Democracy in Egypt and the Middle East

The dominoes of dictators in the Middle East have begun to fall, driven not by United States armed forces, but by the will of the people who demand it. First Tunisia, now Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

Sadam Hussein, if he were still in Iraq would no doubt ultimately be toppled by the will of the Iraqi people, given today's technology of instant communications. After ten years, the jury is still out as to whether Iraq will be a democratic country as a result of the US invasion. Not likely. It was a wasted effort, and a ruse over the people he represented, by a United States president with dubious election credentials and a personal grudge against the man his own government had helped to create out of self interest. Hardly a democratic process. Exposed by wiki leaks, a peoples movement!

Now it is Egypt's turn. The deposition of a despot imposed and supported by outside self interests. Democracy is a universal right that cannot be imposed by outside forces. Only by the will of the people. It is not a uniquely American institution. American style democracy has demonstrated over the past decade that it is far from perfect, and not necessarily the right model for other countries. Democracy is by nature an evolving process, not one that is dictated by the tenets of founding fathers who created institutions for a different time. The people who depose unjust governments will establish unique forms of democracy tailored to their own interests.

It will be a fascinating process to watch, not just in Egypt but in all countries ruled by unjust self interests. That includes not only North Korea, Lybia, Iran and China, but also the United States if it's government's deviate from the will of the people they represent.

Democracy is coming to the USA !!!

Liu Xiaobo, Barack Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

"....a state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands, even for beneficial purposes will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the machinery to which it has sacrificed everything will in the end avail it nothing".

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

The Chinese Communist party has rightly been chastised by the western press for it's condemnation of the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo through it's state owned media. This is clearly an attempt by entrenched interests in the Communist party to preserve the privileges they enjoy by dwarfing an advocate for the democratic process.

There are parallels between the reaction of the Communist party to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo in it's state owned media, and the reaction by the Republican party in the privately owned Fox News Media to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama a year earlier.

Both the Chinese government owned media and the Murdoch owned private media are propaganda arms for entrenched interests of the communist party in China, and the Republican party in the United States. Both hinder the democratic process as envisioned by John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty.

While one man was in the White House and one in prison, the entrenched interests of those in the Republican Party and those in the Communist party were equally complicit in dwarfing both men by denouncing the award through their propaganda arms. Both have sought to make their men more docile instruments. The machinery to which the Communist and Republican parties have sacrificed everything will according to John Stuart Mill ultimately avail them nothing.

And so it should be.

The Mosque near ground zero

Not permitting a mosque to be built near the sight of 911 in New York is not only dangerous to democracy, it is unconstitutional. Allowing the mosque to proceed is supported by the mayor of New York, and would bring significant economic benefits and cultural diversity to the area. The opposition to the mosque is driven by right wing religious extremist groups with their own theocratic agenda. The argument put forward is that the mosque is a symbol of victory for the Muslim religion, and therefore is offensive and should not be allowed to proceed.

If the mosque were forced to relocate, the logical conclusion is that all religious institutions (churches, mosques, temples, synagogues) should be banned by government in locations where they may be offensive. This would of course extinguish any religious freedoms that are a cornerstone of American democracy. It is not a wise path to take. Do Americans really want to repeat the mistakes of Soviet and Chinese style totalitarian communism where all religions were banned? Banning the mosque at ground zero is a sure way to destroy the basic democratic strengths of America,individual liberty and religious freedom.

It would be much wiser to proceed with the mosque, acknowledging that many Muslims were also killed in the attacks, and that the attacks were by fanatical extremists, not representative of mainstream Muslim beliefs. It would also send a message to moderate Muslims that the opponents of the mosque do not represent mainstream America, but are extremists with their own agenda of theocratic politics, as were the terrorists. A mosque in New York surrounded by Jewish Synagogues, Christian churches and the financial centre of the world in the shadows of the symbol of American freedom, the Statue of Liberty can hardly harm America. If anything, it will add to its rich cultural diversity.

Americans and others in western democracies have paid a huge price for their freedoms. If they are not preserved, other religions may soon be banned from controversial locations, and that could well include those who are now the most vocal opponents of the mosque near ground zero.

