This time the post of "Indonesia Could Be a New Problem For Asia". Various world leaders and economic leaders hailed the success of Asia came in various fields, especially economics. Various countries are also competing to strengthen their influence in Asia, not least the United States.But progress in Asia is not without blemish. Some
countries such as China and India, two countries most advanced in Asia,
is threatened if disturbed development can not meet the expectations of
society.
In addition, the chances of open conflict between countries in Asia are the largest in the world. That is why an expert on politics and the U.S. economy, Lex Reiffer, said that Asia is the biggest threat to world peace.
Indonesia as a developing country - was heralded as the government - did not impress Lex. Data is the data apparent progress, the actual state, Indonesia so poor resources.
In addition, the chances of open conflict between countries in Asia are the largest in the world. That is why an expert on politics and the U.S. economy, Lex Reiffer, said that Asia is the biggest threat to world peace.
Indonesia as a developing country - was heralded as the government - did not impress Lex. Data is the data apparent progress, the actual state, Indonesia so poor resources.
He
said Indonesia would be a new problem for Asia, if this country can not
solve economic problems and begin to pay attention to efforts to
conserve natural resources.
Here's the full interview with Lex VIVAnews Reiffer:
The U.S. government announced a reduction of military budgets up to U.S. $ 487 billion in the next 10 years. Is this one of the existing evidence of the economic crisis in the U.S.?The U.S. has serious budget problems, it is necessary for the U.S. to reduce spending. However, controlling the budget is done so as not to interfere with economic growth. One of them who experience this is Greece, where deficit reduction means a tax increase.
Portions are very large defense budget, I think it is impossible to achieve a balanced budget without cutting funding in this field. But keep in mind, the U.S. military will remain the strongest in the whole world. After budget cuts, we will still be able to defend national interests around the world.
What we do is no longer conduct of two wars at once. What use is at war in two places? I guess it's not smart and the American people do not want anymore war. Reduction in military spending this time reflects the government's efforts in achieving sustainable military.
What a change from the military policy of President Barack Obama this time? Where the position of Asia?
Most important of these changes is to change the focus of U.S. attention to Asia. But the focus in Asia is not just a military matter, but in every field. If we see it in the context of history, several decades after World War II, U.S. foreign policy initially focused on Eeropa, then switch on the Cold War with Russia, the Middle East and post 9/11, then Obama and Hillary Clinton said it is now our focus to Asia , and I think the reason is obvious.
Half of the world's population are in Asia. This region is also the fastest growing countries around the world. Besides I think the biggest threat to world peace in Asia.
Because this region does not have a peaceful coexistence. Europeans who have any peaceful coexistence, to World War up to two times. There is an intense tension in Asia. Call it North Korea, Taiwan, South China Sea issues and domestic issues in India. Potential for violence between countries in Asia I believe is higher than in other regions. This is the U.S. interest: contributing to the evolution of peace in Asia.
Many say that the U.S. focus on Asia is to China's influence. Do you see there will be a cold war between the U.S. and China?No. Because in my opinion the interests of both countries at this time is to avoid an arms race. We look at history, just an arms race is socially harmful. But no denying the existence of competitive human nature.
In addition, nationalism also contributed to the misery and destruction for hundreds of years. Nationalism does have the advantage, but to be honest, nationalism, corrupt society. It would be good for the world if the sentiment of nationalism is reduced. Because of this sentiment is one of thetriggers a conflict of interest between countries. Ends, they will attack each other.
Many state leaders praised the progress of the race in Asia. Do you agree?It has been predicted. Several years ago many said that the 21st century will be the century of Asia. I think this is true. But there is great risk in Asia, the first is China.
The country is growing very rapidly and stabilized within 30 years. But we must be prepared to compromise on China's economic progress. Because historically, there is no progress without interruption. Problems will arise in China, economic decline and political stability will be shaken.
Concerns also arise from a growing India. Both of these countries (India and China) has a high population. They have a challenge in generating a productive worker in the middle of an increasingly high public expectations.
High expectations is due to the economic development and community-level changes from poor to middle class with higher education and information literacy. If these expectations are not met, then the economic and social stability will be disrupted. The other problem, the world is different from the first. The world today is full, almost no empty space. The population increased from 7 billion to 8-9 billion, plus the issue of climate change and others.
I think this is the age of chaos in various countries who are trying to survive. Each country will eventually be concerned with its own interests and life will be increasingly difficult for everyone.
Population in Asia alone is growing quickly. China's fertility rate has been reduced below the replacement level (replacement level). Fertility rate is calculated based on the number of births compared to the average number of women. Ideal replacement level is 2.1. If every woman has 2.1 children, the population is stable.
There is a debate in China who said that one child policy should be stopped because it just creates an increasing elderly population and the shortage of young people. In contrast, India says it has a young population that will make the country forward, better than China.
Though these two countries are wrong. India does not have the evenness of the population, this is a time bomb for the country. While China is no problem increasing elderly population. They no longer need additional population, currently at 1.3 billion. It's the ideal amount, China will be stronger in all areas with this number. How to maintain this amount, namely by imposing one-child policy remains.
