The Chávez Spiral

By Roger F. Noriega  |  Forbes.com 
Monday, January 11, 2010

 

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez is losing altitude fast. Since his election in 1998 he's proved a deft manager of chaos--an oil strike, fierce political opposition, an army rebellion, food shortages, etc. He has been kept aloft by doling out oil revenues to satisfy the poor majority that forms his loyal base, to blunt the effects of economic mismanagement and to buy off the military and collaborating oligarchs, who reap the benefits of government sweetheart deals.

With petroleum prices down around $71 a barrel from a high of $147 the Venezuelan government is struggling to make up for the revenue shortfall to save programs that placate the poor by providing cheap food, fuel and other government giveaways. Making matters worse, the once mighty Venezuelan petroleum industry has been laid low by politicization, corruption and mismanagement; rather than producing 3.3 million barrels per day, industry analysts believe the production is closer to 2.3 million. Instead of maximizing profits by producing its quota, Venezuela's state-run oil fields are either underperforming or have collapsed altogether. Refining capacity also is in steep decline so Venezuela must import gasoline to meet internal needs--buying it at the market rate, selling it to domestic consumers at the much lower subsidized price and eating the difference.

Since late November, the Venezuelan state has had to intervene in about 10 banks, several of which were operated by Chavista cronies. These banks were favored by the regime to handle billions in Venezuelan government deposits. According to published accounts, these alleged crooked bankers were supposed to squirrel away these billions for Chávez, his family, government ministers, loyal military officers and other accomplices of his criminal regime. Instead, they stole and squandered the funds and came under the watchful eye of international regulators who have begun to freeze accounts in foreign banks. Chávez has moved in to scrape what is left of the cash and control the damage to the banking sector.

As for life itself, Caracas has become by far the most dangerous city in South America. . .

These related crises are mounting; the economy shrank 3% last year, inflation has risen to at least 25% today and the regime is running out of band-aids.

On Saturday, Chávez was forced to order a drastic devaluation in the national currency, which he hopes will relieve the government's budget woes. Under his plan, some basic necessities are supposed to remain available at a lower exchange rate, with other goods becoming twice as expensive. Critics say this dual system invites corruption and distorts the marketplace, while inflation is expected to rise another 3% to 5% and consumers will find it increasingly difficult to obtain imported goods.

Adding to the economic crisis is a drastic shortage of electricity. Last month Chávez ordered a rationing scheme after the state-run power company predicted a "national collapse" in April. He blames the crisis on a drought that has sapped the country's hydroelectric plant in the Guri Dam on the Caroní River. The problem is petroleum-fueled generators are failing too, with turbines lacking adequate fuel or shut down in disrepair. The electricity shortage is the result of gross mismanagement and underinvestment in the power sector to meet demand that has grown by 40% since 2002. Some experts say an $18 billion, multiyear modernization is required just to meet current needs.

The Venezuelan people also are enduring routine food shortages due to price controls that have discouraged domestic production and Chávez's repeated interruptions in trade with neighboring Colombia, upon which Venezuelans are increasingly dependent for consumer goods. With the blackouts disrupting domestic production and the currency devaluation, Venezuelans can expect increasing scarcity of the basic necessities of life.

As for life itself, Caracas has become by far the most dangerous city in South America; In September 2008 Foreign Policy magazine listed it among the "murder capitals of the world," noting that the homicide rate had grown by 67% since Chávez took power, even according to suspect official statistics. Chávez governs through cronyism and corruption to reward his friends and harass his opponents. His regime also conspires with drug traffickers who fuel criminal gangs that prey on innocent Venezuelans. This culture of lawlessness has gutted the police force and courts and undermined the quality of life of every citizen, rich or poor.

In the past, Chávez has been able to throw money at problems--to placate a restless public, suborn the military, turn out loyal mobs or overwhelm an opposition campaign. However, it is impossible to rebuild massive power generators, a professional police force, honest courts, crumbling roads and bridges from one day to the next. It also would take years to restore private food production and transportation capacity, even if the regime were to reverse its relentless hostility to the free market.

Although the Venezuelan people have found life increasingly unbearable, many of them have come to depend on the patronage of a strong state or remain suspicious of the traditional political leaders who have yet to present a viable alternative to Chávez.

While the regime scrambles to deal with the crises of its own making, this would be an opportune time for the democratic opposition to issue a pledge to restore Venezuela:

• The rule of law must return, beginning with an offensive against crime, the professionalization of the police and the courts and accountability of the state before the people.
• International giveaways to Chávez's client states must end, and funds should be returned to the Venezuelan people.
• Billions in stolen revenues must be recovered, which shall be used to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure and to restore the oil industry.
• Collusion with drug traffickers, terrorist groups and criminal gangs that are waging war against Venezuelans and their neighbors must stop.
• Military and other security officials must be loyal to the nation rather than a destructive political project.
• Cubans, Iranians and other foreigners who are exploiting Venezuela must leave the country.
• No young Venezuelan should lose his or her life to wage war with Colombia, and peaceful ties will be cultivated with all democratic nations.
• A government of national unity, reconciliation and reconstruction must be built upon free and honest elections, beginning with election of a new National Assembly this year.

The only thing worse than a dictator is an incompetent one. Every day, more Venezuelans must recognize that that the current systemic crisis is unbearable, unsustainable and, if they say so, unnecessary. Chávez's engines are sputtering--the only question is whether Venezuelans are prepared to crash and burn with his regime.

Roger F. Noriega is a visiting fellow at AEI

Why AIPAC Took Over Brookings

by Grant F. Smith / November 21st, 2007

The following is an excerpt from Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee From the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal

Martin Indyk, an Australian and naturalized US citizen, is the former deputy director of research at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Indyk helped establish the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1984 with the support of AIPAC board member and activist Barbi Weinberg. Weinberg “had for over a decade privately wrestled with the idea of creating a foreign policy center.”¹ After the establishment of WINEP, Indyk stated that he was still dissatisfied and wished to establish an institution capable of escaping AIPAC’s reputation as a “strongly biased organization.”¹ Indyk would later go on to found the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. The center was initially funded by a $13 million grant from Israeli dual citizen and television magnate Haim Saban,² famously quoted by the New York Times as saying, “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.”³ He also funded and established the Saban Institute for the Study of the American Political System within the University of Tel Aviv.⁴

WINEP’s role within the AIPAC power constellation is clear. While AIPAC lobbies with brute force for yearly aid allocations and enforces adherence to Israeli doctrine in Congress, WINEP polishes and shines Israeli policy objectives as pure expressions of US foreign policy interests. AIPAC is secretive about its internal deliberations and activities, but the highly sociable WINEP cultivates the image of a serious group of objective “scholars and wonks” deliberating Middle East policies in a rigorously academic fashion. WINEP not only hosts symposiums and conferences, but also conducts closed-door meetings with US politicians and distributes books and other publications rich in toned-down AIPAC ideology.

