Is FT on its way to take sides against Jethro Tull’s Ian Anderson? My new tune: equality on copyright, April 11.
Sent to FT April 26, 2006
As a former Executive Director of the World Bank I know that the columnists of the Financial Times have more voice than what I ever had, and therefore they might need some checks-and-balances. For more see "A Blog is Born" at the very bottom.
Currently, having probably trampled on some delicate ego, I am a persona non grata at FT.
Would the child shouting out “the Emperor is naked” have his observation published in FT? Does the child need a PhD for that?
For more see "A Blog is Born" at the very bottom.
Sir, It is sad in today’s globalized world to still find so many local Americans who believe that when they ship a criminal band member over the border, to someone much less resourceful, they have gotten rid of their problem.
In this respect, Jacob Weisberg, ("Immigration ideas bordering on perverse”, April 6), aghast with the current ideas on immigration law reform in the US, proposes not passing any reforms but to keep going as if nothing’s happening.
Another more transparent route would be to bite the bullet and accept that an “American Union” between North and Central America already exists, de-facto, and issue a common passport for all the citizens of the enlarged American Union.
Such a strategy would make it possible for many of the over 11 million illegal immigrants that dare not leave the US because they do not know whether they can later return, to be freed from their (also de-facto) mother of all jails, and go home, even on a temporary basis.
It would also help to realize that had the US spent an Iraq-war sized budget assisting Central America, as the European Union did with Spain and others, the whole immigration debate could have been a moot issue, with exception perhaps of all the aging baby boomers moving south to find care and services.
Finally, the fact is that when you see how all the Central Americans toil away in the US and help their families back home, you have to ask yourself whether this is not just part of the process whereby the US manages to renew its working and family ethics, in order to remain strong.
Some very few regulators thinking they were capable of managing the bank risks of the world, caused and are still causing immense sufferings, and you Sir are refusing to help holding them accountable for that.
Bank regulators, dare to debate with me the silliness or the wisdom of your regulations... come on don't be shy
On October 1 2009, the Economist Forum gave me some FT voice again publishing "Free us from imprudent risk-aversion"
And I very much appreciate it.
And on July 12 2012 Wolf also wrote that when "setting bank equity requirements, it is essential to recognise that so-called “risk-weighted” assets can and will be gamed by both banks and regulators. As Per Kurowski, a former executive director of the World Bank, reminds me regularly, crises occur when what was thought to be low risk turns out to be very high risk."
And that is something that I of course also appreciate, but that yet makes me curious on why Wolf does not follow up on it.
English is not my mother language so bear with me and you’ll probably note when my letter has been published in FT by its correctness. Swedish is my mother language but I have not written anything serious in it for about 40 years and last time I tried, they just laughed their hearts out because of my démodés. Polish is my father language but, unfortunately, I do not speak a word of Polish, much less write it. Yes Spanish is my language, as I am from Venezuela and although I trust I write in it with great flair, I would still never dream of publishing an article in Spanish without having it edited by my wife.
And so friends here is my Tea with FT blog with my old and new letters to the editor. I hope you will share them with me now and again, and then again and again.
Welcome, and cheers, as I believe they say over there.
PS. Just so that FT does not get too cocky and believe it is my only window to the world, I will now and again publish a letter sent to the editor of another publication.