reservation," said Lalu.
Mulayam favours making it mandatory for political parties to give 10 percent of election tickets to
women. [5]
oft spoken and mild-mannered Maulana Saidur Rehman Azmi Nadvi heads Nadva-tul Ulema, the biggest
Islamic seminary in north India.
However, his tone hardens at the mere mention of women's reservation bill. He says politics makes an
unlikely profession for well brought up 'khawateen'.
"Islam doesn't permit women to discard the purdah, deliver lectures in public (taqreer) and demand their
due. They have clear guidelines to follow — stay at home in hijab, and take care of household chores.
They are also free to get educated and serve the nation," he says, but is quick to rule out any
compromise over their entry into politics.
"Contesting elections is by no means a cake walk. There's only one option for female aspirants — turn
into 'mard' (man)," says the maulana, who is also a senior member of All India Muslim Personal Law
Board.
GLOBALIZATION….
Definitions
The United Nations Building
Extent of the Silk Road and Spice traderoutes blocked by the Ottoman Empire in 1453 spurring exploration
19th century Great Britain become the first global economic superpower, because of superior manufacturing technology and
improved global communications such assteamships and railroads.
Almost all notable worldwide ITcompanies are now present in India. Four Indians were among the world's top 10 richest in
2008, worth a combined $160 billion.[45] In 2007, China had 415,000 millionaires and India 123,000.[46]
Britain is a country of rich diversity. As of 2008, 40% of London's total population was from an ethnic minority group.
The latest official figures show that in 2008, 590,000 people arrived to live in the UK whilst 427,000 left, meaning that
net inward migration was 163,000.[48]
Japanese McDonald's fast food as an evidence of corporate globalization and the integration of the same into different
cultures.
Burning forest in Brazil. The removal of forest to make way for cattle ranching was the leading cause of deforestation in the
Brazilian Amazon from the mid 1960s. Recently, soybeans have become one of the most important contributors to
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.[91]
A maquila in Mexico
IPL……………….
Third season
Main article: 2010 Indian Premier League
The third season opened in January 2010 with the auction for players. 66 players were on offer but only
11 players were sold.[8] No player from Pakistan was selected,[9] leading to an international political row,
with Pakistan interior minister Rehman Malik suggesting that the Pakistani players had been insulted.
[10]
Indian External Affairs minister SM Krishna clarified that "The government has nothing to do with the
selection of players for sporting events."[10] In this season, defending Champions Deccan Chargers will not
play at their preferred home location ofHyderabad or Visakhapatnam due to the ongoing political crisis in
the region. The new bases for the champions this season are to be Nagpur, Navi Mumbai and Cuttack.
[edit]Fourth season
Main article: 2011 Indian Premier League
On March 21st 2010 it was announced that 2 new teams from Pune and Kochi will be added to the IPL
from next season. This will increase the number of franchises from 8 to 10 and the number of matches
from 60 to 94.
[edit]Franchises
The winning bidders for the eight franchises were announced on 24 January 2008.[11] While the total base
price for auction was US $400 million, the auction fetched US $723.59 million.[12]
On March 21, 2010, Pune and Kochi were unveiled as the two new franchises for the fourth edition of the
Indian Premier League. The base price was $225 million. While Pune was bought by Sahara Adventure
Sports Group for $370 million, the Kochi(kochin cobras) franchise was bought by Rendezvous Sports
World Limited for $333.3 million. The process was to have been completed on March 7 but was
postponed by two weeks after many bidders and the BCCI objected to stiff financial clauses.[13] The
second franchise auction fetched total $703 million.
Ness Wadia, Priety Kumar $ 76.0 Rs. 300 Cr Kolkata Knight Riders
Kings XI
Zinta, Mohit Sangakka m
Punjab
Burman (Dabur) and ra
Karan Paul (Apeejay
Delhi Daredevils
Surendera Group)
Kings XI Punjab
(Subrata Roy)
Kochi*
Kochi Rendezvous Sports TBD $ 333.3 Rs. 1533
World Limited m Cr IPL Franchises (* - Starting 2011)
[edit]Player signings
Main articles: 2008 Indian Premier League#Player auctions, 2009 Indian Premier League#Pre-season
trades and signings, and 2010 IPL Player Auction
The first players' auctions were held on 2008. The IPL placed icon status on a select few marquee Indian
players. These players were Rahul Dravid, Saurav Ganguly, Sachin Tendulkar, Yuvraj Singh,
and Virender Sehwag. VVS Laxman initially named an icon player, later voluntarily opted out of his icon
status to give his team (Deccan Chargers) more money to bid for players.[14] For the second season,
auctions were also held, but free signings taking place in the off-season by franchises led to calls for
a draft-like system where the lowest ranked teams would be given a first opportunity to sign players.