While AIPAC officials are loath to do live media events, especially with call-in or other potentially interactive audience segments, WINEP analysts and authors are omnipresent across major news- and policy-oriented programs. However, media announcements rarely mention WINEP’s overlap with AIPAC and other members of the Israel lobby or its close connections to Israel, although this would provide listeners and viewers with useful context for understanding the organization’s sophisticated positions. WINEP is also a place for grooming future presidential appointees, and it is perceived as a less controversial and more credible stepping stone to power than AIPAC.

Although AIPAC does not list WINEP as an affiliate in its IRS filings, in 2004 26% of AIPAC’s board of directors were also trustees of WINEP.⁵

WINEP’s ability to place stories that sway American public opinion toward supporting Israeli objectives is quantitatively revealed by analyzing the number of print media stories developed from WINEP content and analysts over a period of five critical years. Access, rather than merit or quality of content, drives WINEP’s news media success, according to former Middle East Studies Association President Joel Beinin:

While Aipac targets Congress through the massive election campaign contributions that it coordinates and directs, Winep concentrates on influencing the media and the executive branch. To this purpose it offers weekly lunches with guest speakers, written policy briefs, and “expert” guests for radio and television talk shows. Its director for policy and planning, Robert Satloff; its deputy director, Patrick Clawson; its senior fellow, Michael Eisenstadt, and other associates appear regularly on radio and television.Winep views prevail in two weekly news magazines,US News and World Report and The New Republic(whose editors-in-chief, Mortimer Zuckerman and Martin Peretz, sit on Winep’s board of advisers). The views of Winep’s Israeli associates, among them journalists Hirsh Goodman, David Makovsky, Ze’ev Schiff and Ehud Ya’ari, are spoon-fed to the American media.⁶

An analysis of major print coverage of WINEP-attributed content between the years 2001 and 2006 reveals that WINEP is not always engaged in a full-on media blitz. Rather, its media power is exercised cyclically as initiatives are strategically “brought to market.” In 2002, WINEP went on the offensive, tying the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US to Israel’s own efforts to subdue Palestinians and making a broad and vitriolic call for a greater US military role in the Middle East. Using the ProQuest print media database citations as an index, WINEP boosted war messaging media placements by 7%. In 2002-2003, AIPAC went into overdrive, secretly working Congress to support the ill-fated invasion of Iraq based on “weapons of mass destruction” and other pretexts. WINEP “analysts” began an all-out media blitz to “substantiate pretexts” and urge a hasty US military invasion of Iraq in the face of global opposition. Dennis Ross, the ubiquitous director of WINEP, eloquently appealed for public rejection of containment and other measures short of immediate US military invasion in a typical Baltimore Sun op-ed on March 13, 2003:

Sooner or later, Mr. Hussein, with nukes, would miscalculate again, making the unthinkable in the Middle East all too likely.

Some might reasonably argue that there are better ways to ensure he does not acquire nuclear weapons. Enhanced containment, with open-ended and intrusive inspections, could prevent Mr. Hussein from acquiring or developing these weapons. True, but is such a regime realistic? When the Bush administration came to power, the existing containment regime was fraying.

The alternative of war has made France a convert to enhanced containment for the time being. It has also provided Mr. Hussein an incentive to grudgingly, and always at the last minute, take the minimal steps required to keep us at bay.

Does anyone believe that in the absence of more than 200,000 U.S. troops in the area Mr. Hussein would be taking even his minimal steps? How long would he continue to “cooperate” if the troops weren’t there? How long would the French insist on intrusive inspections if we weren’t on the brink of war? And how long can we keep such a large military presence in the area?

The unfortunate truth is that we cannot maintain a war footing indefinitely. The paradox is that our large-scale military presence creates the potential to contain Iraq, but it is sustainable neither from our standpoint nor from the standpoint of the region. Either we will use it to disarm Mr. Hussein or we will within the next few months have to withdraw it. And once we began to remove it, several new and dangerous realities would emerge.⁷

The WINEP media placement index reveals a jump from 611 to 672 between the year 2002 and 2003 — a 10% increase in mainly Iraq-invasion-focused media placements.

WINEP Media Placement Index
(Source: ProQuest Print Database Search)

In the post-invasion fallout after public discovery that weapons of mass destruction were not the imminent threat to the US that had been portrayed by WINEP and many other operatives, WINEP saw no need to maintain a “surge”-level media blitz. The mission of getting US troops into Iraq, mirroring Israel’s own occupation of Palestinian territories, had been accomplished.

However, the post-invasion index jump from 430 to 630 indicates that WINEP is again on a mission. It is no secret that the new military objective is Israel’s arch-nemesis, Iran. Although the US public is vastly more skeptical about the claims of war partisans, the 47% increase in Iran-centric WINEP media placements should be understood as a leading indicator of military conflict in 2008 if WINEP and AIPAC meet their objectives. Given the elite status and political muscle of WINEP trustees, the efforts of AIPAC’s think tank should not be underestimated, especially in an election year. WINEP meets before the entry of a new president to debate and draft the administration’s Middle East “blueprint.” Many WINEP trustees believe that this policy mandate affecting all Americans is the prerogative of its handpicked commission members, including officials of the Israeli military establishment. Brian Whitaker of The Guardian questioned whether any other foreign principal could accomplish the same maneuver.

The Washington Institute is considered the most influential of the Middle East think tanks, and the one that the state department takes most seriously. Its director is the former US diplomat, Dennis Ross.

Besides publishing books and placing newspaper articles, the institute has a number of other activities that for legal purposes do not constitute lobbying, since this would change its tax status.

It holds lunches and seminars, typically about three times a week, where ideas are exchanged and political networking takes place. It has also given testimony to congressional committees nine times in the last five years.

Every four years, it convenes a “bipartisan blue-ribbon commission” known as the Presidential study group, which presents a blueprint for Middle East policy to the newly-elected president.

The institute makes no secret of its extensive links with Israel, which currently include the presence of two scholars from the Israeli armed forces.

