CANADA’S CURRENT CHALLENGES AND DILEMMAS AND WHY CANADA IS STRUGGLING TO COPE WITH THEM?

Canada, a G-7 country, has had a good run – generally – in terms of progress and prosperity over the last four to five decades. Canada can be proud of the AAA rating of its economy, consistent ranking in top five or six in terms of best country to live in, happiest country, best cities and so on. Canada performed the best, amongst G-7 countries, during the recession of 2008 and subsequent years. All in all, quite a solid performance!

                

However, of late Canada is finding itself to be struggling to meet current major challenges and dilemmas. What are these major challenges and dilemmas? These could be summarized under the following buckets:

·       Economic

·       Political

·       Societal

·       Other

The main reasons Canada is struggling to cope with them can be distilled down to following:

-      Apparent conceit (misplaced and silly, of course) on the part of the members of the majority community of Canadians, who are in the decision making positions, that they know best, and their stubborn unwillingness to learn from others (other races, other countries)

-      Political expediency, and

-      Tardiness (including benign slothfulness of the populace psyche).

We would return to the effect of how these factors are negatively impacting Canada’s interests; however, let’s first look at the listing of challenges/dilemmas under the above four categories:

Economic: Canada is on way to balance its books – the present government is quite confident that it will present a surplus budget in 2015. On the surface things may appear to be quite hunky dory but when you dig deeper you would find some issues – issues that have the potential to cause deleterious effect of varying degree over the long run. These are:

-      Exports in general failing to pick up to the extent it was expected to (uneven performance)

-      Commodities’ export struggling (lack of outlets, lack of new market, drop in international demand)

-      Employment numbers moving more like stock exchange indices rather than in a predictable manner with decline in (quality) full-time jobs

-      Too much fiscal conservatism of Conservatives (which is proving more counter-productive than helpful)

-      Putting all eggs in one basket (too much dependence on US)

-      Over-dependence on consumption numbers of China’s economy and/or investment flowing from China to Canada (this brings in its wake concerns and apprehensions)

-      Sustainability of welfare schemes in its present form (due to changing demographics and consequent changes in revenues etc)

Political:

-      Party ideologies swinging from one end of the spectrum to the other (from very conservative/free market ideology to liberalism to confused egalitarianism)

-      Failure among Federal parties to align on where Canada’s interests actually lie

-      Ottawa and some Provinces failing to align on where Canada’s interests actually lie (misalignment on national priorities, action plans etc)

-      Unnecessary spats between Executive and Judiciary and supposedly autonomous bodies, like, Federal Election Office etc

-      Misalignment with prevailing leadership of USA (the President, its various Secretaries)

-      Lack of well thought out strategies vis-à-vis different global regions, countries, issues [often strategies appearing to be getting modified based on ideology (and interests) of party in power in Ottawa and/or Provinces rather than furthering Canadian interests]

-      Threat of radicalism (and the measures required to deal with them)

-      Not so competent politicians (e.g. ostensible lack of understanding of fundamentals of Canadian economy, lack of grasp of issues staring in the face and so on)

Societal:

-      Changes in age demographics (increasing geriatric component of the population which brings different set of challenges for the society)

-      Changes in population structure (growth of certain ethnic groups which could cause serious issues down the road)

-      Widening gap between the rich and the poor

-      Declining standards of welfare schemes, services (including pension plans, health care etc because of funds failing to keep pace with the demand)

-      Increasing liberalism on various issues like LGBT and questions/scenarios they are raising/creating

-      Atomicity of familial structures, changes in family concept

-      Activism carried out by different interest groups

-      Explosion of social media

Other:

-      Increasing income gap between rich and poor

-      Decline in the corporate leadership competence

-      Absence of deep pocketed Canadian investors

-      Global issues like climate aberrations (aka climate change)

It would be naive to expect that idealistic situation would prevail in Canada and there would be perfect harmony and alignment among political parties of all stripes – at Federal and Provincial levels – and all the issues would get sorted out nicely and smoothly, that there would be competent people at the right places at the right time and so on.  

