Translate

Showing posts with label globalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label globalization. Show all posts

Friday, January 02, 2026

From Fossil Fuels Dependence to Shared Futures: What Venezuela’s Pivot Teaches Us, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

 From Fossil Fuels Dependence to Shared Futures: What Venezuela’s Pivot Teaches Us

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

January 2, 2026

Venezuela’s recent decision to block oil exports to the United States while prioritizing markets in Asia marks a significant moment in global political economy—one that mainstream U.S. media have only partially addressed. A particularly clear and illuminating explanation is offered in the video published on December 31, 2025 titled, ¡Última hora! Venezuela bloquea exportaciones de petróleo a EE. UU.: lo que los medios no contarán (Breaking News! Venezuela Blocks Oil Exports to the U.S.: What the Media Won’t Tell You) by THAN Noticias, which situates this move within the broader context of U.S. sanctions, energy geopolitics, and a shifting multipolar world (THAN Noticias, 2024).

Read through this lens, Venezuela’s oil pivot is not simply a story about energy markets or foreign policy. It is a reminder that we live in an era of shared futures—in which sanctions, climate decisions, migration flows, and economic instability do not stop at national borders, but circulate through communities, classrooms, and institutions far from their point of origin.

As the analysis explains, decades of U.S. reliance on Venezuelan heavy crude—especially by Gulf Coast refineries designed for it—have been disrupted not simply by market forces, but by sustained sanctions that have failed to produce regime change even as it resulted in enormous suffering by Venezuelans, prompting millions to migrate to other countries, including the United States—demonstrating how policies framed as “foreign” quickly become domestic realities in societies shaped by shared economic and human futures.

Weisbrot & Sachs (2019) offer an excellent scholarly analysis on the complexity of responses to sanctions by targeted countries. Reviewing the evidence from the Global Sanctions Data Base, they find broad agreement that sanctions tend to reduce trade, investment, growth, and stability in target states, with effects that can persist long after sanctions end—but that these harms do not reliably translate into political compliance. Targets frequently respond by diverting trade and finance to third countries, shielding favored firms, forming new alliances, and sometimes retaliating—adaptation that can dilute sanctions’ leverage.

In this vein, Venezuela has redirected exports toward China and India, diversified its trading partners, and increasingly conducted transactions outside the U.S. dollar. This outcome reflects a broader pattern identified in the research literature: sanctions often incentivize adaptation and realignment rather than political compliance.

Why should an education blog care? Education is one of the primary institutions where shared futures are either acknowledged or denied—where students learn to see global crises either as someone else’s problem, or conversely, as collective challenges requiring cooperation, historical understanding, and ethical responsibility. One also learns how power operates through ostensibly technical—frequently blunt—policy tools, offering educators concrete case studies for teaching policy analysis, political economy, and global inequality.

Most importantly, this moment underscores two urgent imperatives. First, all nations—including the United States—must accelerate investment in clean and renewable energy technologies. Continued dependence on fossil fuels entrenches geopolitical conflict while delaying the climate transition that future generations will inherit. Second, sustainable global futures require diplomacy grounded in empirical evidence and mutual respect rather than coercion alone. 

Education has a vital role to play here: preparing students not only to understand these systems, but to imagine and build alternatives rooted in cooperation, sustainability, and shared responsibility in an increasingly multipolar world. Hence, despite sanctions, what impacts Venezuela impacts all of us in the U.S.

Disclaimer: I am not an economist so if I've missed anything or if anyone has anything to add, by all means state in the comment box below. Abundant thanks to Dr. Tony Baez for sharing this video with me. I had been meaning to look into this. I'm glad that I did. Happy New Year, everyone!

References

Global Sanctions Data Base. https://www.globalsanctionsdatabase.com/

THAN Noticias. (2024). ¡Última hora! Venezuela bloquea exportaciones de petróleo a EE. UU.: lo que los medios no contarán [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyb53JhDvX0

Weisbrot, M., & Sachs, J. D. (2019). Economic sanctions as collective punishment: The case of Venezuela. Center for Economic and Policy Researchhttps://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04.pdf


Friday, June 18, 2021

How the Economy Really is Rigged Against You by Umair Haque

Journalist Umair Haque is right in calling out exploitation and greed.  Money is definitely "locked up" among the rich and they still want more, resulting in stagnant incomes. Their greed is at once insatiable and at everybody else's expense. Dean Baker takes an in-depth look at this in his text titled, Rigged: how globalization and the rules of the modern economy were structured to make the rich richer. Center for economic and policy Research.