Israel is an ally and the connection is so well known that officials and politicians take it into account when dealing with the institute. But it would surely be a different matter if the ally concerned were a country such as Egypt, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.⁸

AIPAC’s influence in the US news media leads to curious and generally unnoticed subsidiary alumni reunions. On June 14, 2007, following a Hamas takeover of Palestinian installations in Gaza, Wolf Blitzer invited Dennis Ross into the CNN situation room to give his perspective on the instability. Customarily, Dennis Ross’s new book and WINEP affiliation were mentioned; AIPAC and the pervasive Israel connection were not. Equally unmentioned were Wolf Blitzer’s former career as a reporter and editor of the Near East Report (AIPAC’s newsletter) in the 1970s or his authorship of a comprehensive apologia downplaying the damage caused to the US by Jonathan Pollard’s spying for Israel in his book Territory of Lies.⁹

Although WINEP’s media influence is growing, compared to other think tanks, AIPAC’s ability to place public policy messages in the news media through WINEP was comparatively limited until 2002. Thanks to a timely “acquisition,” AIPAC and WINEP can now count on broader promulgation of AIPAC policy ideas through the Brookings Institution, one of the oldest and most highly regarded public policy think tanks in the United States.

The Saban Center for Middle East Policy

Brookings Institution Middle East policy research was placed under the direction of former AIPAC deputy director for research Martin Indyk in May of 2002. In an Internet video presenting the Saban Center, Indyk vastly understates both Haim Saban’s biography and his contribution to Brookings by referring to it as merely the “generosity of a Los Angeles businessman.” In 2006, Forbes magazine more accurately described Saban as the 98th richest person in America and the “Egyptian-born, Israeli-raised, now-American cartoon king.”¹⁰Indyk does not, however, understate how assembling hand-picked researchers to produce tightly messaged policy research can be thought of as “a business” in his Saban Center introductory video.

Haim Saban, a, uh, businessman in Los Angeles, came to Brookings with a desire to see us do more work on the Middle East issue. On the issues of the peace process, and terrorism, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and energy issues. And, uh, was prepared to put up the funds to get the center started. Through Haim Saban’s generosity, we are now able to launch a much larger effort to promote innovative policies, research and analysis that brings together the best minds in the business.¹¹

It is useful to carry Indyk’s “business” analogy a bit further. In 2003, Haim Saban led the $5.7 billion purchase of Kirch Media Group; in 2001, News Corporation and Saban sold Fox Family Worldwide for $5.1 billion. Saban was part of an investor group that won the bid for Univision, the biggest Spanish-language media corporation in the United States, in June of 2006. Financially speaking, Saban’s $13 million Brookings investment secured control over one of the most financially robust as well as influential policy think tanks. In 2005, the Brookings Institution’s net assets totaled $269,660,363.¹² From Saban’s perspective as a savvy media player concerned with promoting the policies of Israel’s government, taking over Brookings Middle East policy by launching the Saban Center in 2002 was yet another sound and extremely timely business investment — this time, in the marketplace of ideas. According to 2002 research by media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Brookings led think tanks in total US media influence, measured by the number of policy analyst and report citations appearing in major US media.

Think Tank Share: US Marketplace of Policy Ideas
(Source: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)

By targeting and taking over Middle East policy at Brookings in 2002, Saban and Indyk were able to “leapfrog” AIPAC messaging from second to last in the think tank market (WINEP had only 2%) to first place. Taking over Brookings also made it appear to Americans that there was now an “expert consensus” from “right to left” on the key Middle East policy issue of the year: the US invasion of Iraq on weapons of mass destruction pretexts. Brookings is often portrayed as a “centrist to left think tank” in the corporate news media. According to FAIR, “Progressive or Left-Leaning” media citations were a small but important segment of the marketplace of ideas, but combined with “centrist,” they represented the majority. For Saban and Indyk, taking over Brookings Middle East policy in 2002¹³ meant penetrating the 63% of the marketplace of ideas that was generally not beating a drum for war in Iraq.

US Think Tank Policy by Political Ideology
(Source: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)

The arguments in favor of the Iraq invasion in the many Saban Center articles appearing across major newspapers, such as “Lock and Load” by Martin Indyk and Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research at Saban, did not differ in message from those of AIPAC’s own Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Dennis Ross. It would have been odd if they did, since, like Indyk, Kenneth Pollack worked at WINEP as a “research fellow” specializing on Iraq.¹⁴

Rather, the Bush administration could take the time it needs to “study” the Iraqi declaration, discussing its falsehoods and fabrications with allied governments until it has lined up all the necessary political and military ducks. Once the best case has been made and the preparations completed (probably in a few weeks), President Bush could announce that, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 1441, we and our allies have concluded that Iraq is in material breach of the 1991 cease-fire resolution and therefore the U.S. will lead a coalition to disarm Iraq by force.

If there must be war, this is the best way. The problem with allowing the inspections to play themselves out is that it is a policy based on hope, and as Secretary of State Colin Powell is fond of saying, “hope is not a plan.”

There is real risk in allowing the inspections to run on indefinitely. The longer the inspections go on and find nothing, the harder it will be for the U.S. to build a coalition when we finally decide to take action.¹⁵

The takeover of Brookings Middle East policy by an AIPAC operative and Israeli-American businessman represents an evolution in AIPAC influence over think tanks. From a business perspective, AIPAC has moved from “investment in startups” to “establishing subsidiaries” to the more recent stage of “corporate takeovers and acquisitions.” AIPAC has evolved strategically as a result of success and failure. Financing Dr. Benjamin Shwadran’s highly academic policy research at the Council on Middle East Affairs with Jewish Agency funding laundered through the Rabinowitz Foundation was problematic and nearly crumbled under the glare of Fulbright’s 1963 Senate probe. Even setting up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in 1984 with AIPAC donor funds and board member involvement still did not give AIPAC the desired influence level of other less “captive” think tanks, particularly in the US news media. The takeover of Middle East policy at Brookings achieved what AIPAC had long sought in the marketplace of public policy: prestige, ideological spectrum dominance, and the highest level of achievable corporate media placement for its public policy initiatives. The American people are now more susceptible than ever before to AIPAC’s “weapons of mass destruction” propaganda campaigns and other targeted media messages emanating from its right, left, and center public policy “think tanks.” AIPAC and Saban are apparently convinced that the same messages can be effectively rebranded and simultaneously broadcast from both WINEP and Brookings. “Lock and Load” co-author Kenneth Pollack proved this during media appearances on CNN and Fox News in which he was successfully positioned as a liberal Bush Iraq war critic gradually coming to see the wisdom of the US military occupation, as documented by news watchdog Media Matters:

During the July 30 edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Heidi Collins introduced Kenneth Pollack of The Brookings Institution by saying that Pollack “has been a vocal critic of the administration’s handling of the [Iraq] war, but he says that an eight-day visit has changed his outlook a bit.” Collins also said that Pollack’s “tune is changing a bit” with respect to the war. Pollack went on to discuss how a recent visit to Iraq has left him “more optimistic” about the war. However, while focusing on Pollack’s criticisms of the “handling” of the war, Collins failed to note that Pollack was an influential proponent of the Iraq invasion before it happened, leaving viewers with the impression that Pollack was a war opponent who has become more supportive of the war. Pollack’s 2002 book on the subject was titled The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.¹⁶

Saban and AIPAC can be confident that few of the message’s target viewing population knew about Pollack’s record or key financial backer. They can also count on a new generation of eager AIPAC activists to populate think tanks and congressional offices in coming years thanks to “Saban Training” at AIPAC.

