From Foreign Policy:
As food prices skyrocketed over the last two years, countries and state-sponsored companies were quietly snapping up land around the world. Few noticed when South Korea began investing in farms in Madagascar, or when China, Japan, Libya, Egypt, and Persian Gulf countries acquired farmland in Laos, Cambodia, Burma, Mozambique, Uganda, Ethiopia, Brazil, Pakistan, Central Asia, and Russia. From what little has emerged publicly, the total land purchased since early 2007 adds up to at least twice the cereal cropland of Germany. But the purchases weren’t about land so much as water. For with the land comes the right to withdraw the water linked to it, in most countries essentially a freebie that increasingly could be the most valuable part of the deal.

This little quiz from the Financial Times should keep me busy on Sunday morning. I have already about 70% of the names, and really surprised to see Asia so under-represented. Seriously, we could have done without Segolene Royal and add Suharto, Pol Pot, Bhutto or Koizumi (granted, easier than Imelda Marcos…)

I love the weekly headlines from the Economist but they depress me when I read this:

Ukraine’s interior minister offered to resign after being detained by police at Frankfurt airport while apparently drunk. The Ukrainian government is already missing a foreign and a finance minister.

So what is it? Why do we expect a behaviour from our politicians that is above the average? Is the quality of our politicians a reflection of the quality of the voters? Ukraine is not alone on the charts of poor public leaders.

Two good articles on China and global monetary policy and where things will increasingly get decided. Not always anything new for those who read regularly on the topic but worth a quick scan - Nouriel Roubini writes in the New York Times, and the Economist gives its point of view too.

Since the information is publicly available, you should also find it here. For a few weeks now, I have been helping the Bay Area Council Economic Institute to coordinate Bay Area proposals to benefit from Obama’s stimulus package. These proposals come from anyone - public, private sectors - and the survey to submit those ideas was open until a couple of weeks ago. The San Francisco Business Times had a story on this last Friday.

My friend Lance points his readers to this post by Chris Blattman at Yale who asks whether development agencies should fly business class.

Valid question. I remember, as a kid, having trouble understanding how a French friend of the family, member of the Communist Party for many years, could live in one of the most fancy streets of Paris and still claim to fight for the people, be a member of a party asking for increased taxation of the rich, etc. For him though, there were no contradictions. In fact, living in a nice area and driving a big car should be one of the goals of the community. “It’s not because I am a Communist that I should drive a small Peugeot” he then said. “Ultimately, everybody should be able to afford driving a Rolls Royce”. Sounded great when I was a kid. And totally unrealistic of course.

Same question the other day when I met someone who had just been laid off from its job in the finance industry, but who had landed 2 job offers just a few days/weeks after, whose wife doesn’t work because they don’t need two incomes and lives very comfortably. The problem? He signed up for unemployment benefits and was very happy to receive cash while taking a break in between 2 jobs. Ethically, I have a problem with that. This guy must have made $200K or $250K a year, excluding bonuses. Why does he need extra help in between jobs (the definition of benefits)? Does he not have any savings? Is he really in dire need of cash? Will the $2000+ a month that he receives from the government help him keep his lifestyle? NO! It’s just easy money. And I am sure he claims that since he contributed to it, he is entitled to it. Ah, that famous entitlement thing so dear to the finance industry.

In these times of crisis, unemployment benefits should really go to those who need it most and we know many middle-class people have been thrown back in the ranks of the poor due to this recession. This person should have refused unemployment benefits (or not signed up for it) simply because there are other people who need it more than he does. It’s not about wealth distribution or entitlement, it’s about ethics.

Obama’s speech at the White House Correspondents’ dinner - pretty ballsy, I think. I wonder how many countries could have a President tease rivals and make fun at its administration (including itself) in public.

First, second and third parts

A wonderful clash of titles in the press these days. BusinessWeek announces that “European Green Energy Chases U.S. Stimulus Cash” while the Financial Times reveals the Mafia link to Sicily wind farms

Didn’t know the organized crime needed further stimulation. Tough times for everybody, I guess.

I love this! A part of truth, as in anything that is funny. Thanks to Lance for the link.