Profiting from the luck of geography

The following was published by the Medite 2016 Global Futures Group, TTJ, United Kingdom (click title to view original article)


Profiting from the luck of geography

January 23 2010

By Bernie Neufeld

Bernie Neufeld of BIS Shrapnel says Australasia’s economic ties with Asia will be the dynamic increasingly shaping its wood panels sector in the future


Recession, what recession? While Australia’s economy certainly slowed, it was the only industrialised country in the world to avert two quarters of negative growth, following the onset of the global financial and economic crisis Why? Was it good economic management, or is it just a lucky country? The short answer is both.

While the Australian government countered the financial crisis with a well timed and massive stimulus programme, Australia’s Mandarin-speaking prime minister made a point of travelling to Beijing when the crisis hit. By no coincidence, China also rolled out a well-timed, massive stimulus programme, managing to maintain economic growth in 2009 at historically high levels. Other countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia and Japan all followed with similar programmes, maintaining strong economic activity. Strong growth in Asia was as crucial to preventing recession in Australia as was the stimulus programme. With good economic management, and the luck of geography, Australia has had more than 15 years of economic growth without a recession.

Australasia is by history and by culture linked to Europe and North America. By geography it is inextricably linked to Asia. China is now Australia’s largest trading partner, having over the past decade replaced Japan, Europe and the US. What an impact it has had on Australasia – and the wood panels industry!

Shaping the future

The increasing linkage of the Australasian economy and culture to the developing powerhouses of Asia is the dynamic shaping the future of this region. The Asian region itself is increasingly being integrated, as is Australasia with Asia. Trade and investment flows with Asia are powering Australasia’s economic growth, and vice versa.

The power of Asia has had a profound effect on the MDF industry. In the mid-1990s, North American and European companies were investing in MDF production facilities as if there were no tomorrow. Japan was the key producer and consumer of MDF in Asia, followed closely by South Korea and Chinese Taipei (Taiwan). I had just visited China, a country that at that time produced virtually no MDF or particleboard. At an industry conference in North America, I made a rather bold statement at the time that China would one day lead the world in the production and consumption of MDF.

This notion came from a visit to Chinese Taipei [Taiwan], where furniture producers advised they were rapidly shifting production facilities to mainland China. This meant China would either need to import MDF and particleboard, or produce it to service the rapidly expanding furniture industry. For a decade, China imported huge volumes of MDF and particleboard. At the same time, production facilities in China expanded rapidly. Eventually imports were replaced with domestic production. Today China is the undisputed world leader, with an amazing array of MDF and particleboard producers and consumers, dwarfing North America, Europe and Australasia. It is also a net exporter. In many ways China is an opportunity missed by North American producers, who could have seized the day to invest in production facilities in China, or to export to China, as many European and Australasian producers did.

MDF industry

In Australasia, the MDF industry has been completely transformed to one dominated by investors from Asia, and focused on exports to Asia. It is a prelude to how the industry and other industries in Australasia will be shaped in the future. It will be Asia centric. The region has six MDF production facilities. Of these, four are now owned by Asian companies, three in New Zealand, and one in Australia. In 2009, the region produced an estimated 1.2 million m³ of MDF, of which 44% was exported.

Of the three facilities in Australia, the 145,000m³ capacity plant at Wangaratta, New South Wales, is owned by Sumitomo (Japan), the 260,000m³ plant at Oberon, New South Wales, is owned by Carter Holt Harvey (New Zealand), and a 230,000m³ plant at Gympie, Queensland, is owned by (Laminex) Fletcher Wood Panels (New Zealand). Production in 2009 in Australia was 600,000m³ of which 30% was exported, mainly to China, South Korea and Japan.

Of the three facilities in New Zealand, the 220,000m³ capacity plant in Rangiora is owned by Daiken and Itochu (Japan), the 170,000m³ capacity plant in Mataura is owned by Dongwha (South Korea), and the 350,000m³ capacity plant in Nelson is owned by Sumitomo (Japan). Production in 2009 was 645,000m³, of which 78% was exported, mainly to Japan, China and the US.

