In their “World in 2010″ annual almanac of predictions, the Economist looks at whether this will be a year of social unrest, and included is the map below as a helpful guide to countries at the greatest risk:

I highly recommend you purchase this almanac for a good overview of where the world is more-or-less heading.  In the accompanying article on this particular topic, Laza Kekic of the Economist Intelligence Unit writes the following:

[A] congruence of calamities could prove politically tempestuous: a sharp rise in unemployment, increased poverty and inequality, weakened middle classes and high food prices in many countries. Austerity is also on the agenda in 2010 following the extreme fiscal relaxation of 2009.

Historically, political reactions to economic distress have tended to come with a lag. The same is true of labour-market developments: even once the recession ends, unemployment continues to rise. According to Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) estimates, in 2010 there will be 60m more unemployed worldwide than in 2008. The International Labour Organisation reckons some 200m workers are at risk of joining the ranks of people living on less than $2 a day.

Declines in incomes are not always followed by political instability. Vulnerability to unrest depends on a host of factors. These include the degree of income inequality, the state of governance, levels of social provision, ethnic tensions, public trust in institutions, the history of unrest and the type of political system (“intermediate” regimes that are neither consolidated democracies nor autocracies seem the most vulnerable).

Something to watch.

Brazil’s position in the low combustibility category mirrors the magazine’s recent profile of the continuing boom of the country:

Latin America’s largest economy is enjoying its best moment for a long time. One of the last countries to enter the global downturn started by the financial sector in 2007, Brazil was also one of the first to come out of it. For the first time in its history it has found a combination of economic growth, low inflation and full democracy—and the good fortune looks set to continue.

The story reminded me of a 2007 article I read in the New York Times about Brazilian immigrants to the U.S. who were emigrating back to Brazil:

That decision — to give up on life in the United States — is being made by more and more Brazilians across the country, according to consular officials, travel agencies swamped by one-way ticket bookings, and community leaders in the neighborhoods that Brazilian immigrants have transformed, from Boston to Pompano Beach, Fla.

No one can say how many are leaving. But in the last half year, the reverse migration has become unmistakable among Brazilians in the United States, a population estimated at 1.1 million by Brazil’s government — four to five times the official census figures.

To explain an often wrenching decision to pull up stakes, homeward-bound Brazilians point to a rising fear of deportation and a slumping American economy. Many cite the expiration of driver’s licenses that can no longer be renewed under tougher rules, coupled with the steep drop in the value of the dollar against the currency of Brazil, where the economy has improved.

Brazil’s ascendency is nothing but good news for the Western Hemisphere.

I’m an avid reader of The Economist, and in this week’s edition the article that jumped out at me was “A needier era“, which details how some–including me–think the new global economic realities are going to re-shape our politics:

THE 1990s was “the age of abundance”, argued Brink Lindsey in a book of that title. Round the world, incomes were rising; capital markets were processing endless flows of money and investment; technological gains meant that ever more information was available ever more cheaply. And politics in the age of abundance, Mr Lindsey claimed, was all about values. In America this was the period of the “culture wars” over abortion and gun ownership; internationally, there was a huge expansion in concern over human rights.

One of the biggest problems America faces is that many of its citizens, both liberal and conservative, are stuck on culture wars that feed their anger, instead of focusing on the reality that our current economic system is unsustainable.  Our focus on voting for people for their views about abortion, gun rights and gay marriage has given us a crop of leaders who are ill-prepared to take on the real challenges that we face.

The 2010s, it is sometimes said, will be an age of scarcity. The warning signs of change are said to be the food-price spike of 2007-08, the bid by China and others to grab access to oil, iron ore and farmland and the global recession. The main problems of scarcity are water and food shortages, demographic change and state failure.

One of the challenges America faces as a country is how we choose to inform ourselves, which is mostly by the cable news channels.  Fox News and MSNBC (as well as the rest of them) are corrosive influences on all of us.  For those like myself, who don’t watch them, we still have to deal with the foolish liberals and conservatives who do and form their opinions based upon cable news demagoguery.

[Authors of a report at the Center on International Cooperation] claim that the current global system is ill-designed for such a world. It is not just that the foreign policies of big countries are in flux. Rather, the way states deal with new threats is, in the jargon, “stove-piped”.  As a UN panel said in 2004, “finance ministers tend to work only with the international financial institutions, development ministers only with development programmes.”

The authors say that what is needed is not merely institutional tinkering but a different frame of mind. Governments, they say, should think more in terms of reducing risk and increasing resilience to shocks than about boosting sovereign power. This is because they think power may not be the best way for states to defend themselves against a new kind of threat: the sort that comes not from other states but networks of states and non-state actors, or from the unintended consequences of global flows of finance, technology and so on.

What’s the first thing that you, as an individual, can do to start preparing for this new world?  Stop watching the cable news channels.  Stop listening to the Olbermanns and Hannitys, who do little else but incite your rage (and I have it too, but it has to be tempered).  Right now, we don’t need an angry populace.  We need a calm citizenry that takes time to learn about the economic issues that we face, rolls up its sleeves and gets to work fixing them.  You might not like abortion, and you may think gay marriage is all about equal rights, but if there is widespread economic collapse, these issues are going to be irrelevant to the world we face.

Do yourself and the rest of us a favor:  Stop watching cable news.

This week’s Economist has an interesting story about a new Jewish lobby that focuses on Israel.  The magazine points out that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has an almost folkloric reputation in Washington D.C., and has been accused of heavily skewing America’s foreign policy interests.

Enter J Street, a lobby group comprised mostly of American Jews who describe themselves as “pro-Israel,  pro-peace”.

Israel’s Likud government is not pleased (although Shimon Peres and Tzipi Livni have expressed support), and its ambassador declined to attend J Street’s first annual conference.  In addition to pushing aggressively for a two-state solution with Israel returning to its pre-1967 borders, the Economist–which has followed J Street closely–writes how that is not all that has upset the Israeli lobby’s applecart:

In print and in the blogosphere, in America and Israel, foes have excoriated J Street for having called for an immediate ceasefire during last year’s Gaza war, paying excessive heed to Richard Goldstone’s report accusing Israel of war crimes, making room at its conference for people who do not support the Zionist idea of a Jewish state, and other alleged heresies against the orthodox line of Israel’s traditional supporters in America.

Compared to AIPAC’s $60M annual budget, 275 employees, $130M endowment and new $80M capitol hill headquarters; J Street has an annual budget of $3M and 8 staff (that includes former Senator Lincoln Chafee, one of my favorite politicians).