What both Baker and Haque leave out of their analyses is how people of color and women are disproportionately impacted by these harmful trends. When will this country ever address the gender-pay gap, for example? 

Hence, an ongoing need for intersectional approaches to the study of economy.

-Angela Valenzuela

How Corruption, Greed, and Ideology Made America the World’s First Poor Rich Country



by Umair Haque June, 2021 Medium.com

There’s a fact of modern life that’s as simple as it is grim. The economy is rigged. Yes, really. Against you — at least if you’re 99% of people. Here are ten precise ways how — after a quick discussion of what “the economy’s rigged” really means.

The meaning of this now ubiquitous catchphrase is worth examining. “The economy’s rigged” doesn’t just mean something minor, like paying a bill is annoying — it means, effectively, something at the level of a society, the lives in it, their fates, something like: “working hard doesn’t pay off. No matter what you do, odds are that you can’t get ahead. Building a minimally good life for yourself and your family has become next to impossible.” Let’s take a moment to evaluate this claim. It’s any of that really true? If we do, the ways in which the economy’s rigged will fall naturally out of the answer.

Saturday, February 06, 2010

Science Education Across Borders

Why academic globalization should be welcomed, not feared.

By: Ben Wildavsky | New York Academy of Sciences Magazine
January 13, 2010

For several years now—and not for the first time in our nation's history—CEOs, politicians, and education leaders have regularly decried the shortcomings of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education in America's elementary and secondary schools. And they have vigorously promoted a reform agenda aimed at tackling those problems.

But what about our colleges and universities? On the one hand, America's research universities are universally acknowledged as the world's leaders in science and engineering, unsurpassed since World War II in the sheer volume and excellence of the scholarship and innovation they generate. On the other, there are signs that the rest of the world is gaining on us fast—building new universities, improving existing ones, competing hard for the best students, and recruiting U.S.-trained PhDs to return home to work in university and industry labs. Should we be worried?

There is no question that the academic enterprise has become increasingly global, particularly in the sciences. Overall, nearly three million students now study outside their home nations—a 57 percent increase in the last decade. In the United States, by far the largest magnet for students from overseas, foreign students now dominate doctoral programs in STEM fields, constituting, for example, 65 percent, 64 percent, and 56 percent, respectively, of PhDs in computer science, engineering, and physics. Tsinghua and Peking universities together recently surpassed Berkeley as the top sources of students who go on to earn American PhD's.

Faculty are on the move, too: Half the world's top physicists no longer work in their native countries. And major institutions such as New York University and the University of Nottingham are creating branch campuses in the Middle East and Asia—there are now 162 satellite campuses worldwide, an increase of 43 percent in just the past three years. At the same time, growing numbers of traditional student "sender" nations, from South Korea, China, and Saudi Arabia to France and Germany, are trying to improve both the quantity and the quality of their own degrees, engaging in a fierce—and expensive—race to create world-class research universities.
Brain drain & competition

All this competition has led to considerable handwringing. During a 2008 campaign stop, for instance, then-candidate Barack Obama spoke in alarmed tones about the threat such academic competition poses to the United States. "If we want to keep on building the cars of the future here in America," he declared, "we can't afford to see the number of PhD's in engineering climbing in China, South Korea, and Japan even as it's dropped here in America."

Nor are such concerns limited to the U.S. Beyond anxious rhetoric, in a number of nations worries about brain drain and educational competition have led to outright academic protectionism. India and China are notorious for the legal and bureaucratic obstacles they erect to Western universities wishing to set up satellite campuses catering to local students. And some countries erect barriers to students who want to leave: The president of one of the prestigious Indian Institutes of Technology effectively banned undergraduates from taking academic or business internships overseas. Elsewhere, educators institute quotas on foreign students, as in Malaysia, which places a five percent cap on the number of foreign undergraduates who can attend the country's public universities (just as the University of Tennessee once placed a 20 percent cap on the percentage of foreign graduate students in each department). Perhaps the silliest example of this protectionist mentality can be found in Germany, which for years prevented holders of doctorates earned outside the European Union from using the title "Dr." Even a recent reform plan would extend that privilege only to holders of doctorates from 200 U.S. research universities and a limited number of universities in Australia, Israel, Japan, Canada, and Russia.