This summer GDI is proud to send two of its members to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Saban Training. On July 22, Joshua Sussman and Jen Sovronsky will travel to Washington, DC for 4 days of intense advocacy training.

The Saban conference is AIPAC’s premier student political leadership training seminar, presented through its Schusterman Advocacy Institute, is held twice each year in Washington, D.C. More than three hundred of AIPAC’s top student activists from over 100 campuses participate in three days of intense grassroots political and advocacy training. During this seminar, students meet with top Washington policy makers, elected officials, and Middle East experts.¹⁷

However, even as Saban advocacy training and activities continue in Washington, the potentially explosive outcome of a criminal trial across the Potomac in the Eastern District Court of Virginia could change the way many Americans view AIPAC.

1. Mark Milstein, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 1991. [↩] [↩]
2. Grant F. Smith, “Israel Lobby Initiates Hispanic Strategy.” [↩]
3. Andrew Ross Sorkin, New York Times, September 5, 2004. [↩]
4. Phyllis Berman, Forbes Magazine, December 8, 2006. [↩]
5. AIPAC Board Members on WINEP’s Board as listed in 2004 IRS form 990 filings include Robert Asher, Paul Baker, Edward Levy, Mayer Mitchell, Larry Mizel, Lester Pollack, Nina Rosenwald, Eugene Schupak, Roseelyne Swig, James Tisch, Larry Weinberg, Tim Wurlinger and Harriet Zimmerman. [↩]
6. Joel Beinin, Le Monde Diplomatique, July 2003. [↩]
7. Ross, Dennis, Baltimore Sun, March 19, 2003. [↩]
8. Brian Whitaker, The Guardian, August 19, 2002. [↩]
9. Territory of Lies: The Exclusive Story of Jonathan Jay Pollard: The American Who Spied on His Country for Israel and How He Was Betrayed [↩]
10. Forbes Magazine, September 21, 2006. [↩]
11. Director’s Introductory Video, Brookings Saban Center Website. [↩]
12. Brookings Institution form 990 filing for its fiscal year ending June 30, 2005. [↩]
13. Brookings Saban Center Website. [↩]
14. Profile of Pollack from the WINEP website archive [↩]
15. Martin Indyk, Los Angeles Times, December 19, 2002. [↩]
16. Media Matters, July 30, 2007. [↩]
17. University of Albany community website. [↩]

7-year plan aligns U.S. with Europe's economy

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER

Rules, regs to be integrated
without congressional review

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Bush and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at a White House summit meeting last April where they launched the Transatlantic Economic Council

Six U.S. senators and 49 House members are advisers for a group working toward a Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union by 2015.

The Transatlantic Policy Network – a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels – is advised by the bi-partisan congressional TPN policy group, chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

The plan – currently being implemented by the Bush administration with the formation of the Transatlantic Economic Council in April 2007 – appears to be following a plan written in 1939 by a world-government advocate who sought to create a Transatlantic Union as an international governing body.

An economist from the World Bank has argued in print that the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market is designed to follow the blueprint of Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, recognizing that economic integration must inevitably lead to political integration.

(Story continues below) WND previously reported, a key step in advancing this goal was the creation of the Transatlantic Economic Council by the U.S. and the EU through an agreement signed by President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – the current president of the European Council – and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at a White House summit meeting last April.

Writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal "Freedom and Union," Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., a member of the TPN advisory group, affirmed the target date of 2015 for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market.

Costa said the Transatlantic Economic Council is tasked with creating the Transatlantic Common Market regulatory infrastructure. The infrastructure would not require congressional approval, like a new free-trade agreement would.

Writing in the same issue of the Streit Council publication, Bennett also confirmed that what has become known as the "Merkel initiative" would allow the Transatlantic Economic Council to integrate and harmonize administrative rules and regulations between the U.S. and the EU "in a very quiet way," without introducing a new free trade agreement to Congress.

Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah

No document on the TEC website suggests that any of the regulatory changes resulting from the process of integrating with the EU will be posted in the Federal Register or submitted to Congress as new free-trade agreements or as modifications to existing trade agreements.

In addition to Bennett, the advisers to the Transatlantic Policy Network includes the following senators: Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; and Gordon Smith, R-Ore.

Among the 49 U.S. congressmen on the TPN's Congressional Group are John Boehner, R-Ohio; John Dingell, D-Mich.; Kenny Marchant, R-Texas; and F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc.

WND contacted Bennett's office for comment but received no return call by the publication deadline.

A progress report on the TEC website indicates the following U.S. government agencies are already at work integrating and harmonizing administrative rules and regulations with their EU counterparts: The Office of Management and Budget, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A step toward world government

The Streit Council is named after Clarence K. Streit, whose 1939 book "Union Now" called for the creation of a Transatlantic Union as a step toward world government. The new federation, with an international constitution, was to include the 15 democracies of U.S., UK, France, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and South Africa.

Ira Straus, the founder and U.S. coordinator of the Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO, a group dedicated to including Russia within NATO, credits Bennett as TPN chairperson with reviving Streit's work "seven decades later."

A globalist with leftist political leanings, Straus was a Fulbright professor of political science at Moscow State University and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations from 2001 to 2002.

The congruity of ideas between Bennett and Streit is clear when Bennett writes passages that echo precisely goals Streit stated in 1939.

One example is Bennett's claim in his Streit Council article that creating a Transatlantic Common Market would combine markets that comprise 60 percent of world Gross Domestic Product under a common regulatory standard that would become "the de facto world standard, regardless of what any other parties say."

Similarly, Streit wrote in "Union Now" that the economic power of the 15 democracies he sought to combine in a Transatlantic Union would be overwhelming in their economic power and a clear challenge to the authoritarian states then represented by Nazi Germany and the communist Soviet Union.

Also writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal "Freedom and Union," World Bank economist Domenec Ruiz Devesa openly acknowledged that "transatlantic economic integration, though important in itself, is not the end."

"As understood by Jean Monnet," he continued, "economic integration must and will lead to political integration, since an integrated market requires common institutions producing common rules to govern it."