But the reality is something else: there are some basic factors that seem to be exacerbating the situation. These could be traced to be stemming from three items listed at the beginning of this narrative. How these factors are negatively impacting Canada currently and can impact in future will be dealt with in a separate blog. Stay tuned! 

CANADA AND INDIA NEED TO TAKE ON LEADING ROLE TO GUIDE THE G-20 TOWARDS A BETTER ECONOMIC FUTURE!!

G-20 Leaders gathering in London on 02 April represent 85% of the world's economy. At this meeting:

· The G-20 nations want to reach agreement on more co-ordinated action to revive the world economy, both through more interest rate cuts and more spending by governments to bring economies out of recession;
· Most of the G-20 countries will push for an action plan to prevent a future crisis by strengthening the international regulation of banks and other financial institutions;
· The Group also hopes to agree on a blueprint for future reform, including changes to the international organisations charged with regulating the world economy, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to give a greater clout to poorer countries.

USA is on board with interest rate cuts and more spending by governments, but it is not articulating its views very clearly on reform of international financial architecture. And, on regulation of financial institutions, the US, if anything, is reluctant to appear to be strong proponent of stricter regulatory measures. US’s view on this issue has been at best muffled and confusing.

A report from the G20 working group on regulation has been reportedly leaked to the financial website breakingviews.com. Key recommendations include the strengthening of capital requirements, greater transparency, and more International Monetary Fund (IMF) oversight of systemic risks. It is said that the recommendations closely follow proposed reform of the UK's regulation.

This is where the problem is: A country which has itself made a mess of its economic management is trying to propose changes. The country is question is America’s lackey – Britain. Britain’s banks are in pathetic condition, the top ones needed the government to dole them out of trouble. Britain’s housing mortgage almost mimicked the disastrous American model.

Despite all this the wily schmuck British are trying to pre-empt other countries by drafting some document and throwing it out there. The Brits, whose international stature these days depends on the crumbs thrown their way by their patrons in Washington, generally try to propose something that pleases their American masters.

In case of the current economic mess the countries that have the legitimate credentials to offer changes regarding economic world order, regulation of financial systems are essentially two – Canada and India. The reasons are almost obvious to anybody who is non-partisan, unprejudiced and has some idea of international financial system.

Among the G-7 countries Canada’s banking system is the least affected by current economic turmoil. The financial regulatory framework in Canada seems to have acquitted itself fairly well. The Bank of Canada is presiding over the overall Canadian financial institutions in a reasonably competent manner – its Governor Mike Carney taking necessary steps to provide CPR to the Canadian economy. He also seems to be clued to the stimulus measures being rolled out by the Harper government.

Among developing economies, India has the best credentials, from various standpoints, to offer a suitable blueprint on regulatory framework as well as new economic world order. First, India has the 5th highest GDP (based on PPP) in the world (after US, China, Japan & Germany). India’s central bank has been implementing and managing necessary regulatory framework for the financial institutions in India in a very successful and effective manner for years.

When Asia Pacific countries reeled under currency meltdown in the 90’s, India remained unscathed simply because India’s central bank already had in place effective tools and regulatory structure to prevent any such disaster. India’s economy is predicated on one of the most sensible models – an economy which is around 60% based on internal consumption and rest on export. The Indian economic honchos have displayed a far greater sense of foresight and understanding than their peers in US, Germany, Britain, Japan and other G-20 countries.

USA has no moral or ethical standing to pontificate about new economic world order (including IMF, World Bank) and/or regulatory framework for financial institutions. The current economic global crisis has been engendered by diabolical mutilation of ethical dealings unleashed by the shameless greedy SOB’s of American financial institutions.

These shameless rogues of the US financial system seem incorrigible – they have the audacity to thumb their noses to present administration. The American public and the President et al were dealt with a resounding slap when the AIG executives pocketed bonuses in the excess of $200 Million – and horror of horrors, this amount coming out of government alms! Who knows what stratagems the other US banks and financial institutions are planning to bilk away huge bonus packets for themselves?