There are other impediments to global mobility, too, not always explicitly protectionist, but all having the de facto effect of discouraging or preventing open access to universities around the world. In the post-9/11 era, for example, legitimate security concerns led to enormous student visa delays and bureaucratic hassles for foreigners aspiring to study in Great Britain and the United States. As the problem was recognized and visa processing was streamlined, international student numbers rebounded and eventually increased.

By 2009, however, visa delays became common again, particularly for graduate and postdoctoral students in science and engineering, who form the backbone of many university-based research laboratories and thus serve as key players in the U.S. drive for scientific and technical innovation. Then there are severe limits on H-1B visas, which allow highly skilled foreigners, usually in science and engineering, to work temporarily in the United States and serve as an enticement for the best and brightest to study and perhaps remain here. With just 85,000 or so H-1B visas issued each year—and permanent-resident visas for skilled workers also scarce—waiting lists are long, which sends some talented students elsewhere.

Perhaps some of the anxiety over the new global academic enterprise is understandable, particularly in a period of massive economic uncertainty. But setting up protectionist obstacles is a big mistake. The globalization of higher education should be embraced, not feared—including in the U.S. In the near term, it's worth remembering that, despite the alarmism often heard about the global academic wars, U.S. dominance of the research world remains near-complete. A RAND report found that almost two-thirds of highly cited articles in science and technology come from the U.S. Seventy percent of Nobel Prize winners are employed by U.S. universities, which lead global college rankings. And Yale president Richard Levin notes that the U.S. accounts for 40 percent of global spending on higher education.
Free trade in minds

That said, it's quite true that other countries are scrambling to emulate the American model and to give us a run for our money. Yet there is every reason to believe that the worldwide competition for human talent, the race to produce innovative research, the push to extend university campuses to multiple countries, and the rush to produce talented graduates who can strengthen increasingly knowledge-based economies will be good for us as well. Why? First and foremost, because knowledge is not a zero-sum game. Intellectual gains by one country often benefit others. More PhD production and burgeoning research in China, for instance, doesn't take away from American's store of learning—it enhances what we know and can accomplish. In fact, Chinese research may well provide the building blocks for innovation by U.S. entrepreneurs—or those from other nations. "When new knowledge is created, it's a public good and can be used by many," RAND economist James Hosek told the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Indeed, the economic benefits of a global academic culture are significant. In a recent essay, Harvard economist Richard Freeman says these gains should accrue both to the U.S. and the rest of the world. The globalization of higher education, he writes, "by accelerating the rate of technological advance associated with science and engineering and by speeding the adoption of best practices around the world ... will lower the costs of production and prices of goods." Just as free trade in manufacturing or call-center support provides the lowest-cost goods and services, benefiting both consumers and the most efficient producers, global academic competition is making free movement of people and ideas, on the basis of merit, more and more the norm, with enormously positive consequences for individuals, for universities, and for nations. Today's swirling patterns of mobility and knowledge transmission constitute a new kind of free trade: free trade in minds.
Expanding global knowledge

Still, even if the new world of academic globalization brings economic benefits, won't it weaken American universities? Quite the contrary, says Freeman, who predicts that by educating top students, attracting some to stay, and "positioning the U.S. as an open hub of ideas and connections" for college graduates around the world, the nation can hold on to "excellence and leadership in the 'empire of the mind' and in the economic world more so than if it views the rapid increase in graduates overseas as a competitive threat." National borders simply don't have the symbolic or practical meaning they once did, which bodes well for academic quality on all sides. Already, the degree of international collaboration on scientific papers has risen substantially. And there is early evidence that the most influential scholars are particularly likely to have international research experience: Well over half the highly cited researchers based in Australia, Canada, Italy, and Switzerland have spent time outside their home countries at some point during their academic careers, according to a 2005 study.

The United States should respond to the globalization of higher education not with angst but with a sense of possibility. Neither a gradual erosion in the U.S. market share of students nor the emergence of ambitious new competitors in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East means that American universities are on some inevitable path to decline. There is nothing wrong with nations competing, trying to improve their citizens' human capital and to reap the economic benefits that come with more and better education. By eliminating protectionist barriers at home, by lobbying for their removal abroad, by continuing to recruit and welcome the best students in the world, by sending more students overseas, by fostering cross-national research collaboration, and by strengthening its own research universities in science, engineering, and other fields, the U.S. will not only sustain its own academic excellence but will continue to expand the sum total of global knowledge and prosperity.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Latin America Feels Pain of U.S. Housing Slump

Interesting piece which shows how we're all connected.... -Angela

Latin America Feels Pain of U.S. Housing Slump
By JOEL MILLMAN
April 23, 2007; Page A2

OAXACA, Mexico -- The slowing U.S. housing market already has taken a bite out of the U.S. economy. Now, the fallout is spreading to Latin America.

