Excellent Article About De-globalization, Lots Of Thai Tie Ins

[Jingthing]

I have heard this before. We are now in a phase of de-globalization. The end result of a meltdown like we are experiencing is the end of globalization. Personally, I like globalization and hope this can be turned around.

Lots of info here about the impact on Thailand and Singapore. Much more grim than you are going to read in the Bangkok Post. You may need to register to read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9030404221.html

A Global Retreat As Economies Dry Up

As World Trade Plummets, Bustling Ports Stand Idle And Foreign Workers Track Back Home

Gallery

In Thailand, Migrants' Jobs Evaporate

Facing a repressive government under U.S. sanctions, thousands of Burmese risked their lives in a quest for new factory jobs in Thailand. But when the global economy went code red, Thailand's factories collapsed.

By Anthony Faiola {vbar} Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, March 5, 2009; Page A01

Edited March 5, 2009 by Jingthing

[Pakeha]

thanks jingthing. That's an interesting read. I'm just going to go into my room and cry now...

Bad for us but there's millions of people around the world that are going to die as a result. Where's the aid going to come from? We couldn't (wouldn't) even stop starvation when the world was flush. Blood on the streets is going to take on a whole new meaning!

[Jingthing]

Here are some choice snippets for those who don't want to read the entire article:

What troubles economists deeply is that there is no easy answer to how countries like Thailand can get back on globalization's gravy train. One of the Asian tigers that collapsed in 1997 in a debt and currency crisis, it emerged from its ashes like its neighbors, by exporting to the United States and Europe. For now, that route is closed.

World leaders have spoken out against rising protectionism, blamed for sparking global trade wars in the 1930s that deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. But worldwide, domestic pressure is intense to protect jobs, and each time one country takes action, it makes it a little easier for the next.

[samuibeachcomber]

good link jingthing.....................particularly sad the story of the burmese in n/w thailand where the young girl was going back to burma,only to have her savings stolen from her................its stories like this that make me hate this world.

[Boater]

Economists from Credit Suisse predict an exodus of 200,000 foreigners -- or one in every 15 workers here -- by the end of 2010.

wonder whether this will be the same for Thailand......

[LooseCannon]

A timely reminder to us all, that no matter how bad we think it is for us, there are millions of people a lot worse off. The reality is truly depressing when the figures & percentages that we read about every day are translated into human beings. Ironically enough, today at work the 'first wave' of redundancies were announced & a number of people were marched out the door, with a few hundred more to go in the coming months. As usual it unskilled & semi-skilled that bear the brunt of even the mildest economic downturn.

As an aside, Merrill Lynch was mentioned as a source for some statistics, which made me want to share this copy of a letter from Andrew M. Cuomo (Attorney General of the State of New York) to Barney Frank (Chairman of the House of Representatives committee on financial services). When you think of the Burmese worker Lamin, with her stolen $350 life savings, & the executives of this company...... truly depressing.

Dear Chairman Frank,

I am writing to provide you and your committee with information concerning the executive compensation investigation currently being conducted by the Office of the New York Attorney General. As you know, as part of that investigation, this office is conducting an ongoing inquiry into the 2008 bonus payments made by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

On October 29 2008, we asked Merrill Lynch to detail, among other things, their plans for executive bonuses for 2008, including the size of the bonus pool and the criteria they planned to use in determining what, if any, bonuses were appropriate for their top executives. On November 5 2008, the Board responded and stated that any bonuses would be based upon a combination of performance and retention needs. However, Merrill did not provide my office with any details as to the bonus pool, claiming that such details had not been determined.

Rather, in a surprising fit of corporate irresponsibility, it appears that instead of disclosing their bonus plans in a transparent way, as requested by my office, Merrill Lynch secretly moved up the planned date to allocate bonuses and then richly rewarded their failed executives. Merrill Lynch had never before awarded bonuses at such an early date and this timetable allowed Merrill to dole out huge bonuses ahead of their awful fourth quarter earnings announcement and before the planned takeover of Merrill by Bank of America.

Merrill Lynch's decision to secretly and prematurely award approximately $3.6 billion in bonuses, and Bank of America's apparent complicity in it, raises serious and disturbing questions. By December 8 2008, Merrill and presumably Bank of America must have been aware that the fourth quarter and yearly earnings results were disastrous. Indeed, on January 16 2009, the companies announced that in the fourth quarter alone Merrill Lynch has lost $15.31 billion.