Indonesia once had a family planning program is good, but I am disappointed this program is no longer used. If it continues, then the effect will be like 20 years ago, Indonesia's current population would be less 25 million people. If so, Indonesia's per capita income will be 10 percent higher. Would be less unemployment, and fewer living below the poverty line.
Whether Indonesia would be a risk also in Asia, like China and India?I think Indonesia is more severe. Because Indonesia is one country in the world are experiencing resource curse (lack of progress in the midst of abundant natural resources). Indonesia does not deal with natural resources to be effective, this would destroy the country with over-exploitation of nature, and not deal with natural resources for the benefit of the whole people.
Indonesia today, in my opinion, can not align itself to the world that is more complicated. Because penyelerasan means a change in the interest of the people. If not, then be prepared to be the big loser in this century.
Indonesia will become a new problem for Asia. Look at the problems of workers in this country. The number of scholars in Indonesia, according to the status of the World Bank, more than the number of jobs created. How Indonesia would move forward. But I guess this is a problem that becomes a challenge for all countries in the world. We have global problems to overcome youth unemployment in urban areas.
But the data show the progress of Indonesia's GDP reached 6 percent last year?Is there any influence on commodity prices? Indonesia has a serious problem, the most obvious is the problem of infrastructure. Compared with Vietnam, Indonesia began to lag. Vietnam began moving into the market economy in late 1980 when they were abandoned by the Russians. At that time, they left behind 20 years of Indonesia.
But look at economic developments now, I think the economy per capita in Vietnam is stronger than Indonesia in 10 years. Vietman can not be separated from the resource curse. But what Vietnam then? they develop their communities.
Indonesia is too oriented to the purpose of increasing GDP. Though there are serious problems in the GDP statistics. For example, when Indonesia to sell billions of dollars of natural gas, it will contribute much to GDP. However, at the same time, Indonesia's natural wealth will be lost forever. In fact, GDP is growing, but the poorer countries.
GDP can not increase the quality of life, this fundamental problem. There are plenty of empirical evidence and studies that show that the quality of life and happiness of the people have nothing to do with the country's GDP and wealth.
Why are you so pessimistic about Indonesia, but the rating agencies have raised the level of Indonesia's debt?
You believe it, after the mistakes that they (S & P, Moody's and Finch Rating) do against Europe? No, the rating agencies are part of large systems.
What should be done by the government of Indonesia?Above all is to protect natural resources. Indonesia forest resources and the fisheries have been damaged, this is very tragic. One of the worst is oil palm plantations. If the idea is to denude forests for palm oil, then this is a tragedy. Not only a tragedy for Indonesia, but a human tragedy.
Indonesia does not protect their marine resources. Fish habitat and reef destroyed by fishing in large quantities. I think the Indonesian government does not make sense to spend millions of dollars to buy weapons, buy a better boat to stop illegal fishing and illegal logging in Indonesia. (Eh)
Lex Rieffel is an expert problem Southeast Asia, the restructuring of foreign debt and international financial institutions. He is an economist of the U.S. financial agencies and senior members of the Institute of International Finance.
Here's the full interview with Lex VIVAnews Reiffer:
The U.S. government announced a reduction of military budgets up to U.S. $ 487 billion in the next 10 years. Is this one of the existing evidence of the economic crisis in the U.S.?The U.S. has serious budget problems, it is necessary for the U.S. to reduce spending. However, controlling the budget is done so as not to interfere with economic growth. One of them who experience this is Greece, where deficit reduction means a tax increase.
Portions are very large defense budget, I think it is impossible to achieve a balanced budget without cutting funding in this field. But keep in mind, the U.S. military will remain the strongest in the whole world. After budget cuts, we will still be able to defend national interests around the world.
What we do is no longer conduct of two wars at once. What use is at war in two places? I guess it's not smart and the American people do not want anymore war. Reduction in military spending this time reflects the government's efforts in achieving sustainable military.
What a change from the military policy of President Barack Obama this time? Where the position of Asia?
Most important of these changes is to change the focus of U.S. attention to Asia. But the focus in Asia is not just a military matter, but in every field. If we see it in the context of history, several decades after World War II, U.S. foreign policy initially focused on Eeropa, then switch on the Cold War with Russia, the Middle East and post 9/11, then Obama and Hillary Clinton said it is now our focus to Asia , and I think the reason is obvious.
Half of the world's population are in Asia. This region is also the fastest growing countries around the world. Besides I think the biggest threat to world peace in Asia.
Because this region does not have a peaceful coexistence. Europeans who have any peaceful coexistence, to World War up to two times. There is an intense tension in Asia. Call it North Korea, Taiwan, South China Sea issues and domestic issues in India. Potential for violence between countries in Asia I believe is higher than in other regions. This is the U.S. interest: contributing to the evolution of peace in Asia.
Many say that the U.S. focus on Asia is to China's influence. Do you see there will be a cold war between the U.S. and China?No. Because in my opinion the interests of both countries at this time is to avoid an arms race. We look at history, just an arms race is socially harmful. But no denying the existence of competitive human nature.
