Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, promulgated four orders that included ‘the full privatization of public enterprises, full ownership rights by foreign firms of Iraqi businesses, full repatriation of foreign profits….the opening of Iraq’s banks to foreign control, national treatment for foreign companies and…the elimination of nearly all trade barriers.’ The orders were to apply to all arenas of the economy, including public services, the media, manufacturing, services, transportation, finance, and construction. Only oil was exempt (presumably because of its special status and geopolitical significance as a weapon of distinctively US control). They also extend, it goes without saying, to the labor market. Strikes are forbidden and the right to unionize restricted. A highly regressive ‘flat tax’ (an ambition long held by the US conservatives) was also imposed. These orders were, as Naomi Klein points out, in violation of the Geneva and Hague Conventions since an occupying power is mandated to guard the assets of an occupied country and has no right to sell them off.
— David Harvey,
Neoliberalism and the Restoration of Class Power (via
newleft)
The economics of Twitter are that they’ve spent about $15 million [of the $40 million they’ve raised]. They have created already a global brand name. Ben [Horowitz] likes to point out that the Bing ad campaign [by Microsoft] is $300 million of advertising. Would you rather own the Bing brand or the Twitter brand?
—
Marc Andreessen (via tedroden)
I guess something in that statement makes sense to me. But the question on how Twitter can generate revenue is still a big one. $300 mil by M$ still has potential (albeit low) of recuperation. Twitter? Can’t imagine how just yet.
Increasing partner income had a highly positive effect on women’s self-reported frequency of orgasm. More desirable mates cause women to experience more orgasms
![unburyingthelead:
Interview: U.N. Undersecretary-General John Holmes
FP: You have warned this year of the growing danger of humanitarian repercussions of climate change. Going into the Copenhagen climate talks next month, what are the priorities from your perspective?
JH: The most important thing from our point of view is for people to understand that climate change is a not a future threat; it is a real current issue for many countries and people. I have lost count of the number of African [government] ministers who have come into my room and said, “Yes, we have had floods before, but never like this. The farmers don’t know what to do.”
There needs to be a recognition that the humanitarian consequences of climate change are with us now and they will only get worse. The negotiation in Copenhagen needs to concentrate not only on mitigation of emissions, but also on helping countries adapt to climate change.
I think we have succeeded in the last year in getting the message across to the negotiators. The reality is, if there is not a significant adaptation fund, the developing countries won’t sign up [to the agreement].](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kso3mzLAwZ1qzn9e3o1_400.jpg)