In the face of these losses, federal taxpayers were forced to help Bank of America acquire Merrill. Thus, Bank of America also announced on January 16 2009, that the federal government would invest $20 billion in the deal and provide $188 billion in protection against further losses primarily from the Merrill Lynch portfolio. These investments were in addition to the previous

$25 billion in TARP funding that taxpayers had given to Bank of America.

One disturbing question that must be answered is whether Merrill Lynch and Bank of America timed the bonuses in such a way as to force taxpayers to pay for them through the deal funding. We plan to require top officials at both Merrill Lynch and Bank of America to answer this question and to provide justifications for the massive bonuses they paid ahead of their massive losses.

What my office has learned thus far concerning the allocation of the nearly $4 billion in Merrill Lynch bonuses is nothing short of staggering. Some analysts have wrongly claimed that individual bonuses were actually quite modest and thus legitimate, because dividing the $3.6 billion over thousands upon thousands of employees results in relatively small amounts estimated at approximately $91,000 per employee.

In fact, Merrill chose to do the opposite. While more than 39,000 Merrill employees received bonuses from the pool, the vast majority of these funds were disproportionately distributed to a small number of individuals. Indeed, Merrill chose to make millionaires out of a select group of 700 employees. Furthermore, as the statistics below make clear, Merrill Lynch awarded an even smaller group of top executives what can only be described as gigantic bonuses.

Bearing in mind that Merrill moved up its bonus payments in advance of its announced $15 billion quarterly loss and $27 billion annual loss, we have determined that Merrill Lynch made the following bonus payments:

– The top four bonus recipients received a combined $121 million;

– The next four bonus recipients received a combined $62 million;

– The next six bonus recipients received a combined $66 million;

– 14 individuals received bonuses of $10 million or more and combined they received more than $250 million;

– 20 individuals received bonuses of $8 million or more;

– 53 individuals received bonuses of $5 million or more;

– 149 individuals received bonuses of $3 million or more;

– Overall, the top 149 bonus recipients received a combined $858 million;

– 696 individuals received bonuses of $1 million or more.

Again, these payments and their curious timing raise serious questions as to whether the Merrill Lynch and Bank of America boards of directors were derelict in their duties and violated their fiduciary obligations. We will also continue to examine whether senior officials at both companies violated their own fiduciary obligations to shareholders. If they did, this raises additional serious issues with regard to the inappropriate use of taxpayer funds.

In this context, I represent the taxpayers who demand accountability, transparency, and responsibility. Taxpayers are being crushed by the losses on Wall Street and now are paying billions in bailout funds. My investigation into whether these bonus payments violated New York's fraudulent conveyance statute and whether the lack of disclosures concerning these payments and other matters violated the Martin Act will continue. We will also continue to examine the circumstances surrounding any supposed guaranteed bonuses, their justifications, and Merrill's obligations pursuant to them, once Bank of America produces more information concerning such bonuses.

Andrew M. Cuomo

Attorney General of the State of New York

Here's the link to the full article.....

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf...ent&src=kgb

[Samuian]

A timely reminder to us all, that no matter how bad we think it is for us, there are millions of people a lot worse off. The reality is truly depressing when the figures & percentages that we read about every day are translated into human beings. Ironically enough, today at work the 'first wave' of redundancies were announced & a number of people were marched out the door, with a few hundred more to go in the coming months. As usual it unskilled & semi-skilled that bear the brunt of even the mildest economic downturn.

As an aside, Merrill Lynch was mentioned as a source for some statistics, which made me want to share this copy of a letter from Andrew M. Cuomo (Attorney General of the State of New York) to Barney Frank (Chairman of the House of Representatives committee on financial services). When you think of the Burmese worker Lamin, with her stolen $350 life savings, & the executives of this company...... truly depressing.

Dear Chairman Frank,

I am writing to provide you and your committee with information concerning the executive compensation investigation currently being conducted by the Office of the New York Attorney General. As you know, as part of that investigation, this office is conducting an ongoing inquiry into the 2008 bonus payments made by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

On October 29 2008, we asked Merrill Lynch to detail, among other things, their plans for executive bonuses for 2008, including the size of the bonus pool and the criteria they planned to use in determining what, if any, bonuses were appropriate for their top executives. On November 5 2008, the Board responded and stated that any bonuses would be based upon a combination of performance and retention needs. However, Merrill did not provide my office with any details as to the bonus pool, claiming that such details had not been determined.