That's because home construction is the principal gateway industry for immigrants entering the U.S. labor market. Those immigrants contribute the lion's share of the estimated $50 billion in cash sent annually from the U.S. to family members and others in countries south of the border. That tide of cash appears to be ebbing.

Monthly remittances from the U.S. to Mexico have dropped every month since their peak of $2.6 billion in May 2006 -- shortly before new-home construction in the U.S. plunged. In February 2007, the latest month for which data are available, remittances to Mexico had slowed to $1.7 billion.

Mexico, Latin America's remittance leader, may be a leading indicator of a trend unfolding across the continent. In a recent study of 15 Latin American economies tracked by BCP Securities of Greenwich, Conn., all but three showed better than a 90% correlation between the ebb and flow of U.S. housing starts and the swelling and shrinkage of remittances as recorded by the nations' central banks.

"The contraction in remittances will dampen domestic consumption and hamper [economic] growth rates" in countries ranging from Mexico to Colombia to those in Central America, said the study's author, BCP Securities economist Walter Molano.

The slowdown could be double trouble for Mexico, where the economy has already started to slow because of weaker growth across a wide array of American industries that depend on Mexico for parts or final assembly. U.S. gross domestic product, the widest measure of economic output, grew at an inflation-adjusted annual rate of 2.5% in the fourth quarter of last year and is widely expected to clock in at about 1.9% for the just-ended first quarter of 2007. (The Commerce Department will report its preliminary estimate of first-quarter GDP on Friday.)

The recent falloff in remittances reverses a long-standing trend in which a slowdown in Mexico's economy led to an uptick in remittance revenue as Mexicans migrated north to replace jobs lost at home, Morgan Stanley's chief Latin America economist Gray Newman says.

But with U.S. housing market slowing, that safety valve may close. "If continued, Mexico's consumers could find themselves with less of a shock absorber, which has helped smooth out business cycles in recent years," Mr. Newman wrote in a report last week.

Record low unemployment during the Clinton years helped draw undocumented Mexican workers, then mainly employed in agriculture, into construction and other service industries. With the housing boom, wage differentials, which used to favor farm work, started to tilt toward the building trades, attracting even more labor from Mexico.

Data showing what appear to be fewer illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border adds to the evidence of a housing-related plunge in remittances. Apprehensions of attempted crossers are down just over 10% during the first quarter of this year from the same period in 2006, according to federal law enforcement. The Bush administration claims the decrease is because of tighter border security. But those on the Mexican side say traffic has slowed for a simpler reason: There are fewer jobs waiting for those who make it across.

The pain of a U.S. housing slump affects people such as Donato Diaz in the tiny village of Santa Gertrudis Zimatlan, in southern Oaxaca state. He returned from the U.S. in 2000 after spending more than a decade building homes in California's sprawling suburbs. Mr. Diaz used the money he made there to build his own construction-supply store. However, its fortunes depend heavily on cash transfers from Mexicans still working up north to family members here, who use the money to improve their homes.


Mr. Diaz's business is suffering now. In 2003, he says, he bought a dump truck to haul sand to construction sites. During the past few years, the truck made seven or eight deliveries a day. Now? "We do two loads a day," Mr. Diaz says with a sigh.

Between 2000 and 2006, almost 20,000 Hispanic laborers entered the U.S. construction work force in just one occupation: cement mason. Another 72,000 became drywall hangers and 140,000 more as painters, according to figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The vast majority of these new job holders were foreign-born and crossed the border illegally, according to the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.

As housing starts slow, recent hires on construction sites are the first to lose their jobs -- and the first to warn relatives back home not to bother with a risky border crossing until the job picture improves. How many Mexican workers have lost their jobs? Most immigrants send an average of $1,000 a month back home, and Mexico's remittances are down by about $600 million, representing earnings from about 600,000 workers.

Many of these workers rely on day-to-day employment through small, family-owned subcontractors, whose hirings and firings don't surface in overall job-loss statistics.

Trouble in the U.S. housing market could also affect other industries staffed by immigrant labor. The carpet industry, for instance, is dominated by various nationalities at different points in the chain: Many Mexican workers are employed in factories that make rugs, Central Americans dominate the carpet-installation business and Brazilians have carved out a niche in rug cleaning.