Of the other G-7 nations, Germany also seems to be floundering. Therefore, it is also not in the best position to lead any initiative for the required change. China doesn’t make a good candidate for being a leader of change because China’s regulatory framework is not backed by the checks and balances that a democratic country like India has. Brazil is still learning the ropes, and so are the other developing countries of the G-20 club.

In recent G-20 conclaves USA has been urging focus mainly on stimulus, and kind of downplaying need for expeditious action on changes in economic world order and regulation. It is a sad commentary of American intellectual level. A country which boasts of a string of Nobel Laureates in Economics is right now struggling to stay afloat and get back on track!

American budget deficits are turning cavernous by the week; Treasury Secretary Geithner is under pressure. He received implicit support though from his President in March but it will not be easy for him to grapple and subdue the gargantuan economic mess that engulfs the US. Moreover, the highly partisan skulduggery at the Capitol Hill tends to significantly weaken any policy initiative emanating from the White House.

So, in summary the G-20 meeting in April will be best served if Canada and India are given more leeway and opportunity to shape the economic framework of the future. If the US is allowed by the G-18 to ride roughshod over the sensible policy directions, and if their lackeys – the bootlicking schmuck Brits – get a freehand in drafting the policy directions, then God bless the world!

It is time the 18 countries of the G-20 club told the US and its poodle (Britain) to move over to the sidelines and let the more knowledgeable practitioners to fashion the economic future of the world. However, the US and Britain may offer meaningful suggestions, if they can. But if they resorted to dog-in-the-manger policy it will do no good to the current crisis, and it is the US which stands to lose maximum if the world economy goes in a deeper hole rather than come out it. President Obama and Gordon Brown would do well to lend their ears more rather than their tongues!

STIMULUS PACKAGES GALORE WORLDWIDE, BUT WHAT ABOUT PUNISHING THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ECONOMIC MESS?

Two words have become household words all around the globe – 'stimulus package' – as the world tries to grapple with the worst economic situation since the 1930’s. US President Obama made several pit stops to campaign for quick passage of the stimulus package his administration put together. Eventually, a package watered down to USD787 Billion was passed by the US Congress.

Similarly, European countries are also implementing their stimulus packages. Situation in eurozone is also spurring urgent action after some quite dismal economic news. European economies contracted in the fourth quarter of last year, with some countries registering the worst figures in decades. The eurozone economy shrank by 1.5% in Q4 2008 and 1.2% on the year. Germany's economy shrank by 2.1% compared with the previous quarter, its worst quarterly performance since 1990.

Canada announced its own economic stimulus package recently in their parliament. Australia too made known their economic measures. China has already put in to motion a huge two year stimulus package to arrest downward slide of their economy. India has also implemented its own package in two instalments, some more may follow.

The G-7 meeting of its Finance Ministers and heads of the central banks in Rome on 14 Feb agreed to avoid protectionism and work in concert to pull the world out the current economic morass. The next meeting will be of G-20 countries in April to review progress of the steps agreed to by the Group in Dec 2008 meeting in Washington.

The above is a quick recap of steps being taken by the countries, which control more than 80% of world economy, to come out of the economic woes the world has gotten into. All this news is encouraging for the millions who lost their jobs, lost their homes, went in to bankruptcies, and went from a life of hope to despair.

But amidst all the abovementioned frenetic activities and hullabaloo to get the world economy back on track, has the world forgotten about the people who brought about this situation in the first place? What about bringing those blighters to justice and punishing them? How can those ‘canine-offsprings’ just say sorry and wash their hands off the accountabilities they carried with their responsibilities?

Because of the unbridled greed of some money spinning wheeler dealers in US (and to some extent in UK, and Germany) a housing bubble got created and this bubble gobbled up trillions of dollars. Between 2004 and 2006 US interest rates rose from 1% to 5.35%, triggering a slowdown in the US housing market.

Homeowners, many of whom could only barely afford their mortgage payments when interest rates were low, began to default on their mortgages. Default rates on sub-prime loans - high risk loans to clients with poor or no credit histories - rose to record levels. The impact of these defaults were felt across the financial system world over as many of the mortgages had been bundled up and sold on to banks and investors.