Rather, in a surprising fit of corporate irresponsibility, it appears that instead of disclosing their bonus plans in a transparent way, as requested by my office, Merrill Lynch secretly moved up the planned date to allocate bonuses and then richly rewarded their failed executives. Merrill Lynch had never before awarded bonuses at such an early date and this timetable allowed Merrill to dole out huge bonuses ahead of their awful fourth quarter earnings announcement and before the planned takeover of Merrill by Bank of America.

Merrill Lynch's decision to secretly and prematurely award approximately $3.6 billion in bonuses, and Bank of America's apparent complicity in it, raises serious and disturbing questions. By December 8 2008, Merrill and presumably Bank of America must have been aware that the fourth quarter and yearly earnings results were disastrous. Indeed, on January 16 2009, the companies announced that in the fourth quarter alone Merrill Lynch has lost $15.31 billion.

In the face of these losses, federal taxpayers were forced to help Bank of America acquire Merrill. Thus, Bank of America also announced on January 16 2009, that the federal government would invest $20 billion in the deal and provide $188 billion in protection against further losses primarily from the Merrill Lynch portfolio. These investments were in addition to the previous

$25 billion in TARP funding that taxpayers had given to Bank of America.

One disturbing question that must be answered is whether Merrill Lynch and Bank of America timed the bonuses in such a way as to force taxpayers to pay for them through the deal funding. We plan to require top officials at both Merrill Lynch and Bank of America to answer this question and to provide justifications for the massive bonuses they paid ahead of their massive losses.

What my office has learned thus far concerning the allocation of the nearly $4 billion in Merrill Lynch bonuses is nothing short of staggering. Some analysts have wrongly claimed that individual bonuses were actually quite modest and thus legitimate, because dividing the $3.6 billion over thousands upon thousands of employees results in relatively small amounts estimated at approximately $91,000 per employee.

In fact, Merrill chose to do the opposite. While more than 39,000 Merrill employees received bonuses from the pool, the vast majority of these funds were disproportionately distributed to a small number of individuals. Indeed, Merrill chose to make millionaires out of a select group of 700 employees. Furthermore, as the statistics below make clear, Merrill Lynch awarded an even smaller group of top executives what can only be described as gigantic bonuses.

Bearing in mind that Merrill moved up its bonus payments in advance of its announced $15 billion quarterly loss and $27 billion annual loss, we have determined that Merrill Lynch made the following bonus payments:

– The top four bonus recipients received a combined $121 million;

– The next four bonus recipients received a combined $62 million;

– The next six bonus recipients received a combined $66 million;

– 14 individuals received bonuses of $10 million or more and combined they received more than $250 million;

– 20 individuals received bonuses of $8 million or more;

– 53 individuals received bonuses of $5 million or more;

– 149 individuals received bonuses of $3 million or more;

– Overall, the top 149 bonus recipients received a combined $858 million;

– 696 individuals received bonuses of $1 million or more.

Again, these payments and their curious timing raise serious questions as to whether the Merrill Lynch and Bank of America boards of directors were derelict in their duties and violated their fiduciary obligations. We will also continue to examine whether senior officials at both companies violated their own fiduciary obligations to shareholders. If they did, this raises additional serious issues with regard to the inappropriate use of taxpayer funds.

In this context, I represent the taxpayers who demand accountability, transparency, and responsibility. Taxpayers are being crushed by the losses on Wall Street and now are paying billions in bailout funds. My investigation into whether these bonus payments violated New York's fraudulent conveyance statute and whether the lack of disclosures concerning these payments and other matters violated the Martin Act will continue. We will also continue to examine the circumstances surrounding any supposed guaranteed bonuses, their justifications, and Merrill's obligations pursuant to them, once Bank of America produces more information concerning such bonuses.

Andrew M. Cuomo

Attorney General of the State of New York

Here's the link to the full article.....

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf...ent&src=kgb

This is simply disgusting - human manure!

[samuibeachcomber]

All these fat cats should be rounded up and put in the FEEMA camps to get the camps up and running.

[londonthai]

thailand is still, in large part, an agricultural country and will soften unemployement from the collapsing industries. People have to eat, so some export will exist and the price of foods most probably will fall. Globalisation will be temporarily de-scaled, but usually there is no way back to the previous economic set up