In addition, nationalism also contributed to the misery and destruction for hundreds of years. Nationalism does have the advantage, but to be honest, nationalism, corrupt society. It would be good for the world if the sentiment of nationalism is reduced. Because of this sentiment is one of thetriggers a conflict of interest between countries. Ends, they will attack each other.
Many state leaders praised the progress of the race in Asia. Do you agree?It has been predicted. Several years ago many said that the 21st century will be the century of Asia. I think this is true. But there is great risk in Asia, the first is China.
The country is growing very rapidly and stabilized within 30 years. But we must be prepared to compromise on China's economic progress. Because historically, there is no progress without interruption. Problems will arise in China, economic decline and political stability will be shaken.
Concerns also arise from a growing India. Both of these countries (India and China) has a high population. They have a challenge in generating a productive worker in the middle of an increasingly high public expectations.
High expectations is due to the economic development and community-level changes from poor to middle class with higher education and information literacy. If these expectations are not met, then the economic and social stability will be disrupted. The other problem, the world is different from the first. The world today is full, almost no empty space. The population increased from 7 billion to 8-9 billion, plus the issue of climate change and others.
I think this is the age of chaos in various countries who are trying to survive. Each country will eventually be concerned with its own interests and life will be increasingly difficult for everyone.
Population in Asia alone is growing quickly. China's fertility rate has been reduced below the replacement level (replacement level). Fertility rate is calculated based on the number of births compared to the average number of women. Ideal replacement level is 2.1. If every woman has 2.1 children, the population is stable.
There is a debate in China who said that one child policy should be stopped because it just creates an increasing elderly population and the shortage of young people. In contrast, India says it has a young population that will make the country forward, better than China.
Though these two countries are wrong. India does not have the evenness of the population, this is a time bomb for the country. While China is no problem increasing elderly population. They no longer need additional population, currently at 1.3 billion. It's the ideal amount, China will be stronger in all areas with this number. How to maintain this amount, namely by imposing one-child policy remains.
Indonesia once had a family planning program is good, but I am disappointed this program is no longer used. If it continues, then the effect will be like 20 years ago, Indonesia's current population would be less 25 million people. If so, Indonesia's per capita income will be 10 percent higher. Would be less unemployment, and fewer living below the poverty line.
Whether Indonesia would be a risk also in Asia, like China and India?I think Indonesia is more severe. Because Indonesia is one country in the world are experiencing resource curse (lack of progress in the midst of abundant natural resources). Indonesia does not deal with natural resources to be effective, this would destroy the country with over-exploitation of nature, and not deal with natural resources for the benefit of the whole people.
Indonesia today, in my opinion, can not align itself to the world that is more complicated. Because penyelerasan means a change in the interest of the people. If not, then be prepared to be the big loser in this century.
Indonesia will become a new problem for Asia. Look at the problems of workers in this country. The number of scholars in Indonesia, according to the status of the World Bank, more than the number of jobs created. How Indonesia would move forward. But I guess this is a problem that becomes a challenge for all countries in the world. We have global problems to overcome youth unemployment in urban areas.
But the data show the progress of Indonesia's GDP reached 6 percent last year?Is there any influence on commodity prices? Indonesia has a serious problem, the most obvious is the problem of infrastructure. Compared with Vietnam, Indonesia began to lag. Vietnam began moving into the market economy in late 1980 when they were abandoned by the Russians. At that time, they left behind 20 years of Indonesia.
But look at economic developments now, I think the economy per capita in Vietnam is stronger than Indonesia in 10 years. Vietman can not be separated from the resource curse. But what Vietnam then? they develop their communities.
Indonesia is too oriented to the purpose of increasing GDP. Though there are serious problems in the GDP statistics. For example, when Indonesia to sell billions of dollars of natural gas, it will contribute much to GDP. However, at the same time, Indonesia's natural wealth will be lost forever. In fact, GDP is growing, but the poorer countries.
GDP can not increase the quality of life, this fundamental problem. There are plenty of empirical evidence and studies that show that the quality of life and happiness of the people have nothing to do with the country's GDP and wealth.
Why are you so pessimistic about Indonesia, but the rating agencies have raised the level of Indonesia's debt?
You believe it, after the mistakes that they (S & P, Moody's and Finch Rating) do against Europe? No, the rating agencies are part of large systems.
What should be done by the government of Indonesia?Above all is to protect natural resources. Indonesia forest resources and the fisheries have been damaged, this is very tragic. One of the worst is oil palm plantations. If the idea is to denude forests for palm oil, then this is a tragedy. Not only a tragedy for Indonesia, but a human tragedy.
Indonesia does not protect their marine resources. Fish habitat and reef destroyed by fishing in large quantities. I think the Indonesian government does not make sense to spend millions of dollars to buy weapons, buy a better boat to stop illegal fishing and illegal logging in Indonesia. (Eh)
Lex Rieffel is an expert problem Southeast Asia, the restructuring of foreign debt and international financial institutions. He is an economist of the U.S. financial agencies and senior members of the Institute of International Finance.
No comments:
Post a Comment
kalo kamoe-kamoe tertarik, kasih dong komentar....