The questions are: what the hell was the US Fed Chairman doing during the years (2004-2006) when the seeds of the global disaster were being sown? Why could he not get out of his self imposed dogmatic intellectual strait-jacket of free-market mechanism principles? Why the hell was there no oversight of what was going on in the American financial market?

The people who have lost their jobs, their homes, their hard earned savings and probably many years of their future would like to know who were those female parent-fornicators who authorised the sub-prime racket to start! Who were those wedlock-products who encouraged this greed infested activity to engulf the society? Who was authorising the sub-prime mortgage business in Freddie Mac or Fannie May?

Why in God’s name nobody – either from Fed Reserve or SEC or some other Federal agency – bothered to take notice of what was going on in the sub-prime market? The sub-prime racket was not just a 4-6 month event which could have gone unnoticed. It went on for months, and yet nobody took notice?

Why did somebody in the Fed not take notice of the warning bells rung by Prof Krugman (who won Nobel Prize for Economics in 2008)? Prof Krugman was repeatedly warning about the dangerous path US economy was treading on.

And then, who were those female parent-fornicators in the big banks of US and Europe who blindly authorised investing in securitised mortgages? Some of these wedlock-product bank executives took home millions of dollars as bonuses!! Why and how are these canine-offsprings allowed to go scot free and not punished?

So, the question is: why have those people responsible for bringing about this financial mess in US, which caused domino effect world over, not been brought to justice? Why should they not be punished? In fact, why are they not being punished? Why should they not be thrown in to some Gitmo kind of prison and made to ruminate over the cataclysmic financial disaster they caused to happen?

Are these people not some kind of criminals? They may not have committed homicide, or rape. But the truth is that they have ‘raped’ the financial system. Their rapacious greed has robbed millions of innocent investors of their hard earned savings. The sub-prime mortgage can be compared to an organised ‘racket’ to ‘swindle’ millions of ordinary people who were ‘enticed’ by the rosy situations.

These people are responsible for having caused untold miseries to millions around the world, why should they not be flogged - publicly? It would be primitive, is it? Let it be primitive, but at least it will send a strong message to the world. Go ask the laid off worker what is primitive or not primitive – he doesn’t bother for all this intellectual debates which are luxury of the well-heeled. He/she wants secure economic future!

So, what is the plan for bringing these perpetrators of the current financial wrong-doing to justice? Is there no law under which these cold-blooded white collared diabolical schmucks can be tried and punished? Can these female parent-fornicators just say ‘I’m deeply sorry’ and can go un-punished?

The millions of people affected by the current economic upheaval are cursing those rascals day in and day out. Whether or not the actual perpetrators of current economic crisis (and those who were supposed to keep an oversight on them, and didn’t do their job) get punished by the law of this planet only time will say, but one thing is clear that if there is something called ‘natural justice’ these gutter insects will burn in the hell fire during their lifetime.

HOW CANADA CAN TURN THE CURRENT CHALLENGES IN TO OPPORTUNITIES!!

Canadians, potential investors (and probably to some extent its southern neighbour) are waiting with bated breath to see what happens in Ottawa on Jan 29 when the budget will be put to vote. The current Prime Minister Stephen Harper, of Progressive Conservatives (PC), is leading a minority government. If for whatever reasons the main opposition parties - Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois - don't like the budget presented on Jan 27, they can pull the government down by voting against it.

Now, let us step sideways and look at some key aspects currently confronting Canada. First, Canada is also in the grip of recession as are the other G-7 countries; the good news, however, is that Canada's economic woes are least as compared to any other G-7 country. Albeit, Canada's economic problems are less compared to its G-7 peers but they are not trivial either.

The unemployment figures released on 9th Jan paint a grim picture, and coupled with current contractionary tendencies of the economy (exacerbated by recessionary perception in the minds of the Canadians) the future doesn't portend encouraging signs.