Transatlantic Common Market by 2015

Last February, the Transatlantic Policy Network formed a Transatlantic Market Implementation Group to put in place "a roadmap and framework" to direct the activity of the Transatlantic Economic Council to achieve the creation of the Transatlantic Common Market by 2015.

The Transatlantic Economic Council is an official international governmental body established by executive fiat in the U.S. and the EU without congressional approval or oversight. No new law or treaty was sought by the Bush administration to approve or implement the plan to create a Transatlantic Common Market.

The U.S. congressmen and senators are involved only indirectly, as advisers to the influential non-governmental organization.

In a February 2007 document entitled "Completing the Transatlantic Market," the TPN's Transatlantic Market Implementation Group writes, "The aim of this roadmap and framework would be to remove barriers to trade and investment across the Atlantic and to reduce regulatory compliance costs."

The document further acknowledged the impact the Transatlantic Common Market agenda would have on U.S. and European legislators: "The roadmap and framework will necessarily oblige legislative and regulatory authorities in both Europe and the United States to take into consideration from the outset the impact their acts may have on transatlantic economic relations and to ensure that their respective governmental bodies involved have the necessary budgetary and organizational resources to work closely with each other."

Clinton administration roots

The work to create a Transatlantic Common Market can be traced back to the Clinton administration's decision to join in the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda with the European Commission.

Today, the website of the Transatlantic Economic Council openly proclaims the TEC is "a political body to oversee and accelerate government-to-government integration between the European Union and the United States of America."

The first meeting of the TEC was held Nov. 9 in Washington, D.C., and the next meeting is scheduled for June.

A joint statement issued at the Nov. 9 meeting specified progress was being made "in removing barriers to trade and investment and in easing regulatory burdens" in a wide range of policy areas, including drugs and disease control, the importation into the EU of U.S. poultry treated with pathogen reduction treatments, federal communication commissions allowing suppliers to create declarations of conformity for products, uniform standards for electrical products and agreements on standards for pure biofuels.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59713

Rockefeller Amendment Would Strengthen Cost Control in Senate Health Care Legislation

December 17, 2009

Health care legislation currently being debated in the Senate creates a new Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB). The board, not included in the House bill, would be tasked with making recommendations on slowing Medicare cost growth. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) would implement these recommendations unless Congress intervened with legislation to prevent the changes from taking effect. Unfortunately, the current version of this proposal places such severe restrictions on the IMAB that its effectiveness as a cost-control mechanism would be minimal. An amendment offered by Senators Rockefeller (D-WV), Lieberman (I-CT), Whitehouse (D-RI) and Bingaman (D-NM) would remove many of these restrictions and greatly improve the ability of IMAB to fulfill its potential.  

In The Concord Coalition’s view, establishing an independent Medicare review panel such as IMAB is a crucial element for cost control. As we stated in an October 9, 2009 letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV):

“Reducing health care cost inflation over the long-term is an enormous task that is crucial for our future fiscal sustainability. However, the only thing certain about the effort is that we are not certain which mix of policy tools will ultimately be successful in accomplishing the task. Savings from many cost control strategies included in the Senate bills -- such as payment reform, comparative effectiveness research, prevention programs and greater use of health care information technology -- are quite uncertain, involve substantial upfront costs, and at best would take many years to fully materialize. Under these circumstances, it is critical for any health care reform legislation to include a permanent review mechanism with the authority to make recommendations that must be considered by Congress. Enacting such a mechanism would help to ensure that assumed savings are realized, guard against unintended consequences, and provide a means to implement future ‘curve bending’ reforms.”

Health care analysts generally agree that for Medicare cost growth to slow, we will need to reorient the delivery of health care away from fee-for-service payment, which rewards quantity, to paying for value and quality of care. The commission would be an important tool in this effort because it would help to isolate crucial decisions necessary to reorganize delivery and payment systems from interest group pressure and political temptations to micro-manage the entire Medicare program.This firewall is of even greater necessity under the very tight reimbursement levels assumed in the Senate legislation, which would require, at the very least, major efficiency improvements on the part of Medicare providers. These reduced reimbursement levels are likely to be politically difficult to maintain over time. Yet sticking to them will be necessary to meet the legislation’s deficit reduction estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office. Having a back-up mechanism in place to monitor the results and recommend new strategies as needed will be crucial. The IMAB would fill this role. Consisting of experts empowered to review the plethora of delivery system experiments, trials and pilot projects contained in the legislation, it would be able to implement those with the most promise system-wide. Congress would retain the ultimate authority to overturn these decisions, but it could not simply ignore them.

The current version of IMAB, which differs from the version contained in the Senate Finance Committee bill, effectively neuters the Board's powers. Even the original Finance Committee version had troubling restrictions. It stated, for example, that the IMAB could not “restrict” Medicare benefits, “modify” program eligibility, raise taxes or “ration” health care. While Medicare sustainability will likely require some combination of these things, such limitations would not necessarily be a fatal flaw, given that IMAB could still be effective in reorganizing Medicare payment and delivery systems -- also a necessary condition for slowing program cost growth.

Now, however, the commission has had additional limitations placed on it. While the Finance Committee version had already prohibited IMAB from altering reimbursements for doctors and hospitals for the first four years of its existence (2015-2018), the current version likely prohibits the board from even submitting recommendations for anything beyond 2019. That is because recommendations that must be considered by Congress will only be allowed if the five-year average of national health care expenditures grows more rapidly than five-year average Medicare expenditures. This limitation would likely be a de facto prohibition, because of the strict reimbursement schedule for Medicare included in the bill, and the fact that Medicare expenditures historically tend to rise at lower rates than overall health care expenditures. (From 1970-2007 annual per capita Medicare inflation averaged 9.2 percent while the private health care average was 10.4 percent.)

An irony of this formula-based prohibition is that almost the entire cost-control structure of current health care legislation is predicated on the idea that reforms in Medicare can lead the way towards a broader reform of the private health care system. That is because Medicare’s market share and the government’s ability to experiment and alter Medicare makes it an easier vehicle for reform than trying to dictate systemic transformation in the private sector. Yet, with this restriction, IMAB’s ability to change Medicare will instead be stuck waiting for the private sector to somehow restrain costs first. If private sectors costs continue to rise at unsustainable rates, Medicare can too. This turns the rationale of Medicare “leading the way” on its head and makes no sense.

The amendment being proposed by Senator Rockefeller would fix many of these restrictions and lift the board back to a position where it would be poised to encourage rapid innovation in Medicare, suggest similar innovations in the private sector, and serve as a crucial backstop against politically motivated attempts to increase reimbursement levels above that which is fiscally responsible.