Particleboard industry

While the particleboard industry remains predominantly owned and operated by domestic interests, this is in part a result of lower demand for this product in China, and strong demand from the building industry in Australasia. Australasia has 14 small particleboard production facilities, one in New Zealand and 13 in Australia. Only four plants have a capacity exceeding 100,000m³. In 2009, production was 900,000m³, of which only 2% was exported. A transition to ownership by Asian companies, and exports to Asia is possible, but less likely in this sector, as domestic consumption is strong, and particleboard is less tradeable.

But the wood panels industry, other timber industries, and other sectors in Australasia will in future be driven by the luck of geography as well as good economic management.

About the author

-
Bernie Neufeld, an economist, with graduate degrees in economics and political science from the Universities of Winnipeg and Manitoba in Canada, and the University of Hawaii in the US, is senior manager at BIS Shrapnel, an Australian-based consulting company. He manages the company's globally-oriented forestry programme, and has been analysing and forecasting the forest products industry for the past 20 years.

He has travelled throughout Asia, North America, South America and Europe undertaking private strategic and multi-client studies with a future focus on products such as MDF, particleboard, LVL, glulam, I-joists, sawn timber, plywood, OSB, and strand lumber.

Bernie Neufeld: On Economics and Politics: Prorogueing in the Canadian Federal Government

Bernie Neufeld: On Economics and Politics: Prorogueing in the Canadian Federal Government

Prorogueing in the Canadian Federal Government

Extreme right wing governments seem to have a penchant for mean spiritedness, stretching the limits of the law, and abusing democratic procedures. The Bush administration in the United States with many such questionable actions caused immeasurable damage to the international reputation of the United States. Now Canada is taking a turn at ruining its reputation as a well governed, stable, democratic country, with a federal government that appears to be contemptuous of the people it represents.  The following article from the very conservative magazine, the Economist, is self explanatory (click on title above, to view the original article). It suggests this government is on it's way out.

HARPER GOES PROROGUE

Jan 7th 2010 

Parliamentary scrutiny may be tedious, but democracies cannot afford to dispense with it

CANADIAN ministers, it seems, are a bunch of Gerald Fords. Like the American president, who could not walk and chew gum at the same time, they cannot, apparently, cope with Parliament's deliberations while dealing with the country's economic troubles and the challenge of hosting the Winter Olympic games. This was the argument put forward by the spokesman for Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister, after his boss on December 30th abruptly suspended, or "prorogued", Canada's Parliament until March 3rd.

 Mr Harper's supporters might argue that there is nothing wrong with this. Precedent allows it, and Canada is a decent, well-run place, where much is decided at the provincial level. Since most countries already have too many laws, a pause for parliamentary reflection might count as progress. Some places, such as Texas, manage well with only a part-time legislature. Politicians' ritual slanging matches should not be allowed to distract Canadians from weightier battles, such as the bobsleigh, the giant slalom or round-robin curling. Come to think about it, why not shut down Parliament altogether, perhaps until the economy is growing again at full throttle? At least that would help cut the federal deficit.

The argument that previous prime ministers frequently prorogued Parliament is no more convincing. In almost every case they did so only once the government had got through the bulk of its legislative business. The Parliament that Mr Harper prorogued still had 36 government bills before it, including measures that form part of the prime minister's much-vaunted crackdown on crime. When it reconvenes, those bills will have to start again from scratch. Past prorogations were typically brief (see article[1]). This time sessions will be separated by a gap of 63 days.

Never mind what his spin doctors say: Mr Harper's move looks like naked self-interest. His officials faced grilling by parliamentary committees over whether they misled the House of Commons in denying knowledge that detainees handed over to the local authorities by Canadian troops in Afghanistan were being tortured. The government would also have come under fire for its lack of policies to curb Canada's abundant carbon emissions. Prorogation means that such committees--which carry out the essential democratic task of scrutinising government--will have to be formed anew in March. That will also allow Mr Harper to gain immediate control of committees in the appointed Senate, where his Conservatives are poised to become the biggest party.

Mr Harper has form. He prorogued Parliament last winter, too--to dodge a short-lived threat by the three opposition parties to bring his minority government down. Having gone to the polls three times since 2004 Canadians do not want another election. He might say that governing in a minority obliges him to play fast and loose with parliamentary nicety. He has nursed the economy and he has confounded those who feared that he would impose his supporters' loathing of abortion and liking for the death penalty on a generally tolerant country.