When a country passes through tough times, if you had to pick up one thing that is needed to pull the country out of trouble what would you choose? Without doubt, the answer would be: 'real' leadership. It is a well known fact, to even non-academicians, that right leadership is fundamental to devising necessary strategy/suite of actions, convincing the people of the country to embrace the same and implementing it in timely and proper manner.

This is where current Prime Minister Stephen Harper is now called upon to show his mettle as a true leader. History is beckoning him to step up to the plate and do whatever is necessary, in the interest of the nation, to take Canada out of this present economic upheaval and put it back on the path of sustained economic growth. Fall of PC govt on Jan 29 has a potential for another election. That will certainly not be a welcome thing for the Canadians; the nation can ill afford a period of instability at this stage.

So, whichever way you look at from, the present challenge is, in fact, the right opportunity for PM Harper to deliver and carve a niche for himself in the Canadian history. People say of Harper, based on their past experience, that he is prone to stubbornness, often short sighted, less open-minded, afraid of facing the nation (prefers to disappear at the time of crisis), poor negotiator, untactful, impulsive, unable to grasp the big picture, and so on.

But this is the ideal opportunity for Harper to prove people wrong. Can he do it? Sure, why not? But to do that he has to overcome some mental blocks and fixations. If you watch his body language, his choice of words on critical/difficult issues one often finds him exhibiting lack of confidence, lack of substance and trying to cover that up with sheepish smile. And, in the process of overcoming his lack of confidence, on many occasions Harper ends up overdoing his policy action. This has been a major weakness in his style of functioning.

But he can right his this weakness. He need not feel weak-kneed, nor find his confidence somewhat less. Why? Because, after all, he led his party to be the largest single party in the parliament in the recent elections. Surely that is indicative of his ability to connect with people in most parts of Canada, his ability to articulate, and to get good grasp on various issues.

So, instead of being diffident, sheepish, apologetic on key issues, he needs to go out there full blast in confidence and take the bull by the horn - understand what the problems are, what the possible options are, what the challenges in implementing them are, and what needs to be done politically and nationally to implement them.

After grasping all that, Harper needs to rise above the fear of failure (this is fundamental to succeed in life) and go about his business of showing what true leadership is and stand tall amidst his political peers. Once he is not afraid to fail and at the same time puts national interest to be paramount he would be able to deal with any Layton, Ignatieff, Duceppe and come out trumps. And, best of all, the Canadians will back him up in his efforts to pull the country out of the morass.

It will not be so simple as stated above, but once Harper plays on the front foot with confidence (and full grasp of the situation/solutions) he will automatically be able to come out with necessary tactfulness, negotiation skills, political savvy required to implement what is best for the country in the present moment.

His actions will, however, have to demonstrate that he is above petty politics, he knows what is good for Canada, he is clearheaded, honest, not bumbling and that he is most suited to be the captain of the team. The more he will succeed, the more will his confidence grow and he will keep firing on all cylinders. Gradually, his path will appear more smoother, with less hurdles.

Meanwhile, there is good news that Mr. Obama has decided to visit Canada after taking over as President of US. This provides a gilded opportunity to Canada to forge stronger partnership with US on various fronts - energy, trade and defence. But to be able to do so Harper has to first survive the vote on budget. If Harper can be the decisive Prime Minister the country needs him to be, surely he can not only survive the vote, he can further strengthen his position.

If PC's continue to lead the country after the budget vote, Harper will get the opportunity to meet with and to convince Obama about the strategic importance of Canada-US relations, about oilsands' relevance to US (and the steps Alberta is taking to address environment related concerns), clear confusions regarding NAFTA, cooperation on defence related matters. But Harper would do well not to carry any past baggage (i.e. close ties with outgoing president Bush etc) or raise any thorny issue like Arctic sovereignity etc.

One of the drawbacks of Canadian leaderships' 'thinking' in last 50-60 years has been that on international level it was not expansive enough, and not contextually politically savvy. (An aside: On national level the 'thinking' seemed to have been debilitatingly overshadowed by Anglo-philic predilections.) In any case, it is a golden opportunity for Harper to show that his policies are entirely Canada-centric, pragmatic, streetsmart on all issues - be it environment, Islamic radicalism, natural resources, economic world order or anything else.