The Board would be charged with making proposals annually, meaning even when cost-control targets were met, it could still propose delivery system changes covering the full range of Medicare providers. The commission would also be able to promote similar changes in the private health insurance plans within the newly created insurance exchanges. This additional power might lead to health care cost control throughout the entire economy, not just the federal sector.

This amendment, along with another sponsored by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) that strengthens some of the smaller cost-control ideas contained within the Senate’s bill, would be promising additions to the current legislation. As now written, the legislation barely achieves deficit neutrality over the long term, has a large amount of downside fiscal risk because of the large and certain new insurance subsidies and much less certain offsets to pay for them, and offers uncertain prospects for attacking the fundamental problem of health care inflation and its deleterious role in the country’s long-term fiscal outlook.

PDF Version: 

IMAB_StatementFinal.pdf

''La web ya no me interesa como antes''

El gurú de la industria de las TI, Chris Anderson, cuenta por qué deja de prestarle atención al mundo digital. Dice además que, aunque aún no vislumbramos hasta dónde podrá llegar la tecnología móvil, América Latina será un protagonista de esta industria.

 

Para sus seguidores, las palabras de Chris Anderson podrían ser fuente de escándalo. El editor en jefe de la revista Wired, una de las publicaciones más seguida por los techies de todo el planeta, dice que en realidad no le gusta tanto la tecnología. Al gurú de la industria de las TI, con sus libros The Long Tail y Free, dice que no sabe qué marca de computador usa (es un Dell) y que los gadgets no le llaman la atención.
“De hecho, compro muy pocos productos electrónicos”, dice. Una curiosidad para quien se ha hecho mundialmente famoso por detectar, investigar y escribir sobre áreas de innovación tecnológica destinadas a romper paradigmas en todo el planeta. Anderson, quien vino a América Latina invitado por el empresario argentino Wenceslao Casares, para una reunión anual que organiza en su casa en Chile con emprendedores de toda la región, habló con Felipe Aldunate M., director editorial de AméricaEconomía.
-Comencemos por lo último. Hablemos de la tesis del libro que estás preparando: cambiar los bytes por los átomos. ¿Qué significa eso?
-En los últimos 10 años hemos tenido un experimento colectivo de búsqueda de nuevos modelos sociales online. La red ha sido una experiencia colectiva en búsqueda de innovación y comunicación por fuera de las instituciones. Los próximos 10 años consistirán en aplicar lo aprendido en esto en el mundo real. Y por mundo real me refiero a manufactura. A la industria. Cosas reales. La manera que lo digo en simple es: los átomos son los nuevos bytes. Y es que la base de la economía digital consiste en la construcción de bytes que pueden tomar alcance global. La economía digital nos ha enseñado que podemos hacerlo individualmente, que podemos trabajar por fuera de las instituciones. Construimos el internet siguiendo un modelo post institucional. Ahora esas mismas fuerzas pueden ser aplicadas al mundo real, a las cosa reales basadas en átomos. Y es que internet no sólo democratizó las herramientas para publicar contenidos, las herramientas de la información. Internet democratizó las herramientas de producción.
-Eso suena a la utopía marxista.
-Cada vez me escucho usando más los conceptos de Marx. La manera en que la veo es la siguiente. Veamos: tú y yo estamos en la industria de las publicaciones, los medios de producción para nosotros son computadores, plantas de impresión, toneladas de papel, camiones, kioscos… Necesitabas todo eso para hacer lo que nosotros hacemos. Necesitabas prácticamente una fábrica para hacerlo. Pero internet democratizó los medios de producción de los medios. Hoy todo el mundo puede publicar algo con alcance global. Internet creó nuevos modelos de publicación, nuevas fuentes de competencia y nuevos nichos. Hoy, no obstante, estamos democratizando los medios de producción también, lo que permite no sólo que cualquiera haga una publicación online, sino que cualquiera puede hacer cualquier cosa y llevarla al mercado global. Me explico: hace una década, si querías producir productos electrónicos sofisticados, necesitabas prácticamente ser Sony. Necesitabas tener ingenieros, necesitabas fábricas, necesitabas distribución, acceso a las tiendas minoristas. Hoy, en cambio, puedo hacer cualquier cosa que Sony puede hacer. Puedo hacer mi propio laptop: aprieto algunos botones y las plantas en China van a trabajar para mí.
-Pero, ¿es tan así?
-Este pensamiento se inicia con mi experiencia en una de las compañías en que participo, una pequeña firma de robótica. Hoy nosotros hacemos equipos robóticos, hacemos vehículos que se manejan solos, productos que hace 10 años eran producidos solamente por complejos industriales-militares. Pero ahora nosotros los hacemos con laptops y de forma amateur. Hicimos un proceso opensource (de código abierto), y tenemos a fábricas chinas trabajando para nosotros. Y a veces mandamos a fabricar 10 unidades, otras veces son 100 y otras veces miles. Los distribuimos por sitios de comercio en internet. Nuestro modelo de innovación está basado en la comunidad, un modelo web, en que muchos ingenieros trabajan para nosotros por nada, gratis, voluntariamente, para crear tecnología, no sólo contenido. Y nuestro marketing es el boca a boca. No tenemos infraestructura, no tenemos que levantar dinero…
-¿Qué pasa con las economías a escala? ¿Ya no es una barrera de entrada?
-Nosotros no somos buenos en escala. Y eso está bien. Sony es bueno en escala. Pero Sony es malo para los nichos. Y nosotros somos muy buenos en conquistar nichos. Cosas de la cola larga (concepto de su libro The long tail). Negocios de la cola larga. Cuando hablamos de la cola larga, hablamos de dos tipos de negocios: el masivo y el de nicho. Y todos vivimos en ambos. A veces tú quieres por TV la final del campeonato, y a veces quieres mirar algo que es muy relevante sólo para ti. Lo mismo con las cosas que compras: a veces quieres las cosas que están en el supermercado y otras veces quieres las cosas que no están ahí. Tenemos gustos discriminadores. Y sabemos eso. En algunos aspectos de tu vida eres masa, y en otros aspectos eres nicho. Tus gustos en artes, tus gustos en vino, tus hobbies; hay aspectos de tu vida que no logran ser atendidos por el supermercado local. Antes no tenías elección. Ahora puedes elegir de los Amazons del mundo y puedes escoger cosas de la cola larga. Pero ahora también escoger productos de una nueva clase de productores, microfabricantes, micromanufacturas, que ahora tienen alcance global. Esa es la verdadera novedad. Pequeñas firmas de alta tecnología, pero de alcance global.
-Dame otro ejemplo.
-¿Tienes hijos?
-Sí, tengo un niño de dos años.     
-Dentro de dos años, tu hijo va a entrar al mundo de Lego. Y va a empezar a jugar con los kits tradicionales de Lego. Y cuanto tenga ocho años, si sigue jugando con Lego, como lo hacen mis hijos, va a querer cosas nuevas. Va a querer hacer algo cool y especial. Mis dos hijos, los dos hombres, quieren jugar con cosas de guerra. Así como los videojuegos, las películas, les gusta jugar con las temáticas de guerras. Pero la compañía Lego no aprueba la fabricación de armas. En realidad, en Lego no quieren hacer armas del siglo XX. Hacen espadas piratas o armas láser del futuro, pero nunca han fabricado una ametralladora AK-47. A mis hijos les podrían gustar las AK-47. Bueno o malo, eso es lo que podrían querer. Hay una demanda no atendida por un AK-47 de Lego. Ahí viene la historia de una compañía llamada BrickArms, que es la historia de un tipo como tú o como ellos, cuyo hijo quería un AK- 47 para sus juegos de Lego.
-¿Es un ejemplo real?
-Sí, es un ejemplo real. Su nombre es Will Chapman y lo que tiene en su subterráneo es lo que yo tengo en mi subterráneo: una máquina CMC, que es una máquina de manufactura de escritorio, que puede hacer prototipos de productos basados en diseños que haces en tu computador, usando herramientas gratuitas. Sus hijos crearon en ella pequeños modelos de AK-47. Usando esos prototipos encargaron la fabricación de pequeñas piezas de AK-47 a unas firmas que hacen modelos en plástico. Hicieron tres o cuatro de ellas, los testearon, se los mostraron a la gente y les preguntaron si les gustaban, y luego llamaron a otra firma de plástico donde hicieron otra versión mejorada de las AK-47. Hicieron miles. Y luego tienes un website donde vendes esas pequeñas armas y Will Chapman, el tipo del cual estamos hablando, en 2008, dejó su trabajo de ingeniero de software en una gran compañía, y hoy sostiene a toda su familia gracias a eso...
-Gracias al negocio de las armas… de Lego.
-Más que eso. Él es una micromanufactura que se ubicó en la cola larga de Lego, con alcance global, el cual es un negocio lo suficientemente grande como para sostener a su familia de mejor manera que a través de su puesto de ingeniero de software. Y hay un millón de ejemplos como esos en la industria automotriz, en los muebles… La gente ha trabajado en su garage por siempre, pero ahora ese garage puede transformarse en el centro de un negocio de alcance global, con lo que puede dejar de ser un hobby para ser un negocio real.
 