Little wonder, then, that remittances from the U.S. are dropping off almost everywhere in Latin America. Brazil received $330 million in remittances from the U.S. in February compared with about $446 million per month on average a year ago. Monthly remittances to Guatemala, which peaked last May at $361 million, dropped to $271 million in February.

The slowing housing market also weighs on remittances in other ways. U.S. homeowners are likely to compensate for rising mortgage payments by cutting back on services that employ large numbers of immigrants, such as housecleaning, landscaping and laundry. Homeowners may also cut out frills such as visits to restaurants and beauty salons, big employers of immigrants.

As Gordon Hanson, a labor economist at the University of California at San Diego puts it: "Among nonessential expenditures that higher mortgage payments might eliminate, getting the nails done might be at the top of the list."

Write to Joel Millman at joel.millman@wsj.com1

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117728927909778544.html

Policy of Balkanization can be a slippery slope

Very interesting commentary on globalization, immigration, and "balkanization" policy. -Angela

Mansour El-Kikhia: Policy of Balkanization can be a slippery slope
Web Posted: 04/26/2007 06:35 PM CDT


San Antonio Express-News

The term Balkanization refers to the policy dividing a region or a body
"into mutually hostile states or groups."

It was first employed by the European powers after World War I to break up
the Ottoman Empire into modern nation-states. And while they succeeded in
creating the state, the major obstacle that doomed the policy was their
inability to create the nation.

The Ottomans allowed for free movement of people in their empire. Turks,
Bulgars, Croats, Serbs, Armenians, Arabs, Kurds, Greeks and a host of
other nationalities were able to live in close proximity to each other. In
some instances, it was possible to carve out swaths of territory with
homogeneous populations, but that was a rarity. Few countries in the
Balkans are homogeneous in spite of years of war and, in some instances,
violent ethnic cleansing.

Lately we have been hearing more voices advocating the Balkanization of
the Middle East by applying it first to Iraq. The argument that Iraq was
made up of three separate states that Winston Churchill put together is
farcical. Long before the British Empire, there was an Iraq with Baghdad
as its capital, as there was a Syria with Damascus as its capital. Cairo
or Al-Fustat has been the capital of Egypt for more than 1,000 years. I
need not talk about Palestine, Yemen or Arabia.

The Middle East and other countries of the world were not a British,
French or European invention. Many of those communities were already there
but not along the lines drawn by the British or French. Indeed, the
imposition of a European vision on the global structure, and the redrawing
of many of the borders, was the genesis of many of the problems the world
is now experiencing.

The world is changing, and globalization is rapidly changing Europe and
the United States. Many in both societies believe they are under siege.
And they are right.

Europe and the United States are undergoing transformations that will
fundamentally change their societies. Africans are moving in droves to
southern Europe. All attempts at limiting their migration have failed, and
for the first time in European history, Europeans are forced to meet these
new immigrants on their own terms. We now have offspring of Arabs,
Africans and Indians, as well as other nationalities, born in European
countries and holding full rights but not the same culture or worldview.

The same is true for the United States. Samuel Huntington argued the
United States is being overrun by Latinos. He is right; Latinos are
reclaiming the southern part of the United States. California now has a
Latino majority, and Texas and Florida are soon to follow. Latinos have
become a huge, influential minority demanding respect and equal rights.

For many years, the United States used and abused its southern neighbors.
It siphoned resources, never anticipating that it would also acquire the
population. And while there are those who complain about the influx of
Latinos into the United States and want to set up fences and walls,
American agri-business is complaining that it is facing huge shortages in
produce pickers, and the American construction industry is screaming about
the shortage of construction labor.

Wall or no wall, Latinos are here to stay, and the sooner the United
States recognizes them as citizens of this community the better off it
will be. It will not be the nation of the 19th century but of the 21st
century with a multicultural, multicolored population.

Huntington, get over it. And the same goes to fascist politicians in
Europe: You are not going to send back immigrants, so you had better learn
to appreciate their foods, tastes, cultures and looks.

Only one or two countries in the world are capable of reversing this
trend, and that is due to an abundance of people. China is literally
reoccupying areas where Chinese are a minority for fear of multicultural
influences. Indeed, the Chinese government is moving waves of Chinese
among the Uyghur of West China, as well as in Tibet and all surrounding
areas. Uyghurs and Tibetans will soon vanish as indigenous peoples.

However, a question that continues to nag me is how willing those people
calling for the Balkanization of the Middle East will be in advocating the
Balkanization of Europe and the United States.