A LEGISLATURE MATTERS MORE THAN THE LUGE.  Mr Harper is a competent tactician with a ruthless streak. He bars most ministers from talking to the media; he has axed some independent watchdogs; he has binned campaign promises to make government more open and accountable. Now he is subjecting Parliament to prime-ministerial whim. He may be right that most Canadians care more about the luge than the legislature, but that is surely true only while their decent system of government is in good hands. They may soon conclude that it isn't.

The Peoples Bank of Australia

Back in April, 2009, I posted a blog suggesting that a government owned and operated bank may be the solution to a more competitive banking sector in Australia (see Banks and Interest Rates). This was in response to the banks not passing on in full the 25 basis point cut in interest rates at the time. More recently several of the banks have passed on more than the rise in interest rates by the Reserve Bank of Australia, as the economy moves into an upswing. This suggests that the system is not as competitive as it should be, or is oligopolistic at best.

On July 8, 2009, less than 3 months after I posted the blog, six "prominent" Australian economists in an open letter to the government, called for a systematic review of the financial system, with a recommendation that an Australian peoples bank should be established by the government to compete with the big four banks, which currently control 80% to 85% of the market in Australia. These six "prominent" economists are reportedly from both sides of the political spectrum, and include Rismarck International CEO Christopher Joye, Professor Stephen King of Monash University and former government advisor Dr. Nicholas Gruen.

They recommend establishing a bank modeled on the "Kiwi Bank", an arm of New Zealand Post. There are of course precedents in Australia and in other countries where highly successful government banks have been established and operated, including the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which was later privatized, the Kiwi Bank, and the Alberta Treasury Branch, a provincial government owned bank that has been operating successfully in Alberta, Canada for many years. It competes very effectively with Canada's major banks.

Christopher Joye has recently suggested that the appointment of Ahmed Fahour, the former head of Australia National Bank, as the new Chief Executive of Australia Post, sets in place the infrastructure to establish a bank as well as a government owned fixed-income superannuation investment plan to compete with retail superannuation. The post office has a network of more than 4,300 outlets, which is more than the number of branches owned by the combined four banks.

The idea of a government owned bank as a competitive force, which I suggested in my blog of April 2009, appears to have support in the economic community. The question now is,will it become a reality, pending the forthcoming election?

The Trials of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Nidal Makik Hasan and other Terrorists

The trials of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other terrorists in New York, and the trial of Nidal Makik Hasan for the terrorist killings at Fort Hood, Texas army base is finally setting the United States back on the constitutional course which it's founding fathers intended it to be on. The United States appears to have been diverted from this path in response to terrorist acts over the past decade.

The United States now must deal with the 911 and Fort Hood terrorists, and those held at Guantanamo Bay, as it's constitution says it should, through the judicial process. Lynch mobs, as media outlets such as Fox appear to be fanning, went out with the wild west. No doubt the 911 and Fort Hood attacks were undertaken by terrorists who have perverted their religion, but starting a religious war with Muslims, a sentiment which some on Fox also appear to be inflaming, plays into the hands of terrorists, will cause a lot more deaths, and is frankly stupid.

These terrorists need to be put through the judicial process and judged as the United States legal system dictates, as was Tim McVeigh, as was the Washington sniper, as the religiously motivated terrorists who plotted to attack an army base in Sydney were convicted through the Australian legal process, and as the Bali bombers were convicted and executed through the Indonesian legal process, a country with the world's largest Muslim population. 

Let the cold, hard hand of the justice system take care of the terrorists, and show potential terrorists that their acts are futile.

Consumption Tax: Coming to the USA

One of the key problems facing the United States economy is a massive fiscal budget deficit. The federal deficit is now estimated to be more than 11% of GDP, the highest since the second world war. Spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a propensity to cut income taxes by the previous administration are key causes of the blowout in the deficit. A wide range of government expenditure programs, including government stimulus programs, and bailouts to combat the financial crisis, have resulted in significant additional expenditure, and proposed new programs such as health care will require further expenditure. This will only add to the federal deficit, unless new forms of revenue are found.