[edit]Television rights
On 15 January 2008 it was announced that a consortium consisting of India's Sony Entertainment
Television network and Singapore-basedWorld Sport Group secured the global broadcasting rights of the
Indian Premier League.[16] The record deal has a duration of ten years at a cost of US $1.026 billion. As
part of the deal, the consortium will pay the BCCI US $918 million for the television broadcast rights and
US $108 million for the promotion of the tournament.[17] This deal was challenged in the Bombay High
Court by IPL, and got the ruling on its side. After losing the battle in court, Sony Entertainment
Television signed a new contract with BCCI with Sony Entertainment Television paying a
staggering Rs. 8700 crores (87 billion) for 10 years. One of the reasons for payment of this huge amount
is seen as the money required to subsidize IPL's move to South Africa which will be substantially more
than the previous IPL. IPL had agreed to subsidize the difference in operating cost between India and
South Africa as it decided to move to the African nation after the security concerns raised because of its
coincidence with India's general elections.
20% of these proceeds would go to IPL, 8% as prize money and 72% would be distributed to the
franchisees. The money would be distributed in these proportions until 2012, after which the IPL would go
public and list its shares (But recently in March 2010, IPL decided not to go public).[18]
Sony-WSG then re-sold parts of the broadcasting rights geographically to other companies. Below is a
summary of the broadcasting rights around the world.
On 4 March 2010 ITV announced it had secured the United Kingdom television rights for the 2010 Indian
Premier League. ITV will televise 59 of the 60 IPL matches on its ITV4 free to air channel.[19]
Winning Terms of
Regional Broadcast Rights
Bidder Deal
10 years at
Sony/World Rs 8700
Global Rights, India
Sport Group crores
(revised)[16]
5 years
ONE HD Free-to-air HD and SD television in Australia. Owned by Network TEN. at AUD 10-
15 Million.[20]
2 years,
PCCW Hong Kong broadcast rights, broadcast on Now Sports. terms not
released.
Terms not
StarHub Singapore broadcast rights, broadcast on Cricket Extra.
released
Terms not
Astro Malaysia broadcast rights on Astro Box Office Sport.
released
Terms not
SuperSport South Africa, Central Africa and Nigeria broadcast rights.
released
Terms not
GEO Super Pakistan broadcast rights
released
5 years,
Rights to distribute on television, radio, broadband and Internet, for the IPL
Willow TV terms not
in North America.
released.[22]
Terms not
DirecTV United States Exclusive broadcast rights on CricketTicket.
released
Asian 5 years,
Canadian broadcast rights. Aired on Pay-per-view channel. Aired on XM
Television terms not
Radio'sATN-Asian Radio as well.
Network released.[23]
Terms not
SportsMax Caribbean broadcast rights.
released
Terms not
ITV United Kingdom broadcast rights, broadcast on ITV4.
released
[edit]Sponsorships
India's biggest property developer DLF Group paid US$50 million to be the title sponsor of the tournament
for 5 years from 2008 to 2013.[24]
Other five-year sponsorship agreements include a deal with motorcycle maker Hero Honda worth $22.5-
million, one with PepsiCo worth $12.5-million, and a deal with beer and airline conglomerate Kingfisher at
$26.5-million.[25]
There are disputed figures for the profitability of the teams. One analyst said that four teams out of the
eight made a profit in 2009.[28] While the London Times said that all but Kings XI Punjab made a profit.[29]
In 2010, the IPL expects to have 80 official merchandising deals. It has signed a deal
with Swiss watchmaker Bandelier to make official watches for the IPL.[30]
[edit]Global following
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
(March 2010)
In India, the IPL has become one of the most popular events of the year[32]. In the first season, games
were played every night (including weekdays) during Indian prime-time and were broadcast live. The IPL
was the most watched TV program in India.
IPL drew positive reactions from the rest of the world also. In Pakistan, the reception was described as
"massive". Also, there was a huge following for Kolkata Knight Riders. [33] The matches were telecast live
in GEO Super. The matches also generated interest in Sri Lanka andBangladesh, despite only one
Bangladeshi player being involved. The following in the subcontinental nations was aided by the prime
time telecast of the matches as they belong to adjacent time zones.
IPL was also popular among the South Asian population in South Africa and England. The IPL did not
garner much interest in Australia andNew Zealand. However, in recent times the IPL has gained a much
larger fan-base in these two countries.
Snap polls indicated that more than 48 million people watched the telecast of the IPL 2008 final
between Rajasthan Royals and Chennai Super Kings), more than 40 million people saw the Rajasthan
Royals vs Delhi Daredevils match, whereas the second semi-final between Chennai Super Kings and
Kings XI Punjab attracted an audience of 29 million.[34]
[edit]Rules
There are five ways that a franchise can acquire a player. In the annual auction, buying domestic players,
signing uncapped players, through trading and buying replacements.[35][36] In the trading window the player
can only be traded with his consent. The franchise will have to pay the difference between the old
contract price and the new contract price. If the new contract is worth more than the older one then the
difference will be shared between the player and the franchise selling the player.[37]
Introduced also in the IPL, a difference to international cricket is a timeout. It gives the players an
opportunity to strategise and take a drink during the strict 2:30 Minute time limit. Each team is
awarded one timeout per innings totalling to two timeouts for the whole game but the teams only may
take the timeout when instructed.
