India’s $74 million Mars mission cost less than ‘Gravity’ movie

By Charles Riley  @CRrileyCNN

While some critics take issue with the government’s use of public funds on space exploration instead of social problems, Modi now has yet another space triumph to tout. Only the U.S., Russia and Europe have successfully executed Mars missions; China and Japan have failed.

It’s difficult to overstate just how little money the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) has to work with. The agency’s annual budget for this fiscal year is only $1.2 billion, while NASA has a budget of around $17.5 billion.

ISRO is able to save money by using short development cycles, and taking advantage of India’s cheap labor market. Highly-skilled aerospace engineers in the country might receive a salary of $1,000 per month, a fraction of what the same workers would be paid in Europe or the U.S.

Read Full Article

Have We Reached the End of Globalization?

Post by: 

For much of the last thirty years there has been a steady trend in commerce: global trade has expanded at about twice the pace of the global economy. For example, between 1988 and 2007, global trade grew on average by 6.2 percent a year according to the World Trade Organization. During the same period, the world’s GDP was growing at nearly half that pace: 3.7 percent.

But a strange thing has taken place in the last two years. Growth in global trade has dropped dramatically, to even less than GDP growth. The change leaves one wondering: has the incredible transfer of goods around the world reached some sort of pinnacle? Have we exhausted the drive toward ever-more-globalization?

It’s a fascinating thesis. The world has seen historic developments in the last few decades: the internet, China’s opening up, the rise of emerging markets, fast and cheap travel…all of these trends led to a massive acceleration in global trade.

But have those trends peaked? Could the next big invention, say, 3-D printers, end the need for more and more trade? Imagine a world where you need a new faucet in your restroom. Instead of going to the local store that sells faucets made in China (which contributes to global trade) now you just print out your own faucet, sitting at home or at a local store. Are people also getting more interested in local products compared to global brands.

Joshua Cooper Ramo points out in an essay in Fortune that localism is one the rise – local banking, local manufacturing, and even local sourcing for food and restaurants. Is this simply a pause or could it be more than that? The answer will depend on politics.

The last time the world saw a consistent period where the growth of global trade lagged behind global growth was in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. One factor was the rise in protectionist policies – as a response in many cases to the Great Depression and the disruption of the gold standard. At one point, under what was known as the Smoot-Hawley tariff, the United States government began imposing import duties of around 60 percent. The move was aimed at protecting domestic farmers, but instead, it exacerbated the depression. It led to a steep drop in trade, and a wave of counter protectionist measures by other countries.

The world has learned its lessons from the Great Depression. But perhaps not as well as it should have.

According to the independent think tank Global Trade Alert, we’re in the midst of a great rise in protectionism. In the 12 months preceding May 2013, governments around the world imposed three times as many protectionist measures than moves to open up. Anti-trade policies are at their highest point since the 2008 financial crisis. According to the Petersen Institute, the rise of these measures cost global trade 93 billion dollars in 2010.

There might be some good news on this front. Last month, the World Trade Organization passed a deal to cut red tape in customs. It’s a small start, and there is a lot more to accomplish. Globalization and trade have produced huge benefits for people, especially the poor, who have been able to make their way out of poverty in a faster growing and more connected global economy. But globalization won’t continue by accident or stealth – politicians will have to help make it happen.

Saving Europe’s banks: EU gets landmark deal

European Union leaders meeting in Brussels Thursday will sign off a compromise deal hammered out overnight by their finance ministers after months of difficult negotiations. It will then go to European lawmakers for final approval before May 2014.

The banking union is central to the eurozone’s response to future financial crises.

The aim is to stop bank collapses from trashing national economies — a fate Ireland suffered in 2010 — and destabilizing the euro. By establishing a common set of rules for managing failing financial institutions, the EU hopes to avoid the kind of chaos seen in Cyprus this year.

So what exactly does it mean, and how will it work?

The first step, agreed a year ago, was to set up a common regulator for the eurozone’s biggest banks.

A Single Supervisor: The EU agreed in December 2012 to give the European Central Bank responsibility for supervising the eurozone’s biggest lenders. It will oversee some 85% of eurozone bank assets. Smaller banks will continue to be regulated by national authorities.

As supervisor, the ECB will able to force banks to raise more capital if needed. But before the central bank takes up its new role in November 2014, it wants a clearer picture of the risks the banks are carrying and their resilience to economic shocks.

Related: EU fines banks record $2.3 billion over Libor

To that end, it began reviewing the quality of the assets held by 128 banks across 18 countries, including major players such as Deutsche Bank (DB), Santander (SAN)and Unicredit (UNCFF)in October. The review will culminate in a series of stress testsnext year.

ECB President Mario Draghi hopes the tests will lift a cloud of suspicion hanging over European banks and encourage more lending to businesses and households.

Read more here (CNN Money)