The only solution is to increase taxes. Unfortunately many Americans, particularly those on the right of the political spectrum, resist tax increases. However, a tax levied on consumption rather than income would likely be more palatable to those opposing tax increases. A tax on expenditure rather than income encourages savings, and leaves the tax payer with the option of reducing tax by reducing expenditure.

A tax on all consumption  without exemptions, such as the goods and services (GST) tax in Australia is the best option. All expenditure is taxed, and existing taxes  on consumption (such as sales tax on fuel), which distort consumer behavior can be eliminated, and rolled into the expenditure tax system. The downside of this tax is that it is regressive, and tends to tax lower income earners at a higher proportion of their income. However, targeted expenditure programs and income tax exemptions at the lower end, combined with increased marginal income taxes at the upper end, can offset the regressive nature of the tax.

Consumption taxes are used very effectively to raise revenue in Australia, Canada, Europe, and Japan and would likely be a very appropriate tax given the size of the current federal deficit in the United States. There is no reason that some of the states such as California with significant budget deficits could not also institute a consumption tax to reduce the deficit.

Watch this one, a consumption tax is coming to the USA.

The Politics of "Hell No", Patriotism and Partisanship

The United States, with a new "centrist" administration eager to work across party lines and with a wide range of interests across the globe has a golden opportunity to get it's house in order on the domestic policy front, as well as on the international policy front. The economy, health care, and public finances are key domestic issues that can easily be solved across party lines, as can issues such as poverty, global warming, nuclear disarmament, terrorism, and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unfortunately the extreme right of the Republican Party, which claims to represent the conservative movement in the United States, seems more interested in playing partisan politics, than solving the major problems facing their country and the world.  The focus is on dishonestly using the "communist" and "socialist" bogey to try to discredit a new administration that is centrist and by international standards  "conservative", in order to preserve entrenched interests, rather than to propose solutions to very serious problems. One observer of the recent "tea party" in Washington proudly pointed to his favorite sign which boasted "I'm not with the party of no, I'm with the party of "hell no". Another claimed to be delighted to be with so many American patriots. Others claimed "they" want "their" country back. Some wondered why the press was not covering this momentous event, Fox excepted.

Unfortunately many supporters of the Republican party who claim to be conservative in the United States are not conservative at all. They are right wing extremists, divisive, and destructive. They claim to be patriots, but are partisan. They claim to want freedom and individualism, and to protect their country from terrorists, but in fact their "hell no" attitude creates anarchy and a breeding ground for the Timothy McVeagh's of this world, just as the extreme right wing Taliban in Afghanistan creates a breeding ground for Al Qaeda.

If the conservative movement in the United States wants to again be a powerful political movement, it will need to engage with the serious issues facing their country and the world. It will need to propose solutions, work with, and debate with the current administration, rather than resort to partisanship while claiming to be patriotic, sponsor tea parties that divide, and display signs that glorify their "hell no" attitude. To claim that "they" want "their" country back is a euphemism for claiming "they" want "their" entrenched privileges back, and "to hell" with those who don't have those privileges. They should know that the American people have already taken their country back through the democratic process.

Republican conservatives need to have a "hell yes we can too" attitude, move to the center and propose solutions to serious issues or they will remain at the margin as far as the people, the press and the world community are concerned.

Australia: On top of the Economic World

Australians take great pride in their sporting achievements, and have punched well above their weight in a wide range of sports beyond their inherent world dominance of cricket and rugby. Less noticed is the outstanding "world best" economic performance over the past seventeen (yes 17) years. Since 1992 Australia has not had a recession, even as Asia was gripped by the Asian financial crisis in 1998 and as North America, Europe and most of the industrialized world teetered on the edge of collapse as the United States generated financial crisis hit the world in late 2008.

It is a remarkable achievement, which as the Australian Financial Review points out, has it's genesis in luck and good economic management by both labour (left of centre) and liberal (right of centre) governments. With significant forsight, the labour Hawke-Keating governments reformed the banking sector, liberalized trade and the labour market, and established a compulsory superannuation system in the 1980's. These reforms, as well as very effective countercyclical fiscal and monetary economic management provided the structural basis for withstanding the negative effects of the Asian financial crisis in 1998, and the United States generated world financial and economic crisis that followed a decade later in 2008.