A strong and vibrant Canada is also in the interest of USA, and world in general. Canada's journey towards becoming a strong and vibrant nation can be sure and certain provided Steven Harper gets his act correct. He probably is aware that he will be judged by history by his performance at this critical and historic juncture.

Mr Harper, opportunity is there for you to get your name etched in golden letters - but to do that you will have to rise to the occasion and grab it!

NO MEANS TO DEAL WITH GLOBAL RECESSION? HOW ABOUT A TURMOIL IN MIDDLE-EAST?

From a price of $147.27 per barrel on July 11, 2008, the price of crude oil tumbled to alarmingly low levels - levels which couldn't be explained based on any rational economic principle. Yes, there is a situation of recession in US, Euro zone, Japan but that situation can not justify a demand contraction happening overnight which should trigger a drop in crude price more than 70% below the July 11 level.

Anyway, in the aftermath of this precipitous fall from the cliff the oil companies worldwide started behaving like pansies - new E&P projects started getting put on hold, especially, projects related to non-conventional crude sources, like oilsands in Canada.

[One wonders what kind of economic model these companies follow that low crude prices prevailing even for a month sends their economic viability haywire. It is well known that economic analyses of such projects are done over the life cycle of the source of oil - the life cycle ranging from 25-40 years. So, it is hard to imagine that the oil companies chicken out just on the basis of one, two or six month period of relative low crude prices.]

More than the oil companies, most of whom have reasonably good balance sheet position, the oil producing countries are hurting more. So much so that even a country like Saudi Arabia was forced to delay the issuance of Request for Bids for their two refinery projects which were slated to go out in Q4 2008.

Iran, Venezuela and Russia are already in bad shape. Venezuela is considering to nationalise some profitable foreign owned mining leases to supplement their national revenue. Russian Rouble has plunged to unprecedented lows. Iran has had to ration their fuel supplies. Well, if these three countries find themselves in trouble it is music to West's ears.

With recession casting a pall of gloom globally, and US, Japan and Europe not knowing what to do to get out of this morass, is a crisis in the Middle-east a welcome event at the moment? Who would gain if there is a turmoil in that region? Will a military conflict, which can potentially become a full blown crisis in the region threatening to cut off oil supplies, be helpful to global economy at this time?

The world's top three GDP regions are struggling to find ways to bring about higher liquidity in the markets so as to increase aggregate demand for goods, housing and so on. So, in such a scenario will these economies not suffer a whammy by having to cope with higher crude oil prices which invariably happens whenever there is a conflict in Middle-east?

But this is exactly what is happening at the moment. Israel is going full blast at Hamas in Gaza, and there are fears that this operation might escalate. Crude prices are nudging their way upwards.

Granted that Israel will have their parliamentary elections in two months and Prime Minister Olmert is allegedly gambling on this military operation to come back in power. But the billion dollar question is: Will Israel ever carry out this kind of an operation and, more importantly, at this point in time without the knowledge and/or acquiescence of their godfather - USA? Hard to digest that they have gone ahead without keeping Washington informed.

Further, US and its lackey (UK) would have immediately figured out the consequential economic ramifications of a potential Middle-east crisis. Yet they would have apparently agreed. Why? Is there some smart Alec who theorised that should there be a disruption of sea lanes (and the trade dependent on it) leading to 'perception' of disruption of goods globally, there can be a rebound in consumer demand triggered by panic buying?

Bear in mind, consumer spending is key to the big economies getting back on track. So, if the consumer spending can be triggered for some reason it is most welcome. And, apart from increased consumer spending there is a potential of arms supply by major powers, like, US, UK and to some extent, Russia. Dollars and Pounds flowing in exchange of arms supply can grease the economic wheels of these countries. Never mind, if Russia also gets some crumbs.

Moreover, rise in crude prices will again restore the projected inflow of money for OPEC countries who will then have funds for their new oil & gas projects which will in turn be good news for vendors, contractors and EPC companies - most of which come from G-7 countries.