MURDOCH EN EL CAMINO CORRECTO
-¿Cuando miras al futuro y ves las áreas en que hay desarrollos tecnológicos, qué sector miras con más interés? ¿Qué otro sector de las tecnologías estás mirando con interés por los desarrollos que se vienen?
-Creo que recién estamos empezando a entender el impacto de la tecnología móvil. El que tienes ahí es una Blackberry, ¿no?
-Sí, una Blackberry, ¿qué tienes tú?
-Tengo un iPhone, pero no estoy muy contento con él. Creo que me voy a comprar un Android.
-Hablamos de lo móvil.    
-Sí, déjame darte el ejemplo de un iPhone, que es el caso que conozco mejor. Pensemos primero qué es un iPhone: un iPhone es una plataforma computacional con un conjunto de sensores que te conecta al internet. Tiene una dirección IP. Tiene una cámara y un montón de otras cosas. Tiene un GPS. Con ello, tu locación es conocida por el internet. Eso es un gran puente entre el mundo digital con el mundo real. El hecho de que tengamos en nuestros bolsillos dispositivos que conocen nuestra ubicación, y tienen acceso a la vez al mundo de la información, al mundo de las noticias de exactamente el lugar donde estás, es un mundo que estamos recién empezando a explorar. Hay un par de razones por las cuales la cosa no funciona muy bien por el momento, como que el iPhone no te permite que el GPS funcione todo el tiempo, lo que hace que aún no lleguemos al punto óptimo… Pero creo que location awareness (concencia de la localización) va a ser una fuente de innovación tremenda.
-Miles de dispositivos que conocen la ubicación de sus usuarios…
-Sí. Vamos a EE.UU. y al sistema de tránsito. Tú tienes GoogleMaps en tu teléfono. En Google Maps tienes los mapas y tienes el tráfico. Uno de los mecanismos que Google tiene para conocer el tráfico de una ruta determinada son los dispositivos con GPS, un gran número de personas reportando su ubicación a través de sus teléfonos. Tú puedes ver los teléfonos moviéndose en una autopista. Y cuando los teléfonos se mueven lentamente, es porque hay congestión. Cuando se mueven rápido, es porque no la hay. Esto es lo que se llama  nodos sensoriales en internet. Entonces, tenemos esta cantidad cada vez mayor de información ubicua sobre el mundo que nos rodea en tiempo real.
            