The Howard liberal government in the late 1990's  until the mid 2000's under Treasurer Peter Costello managed to gradually build a huge budget surplus, despite a significant level of spending, thanks in part to minerals trade with China. The surplus was critical to implementing the massive fiscal stimulus program that prevented the economy from sliding into recession in late 2008, when the rest of the world was hit by the United States generated financial and economic crisis. The Rudd labour government acted swiftly with a massive fiscal stimulus program in late 2008, to fight the global crisis, and was instrumental in encouraging China and other countries to follow suite with coordinated fiscal stimulus programs. It worked. Australia avoided a recession, thanks to the quick action of a newly elected liberal democratic government.

Australia is now in the enviable position of having a sound financial and economic basis for continuing it's record of uninterupted economic growth for the foreseeable future. China is Australia's largest trading partner,will likely become the dominant economy in the world in a decade, and will rely on Australia's rich resources to underwrite it's growth.

Luck or good economic management. It doesn't matter. Australia in economics, as in sport, is punching well above it's weight. 

Housing Forecasts: Australia, Canada, United States

There has been much discussion about the differences between the housing markets in North America and Australia. Australia is said to be undersupplied, and North America oversupplied, and therefore the corrections that are coming as a result of the financial and economic crisis are likely to be very different in Australia, with prices not likely to decline in the manner they have in North America.

A quick overview of the stage of the housing cycles in Australia and Canada, with markets similar in size, and the United States, with a significantly larger market than both, suggests that this is likely the case, as there is some variation in the timing of the housing cycle in the three countries.

Australia

In Australia, the housing cycle entered the downturn in early 2005, declining by 13% in the three years to 2007, and finally growing by 4% in 2008, before the upturn was cut short by the global financial and economic crisis. Until 2008, there was very little building in an undersupplied market. Building has been well below underlying demand of around 170,000. A further decline of 17% is likely in 2009, even though there is undersupply. The downturn in construction is a result of the global economic downturn.

Canada

In Canada, building was at historically high levels for the three years to 2008, and the market finally turned down in 2008. It was oversupplied, with building over the three years well above underlying demand of around 175,000. A further decline of 33% is likely in 2009, driven by the global economic downturn and the inherent oversupply. This will be followed by a slow upturn in 2010, and more rapid growth in the three years to 2013. 

United States

In the United States, housing construction declined sharply for a three year period, declining by 65%, a massive decline caused by an oversupply, which in turn contributed to the global financial crisis. There has been significant underbuilding over the past three years, well below underlying demand of around 1.5 to 1.8 million houses annually. A further decline of 27% is likely for 2009, prior to a correction beginning in 2010.


               Housing starts, Australia, North America 2004–2013

	Australia	Canada	United States
Actual:	million units
2004	0.175	0.233	1.956
2005	0.160	0.225	2.068
2006	0.152	0.227	1.801
2007	0.152	0.228	1.355
2008	0.159	0.212	0.983
Forecasts:
2009	0.132	0.142	0.651
2010	0.160	0.150	1.073
2011	0.175	0.174	1.431
2012	0.185	0.195	1.696
2013	0.196	0.214	1.755
Actual:	Annual per cent change
2004	2	7	6
2005	-8	-3	6
2006	-5	1	-13
2007	0	0	-25
2008	4	-7	-27
Forecasts:
2009	-17	-33	-34
2010	21	6	65
2011	9	16	33
2012	6	12	19
2013	6	10	3

Forecasts

It appears that a significant surge is coming in housing construction in the United States, in the three years to 2012, with the market catching up following four years of considerable underbuilding. In Australia, there is also likely to be a sharp upturn as a result of underbuilding, and a cycle that was cut short. In Canada, where the cycle was about to enter a natural downturn, it appears that the upturn will be more subdued, with housing construction rebounding slowly in 2010 and 2011, and strengthening later than in Australia and the United States. All three countries however, are due for an upturn in 2010, and stronger growth over the four years to 2013.

As a leading indicator, housing construction will drive the upturn, which bodes well for strongly growing economies in all three countries from 2010. If housing construction in other major markets such as Europe and Japan moves into the upward phase of the cycle with similar timing to the North American and Australian markets, brace for a strong synchronized global upturn in economic activity over at least four years, starting in 2010.