So, it may seem that after all a crisis in Middle-east is what the doctor ordered for at this very moment. Is it likely that this is an event which has been engendered in a scripted manner? Will it escalate? Will it suck in Hamas supporters, like, Iran and Syria? And, will this provide an opportune time to Israel (and US) to hit at Iranian nuclear facilities, since Iran is down in dumps economically?

The concern is: Will it be possible for Israel (and its allies) to play this crisis as a scripted event? If the crisis goes out of hand and/or plays outside the script what will happen? Or, are the phantom scriptwriters damn sure that they can control it right till the denouement? By the way, on the flip side, who knows, this event can end up in a whimper too without bringing in the spin-offs for the G-7 visualised so glibly in the foregoing. Let's wait and watch!

"McCAIN EQUATES OBAMA WITH SOCIALISTS" - WHAT A FOOLISH STRATEGY!

One of the cable news reported that after grouping Obama with socialist European leaders in his weekly radio address on Saturday morning, at a rally later in the day McCain accused his opponent’s campaign of waging an “attack” on "Joe, the Plumber" and small businesses across America.

How confused McCain is! What is he trying to convey to his audience? How is Obama a 'socialist'? And, by the way, is any debate on socialism or capitalism relevant at this point in time when US is facing the worst economic turmoil since the Great Depression?

First, the day President Bush's administration decided to buy stakes in top 9 profit making Banks of US (Citi Group, Bank of America etc), it marked the end of so-called free market reign in US. Because, the buying of stakes in the banks is indeed partial nationalization of the said banks.

The above move of US administration came after the European nations of G-7 group had already implemented that strategy starting with Britain. In reality all these European nations have also partially nationalized their banks. But are these industrialised G-7 nations crying about socialism having entered their systems? No, they are not.

If partial nationalization smacks of socialism, then surely Mr. Bush has converted in to a 'socialist'! Mind you, he is an avowed Republican.

So, what is the sense in raking up 'socialist' word in the current context? Gordon Brown of Britain, Angela Merkel of Germany, Silvio Berlesconi of Italy, these leaders are not perturbed, even remotely, about 'socialism' supposedly creeping in. Because, socialism is not creeping in - either in Europe or US.

Then, what is McCain's plank of logic when he is using the 'socialist' word in an attempt to scare people away from Obama. And, therefore, where in God's name will there be any logic in trying to connect Obama with any past or present socialist leader of Europe? What will be its relevance? (Is there any socialist leader in Europe at present?)

This then begs the question: Does McCain know what is he talking about? The 72 year Senator doesn't seem to have any idea of how UK, and the G-7 European countries are trying to tackle the present economic crisis. How pathetic! This again goes to show the hopeless shallowness of McCain's knowledge about foreign affairs - an area in which he touts his 'deep' knowledge.

Now, the 'Joe, the Plumber' issue. By now every American knows that Joe is neither a plumber nor his annual income is more than $100,000. So, to cite Joe-the-Plumber case to build any argument regarding Obama's proposed tax strategy is utterly meaningless.

Moreover, how many small businesses make more than $250,000? Ans: Less than 1-2% of all small businesses. Therefore, Obama's proposal to tax people earning more than $250,000 is surely not going to impact the small businesses segment. Hence, it is clear that Mr. McCain has got it wrong here as well.

So, what is the conclusion? The conclusion is that the middle-class segment of USA is not going to be taxed more under Obama's tax plan. On the contrary the American voters need to remember is that Obama proposes to provide monetary help to the middle class segment.

So, how is Obama a socialist? And, how does his tax plan even remotely seem to sneak in socialism? Btw, is it a crime to provide relief to that segment of society which is in dire need of help, namely, the middle-class?

In all the Presidential debates not once did McCain mention the word 'middle-class'. He seems to be totally averse to providing help to this largest segment of American society. And he claims that he going to do good for the people at large, how sickening is that!!

One hopes the US voters will see through the charade of this Republican candidate and provide him a befitting reply by planting a footprint on his posterior on Nov 4.