-Aún estamos en una etapa muy temprana en todo esto, ¿no? 
-Cualquier cosa que estemos haciendo en este sentido, estamos recién empezando a hacerlo. Una vez que tienes computadores poderosos, con muchos sensores conectados a internet, se crea un juego totalmente nuevo… Pero ya no miro mucho más la web para buscar innovaciones. Ya no me interesa tanto. Creo que es grandiosa y la uso todos los días, pero es algo que, siento, que ya conseguimos, algo que ya conquistamos. La lección para mí en este punto es que hay un gran mundo allá afuera.
-Bueno, déjame llevarte un poco al tema web de todos modos. Sé que ya estás cansado de estas preguntas, pues cuando hablas con periodistas de seguro siempre te preguntan por el futuro de los medios en la red.
-Sí, solo a los periodistas les preocupa eso, son los únicos que preguntan por eso.
-Escribiste un libro que se llama Free, por gratis, en que hablas de cómo crecen los negocios de manera gratuita en la red. Hoy, no obstante, hay una avanzada de medios masivos, liderados por Rupert Murdoch y el Wall Street Journal, que quieren empezar a cobrar por el contenido en internet. ¿Crees que este movimiento pueda generar un modelo rentable?
-Yo creo que Murdoch está en lo correcto. En la última parte del  libro hablo justamente de por qué él está en lo correcto. Es cuando hablo de freemium (combinar contenido gratuito con contenido de calidad por el cual se paga), y creo que el modelo sí puede funcionar para Rupert Murdoch. Aunque no creo que funcione para todo el mundo. Puede que funcione para AméricaEconomía, puede que funcione para Wired, puede que funcione para Murdoch, pero no creo que sea para todos. Debes ser un medio premium para justificar eso.
-Definamos: ¿qué es un medio premium?
-Un medio premium es un medio diferenciado. Si tienes acceso a información que nadie más tiene, entonces, eres un medio premium. Pero si eres sólo el reportero número 100 en la pista de carrera, entonces, no eres premium. Eso es un commodity. Así que creo que en la parte más alta de la curva, seguro, premium va a funcionar. La pregunta es si  esas suscripciones van a ser suficientes para compensar la caída en la publicidad. No lo sé. Lo vamos a descubrir.
-¿Y puedes ser premium sin pasar por Google?
-Esta iniciativa de Murdoch, de cerrar sus contenidos a Google y abrirlos a Bing, me parece un experimento fantástico. No sé cómo va a terminar, pero si yo estuviera en sus zapatos haría la misma cosa. No obstante, aunque creo que si el modelo de pago funciona, me parece que no va a ser suficiente para las pérdidas que han tenido en las versiones impresas. Necesitas cosas gratis también.
-¿Has pensado en llevar a Wired a un modelo freemium?
-Sí, lo que Conde Nast nos ha pedido es encontrar un camino en el espacio digital que funcione mejor que en la web. Nos encanta la red, es fantástica para comunidades, es fantástica para nichos, es fantástica para la interactividad, pero no estamos haciendo nada de dinero. La llegada de esta nueva plataforma llamada tablets, en realidad- nadie sabe mucho cómo será; hay muchos prototipos, aunque nadie sabe cuál será el más adecuado -quizás Apple hace algo en esta categoría o quizás no-… Nosotros creemos que el iPhone es un adelanto de lo que la nueva plataforma puede llegar a ser. Tendrá una pantalla más grande, no como un laptop y no como un iPhone, sino que algo entremedio, como un netbook, lo suficientemente grande parta trabajar con él, pero mucho más portable y personal que un laptop. Creemos que esto podría despegar. El iPhone es una muestra de que la gente sí quiere un dispositivo que pueda acceder a contenido de medios enriquecido (contenido multimedia) en su bolsillo. La nube (la capacidad de cómputo de máquinas interconectadas) además sugiere que se puede contar con dispositivos más livianos… Estamos en el tiempo para darle forma definitiva, posiblemente a mediados de 2010.
Hemos tratado por 15 años de poner las revistas en el lenguaje digital. Wired fue la primera. Y hemos fallado, fallado y fallado de nuevo. Hemos puesto revistas en la red, pero dejan de ser revistas como solíamos conocerlas. Dejan de ser esas entregas empaquetadas de texto, fotografías, infografía y diseño. No porque no queramos, sino porque el html y los navegadores no te permiten tener todo el control. El tablet puede que permita tener el mismo impacto, el mismo empaquetamiento visual que teníamos en papel, pero en digital. Si ése es el caso, y hay un mercado masivo de dispositivos, quizás tengamos un modelo de suscripción en formato digital. Quizás. La red es gratuita, el papel es pagado, el tablet podría serlo también. Puede ser con pagos indirectos (a través de tu operador de telecomunicación móvil) o directo, como es el iTune. Esto podría ser una oportunidad para resetear las expectativas de los consumidores por el contenido. Y si es un contenido enriquecido, atrayente y te tienes que suscribir a él, quizás la gente pague de nuevo. Alguna gente pagará por el 100% de lo que lee, otros buscarán solo lo gratuito, y otros buscarán un modelo freemium. No obstante, quizás podamos tener en él una mejor economía que la que tenemos con los medios basados en la web.
LA GENTE QUE USA TANTO LOS CELULARES

-Tu trabajo principal es buscar innovaciones interesantes en todo el mundo. ¿Qué cosas interesantes has visto en América Latina? 
-Brasil es el objetivo lógico. Su industria energética es un ejemplo. Su industria farmacéutica, por la manera en que desarrollan genéricos, es un modelo. En Chile he visto biólogos trabajando en temas interesantes de identificación de compuestos químicos en especies, que sólo se dan en este país. Hay investigación biotech bastante impresionante en este país. Cada país tiene talento y ventajas únicas.
Pero creo que donde hay mucho potencial para América Latina es en la parte móvil. El consumidor latinoamericano es muy sofisticado en los usos que le da a la tecnología móvil. Y no me sorprendería que el próximo Twitter saliera de América Latina. La gente usa tantos sus celulares, mucho más que los PC… Mientras que en EE.UU. los desarrollos han sido centrados en la PC, en América Latina deben ser centrados en lo móvil.
-Dijiste a la revista alemana Spiegel que no querías hablar más de la palabra periodismo ni de la palabra medios. No sé en qué estado anímico estabas ese día, pero en esta conversación has mencionado esas palabras muchas veces. Además, como editor en jefe de Wired tu negocio es el periodismo y los medios. ¿Cómo vives con eso?
-Claramente hoy estoy de mucho mejor humor que ese día. Pero realmente creo en lo que dije ese día: tenemos un grupo de palabras, de conceptos, que se construyeron e hicieron sentido en el siglo XX. Y esas palabras empiezan a perder sentido cuando hay cambios estructurales, con caídas de monopolios, etc. Hoy soy el editor de una revista. Y pago a periodistas y a fotógrafos para que hagan contenido. Pero a veces soy un gerente de comunidad. Algunos de nuestros contenidos son creados por los periodistas, otros son credos por colaboradores y otros por la comunidad de lectores. No estoy seguro de dónde empieza el medio y donde termina el medio. ¿Acaso el concepto de medio sólo involucra a los medios profesionales? ¿Por qué? El consumidor no hace una distinción entre profesionales y amateurs. ¿Por qué deberíamos hacerlo nosotros? ¿Porque hacemos noticias? Pero, ¿qué son noticias? Ok, noticias políticas son noticias. ¿Es noticia que mi hija se haya herido en la rodilla mientras jugaba en el patio de su jardín? No es noticia para ti, pero ¡sí lo es para mí! Yo creo que no sabemos exactamente qué significa la palabra noticia. Si me haces preguntas sobre medios y periodismo trataré de responderlas, pero no son el tipo de palabras que quiero usar de aquí en adelante.
-Por curiosidad, ¿te gustan los gadgets? ¿Cuáles son tus favoritos?
-A mí no me gusta tanto la tecnología. No soy un amante de los gadgets. Los uso, pero no los amo. Me encanta lo que la tecnología me permite hacer. No amo mi laptop, ni siquiera sé qué tipo de laptop tengo -creo que es de marca Dell-; no amo mi teléfono -tengo un iPhone, pero lo quiero cambiar- y no compro gadgets. Tengo un Xbox en casa. Puedo decirte lo que tengo, pero eso no me define. Lo que sí me define es qué hago con ellos. Trabajo con tecnología, pero la verdad es que ¡no me gusta tanto!