IPL is also known for having commercials during the game hence there being no time limit for
innings by teams being penalised runs. There may be a penalty if the umpire finds teams misusing
this privilege at their own choice.
.The total spending cap for a franchisee in the first player auction was US $5m. Under-22 players are to
be remunerated with a minimum annual salary of US $20,000 while for others it is US $50,000. The most
expensive player in the IPL to date are Andrew Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen at US $1.55m each.
[edit]Official website
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may
be challenged and removed. (April 2010)
The IPL negotiated a contract with the Canadian company Live Current Media Inc. to run and operate its
portals and the minimum guarantee has been negotiated at US $50 million over the next 10 years.[38] The
official website of the tournament is www.iplt20.com.
Incorporating popular forms of social media into the third season of the IPL, the website now contains a
more holistic presence across all online mediums. The website apart from featuring new additions to
empower user interaction, has encouraged a wider range of websites around IPL like IPL Tracker[2] and
IPL Mag[3] amongst other more traditional reporting websites.
[edit]Controversies
The BCCI had found itself in the middle of many conflicts with various cricket boards around the world as
a result of the IPL. The main point of contention was that signed players should always be available to
their country for international tours, even if it overlaps with the IPL season. To address this, the BCCI
officially requested that the ICC institute a time period in the International Future Tours Program solely for
the IPL season. This request was not granted at a subsequent meeting held by the ICC.[39]
A result of the ECB’s concerns about players joining the IPL, was a proposed radical response of creating
their own Twenty20 tournament that would be similar in structure to the IPL. The league — titled
the English Premier League — would feature 21 teams in three groups of seven and would occur towards
the end of the summer season.[41] The ECB enlisted the aid of Texas billionaire Allen Stanford to launch
the proposed league.[42] Stanford was the brains behind the successful Stanford 20/20, a tournament that
has run twice in the West Indies. On 17 February 2009, when news of the fraud investigation against
Stanford became public, the ECB and WICB withdrew from talks with Stanford on sponsorship.[43][44] On
February 20 the ECB announced it has severed its ties with Stanford and cancelled all contracts with him.
[45]
After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Pakistan government deemed it unsafe for its players to travel to India
for the IPL. However, when the IPL was shifted to South Africa, the Pakistani players requested the IPL
organizers and Lalit Modi to allow them to play but they refused by reasoning that the squads had already
been decided and there was no room for Pakistani players.[citation needed]
Recently in the 2010 IPL auction nobody bid on any of the Pakistani cricketers, despite having expressed
an interest in them therefore having them put on the auction list. Initially they said that the decision was
purely based on cricket , Pakistani team had won the 2009 T20 World Cup. There was speculation that
the Pakistanis might have been denied visas, so a team would waste money by recruiting them. After
questioning, the IPL board members said that the reasoning behind none of the Pakistani players being
selected was simply natural and unaffected by any outside influences.
The world economy can be evaluated in various kind of ways: depending on the model used, and this
valuation can then be represented in various ways (for example, in 2006US dollars). It is inseparable from
the geography and ecology of Earth, and is therefore somewhat of a misnomer, since, while definitions
and representations of the "world economy" vary widely, they must at a minimum exclude any
consideration of resources or value based outside of the Earth. For example, while attempts could be
made to calculate the value of currently unexploited mining opportunities in unclaimed territory
inAntarctica, the same opportunities on Mars would not be considered a part of the world economy—even
if currently exploited in some way—and could be considered of latent value only in the same way as
uncreated intellectual property, such as a previously unconceived invention.
Beyond the minimum standard of concerning value in production, use, and exchange on the planet Earth,
definitions, representations, models, and valuations of the world economy vary widely.
It is common to limit questions of the world economy exclusively to human economic activity, and the
world economy is typically judged in monetary terms, even in cases in which there is no efficient market to
help valuate certain goods or services, or in cases in which a lack of independent research or government
cooperation makes establishing figures difficult. Typical examples are illegal drugs and other black market
goods, which by any standard are a part of the world economy, but for which there is by definition no legal
market of any kind.
However, even in cases in which there is a clear and efficient market to establish a monetary value,
economists do not typically use the current or official exchange rate to translate the monetary units of this
market into a single unit for the world economy, since exchange rates typically do not closely reflect
worldwide value, for example in cases where the volume or price of transactions is closely regulated by
the government. Rather, market valuations in a local currency are typically translated to a single monetary
unit using the idea of purchasing power. This is the method used below, which is used for estimating
worldwide economic activity in terms of real US dollars. However, the world economy can be evaluated
and expressed in many more ways. It is unclear, for example, how many of the world's 6.8 billion
people have most of their economic activity reflected in these valuations.
During 2003 unless otherwise stated
Population(February
6,802,000,000 ([1])
11, 2010):
GDP/capita
$7,178
(Currency):
Annual growth of
per capita GDP 5.1% (tty*), 2.1% (1950-2003)
(PPP):