costs

menafn.com…

(MENAFN) Singapore Telecommunications Ltd. (SingTel) reported 9.6 percent decline in fourth quarter profits over higher costs and a lesser income from its regional units, AP reported. The telecom …

Continued here:
Singapore’s SingTel reports USD717m profit in Q4

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

menafn.com…

(MENAFN) South Korea’s largest telecoms operator KT Corp. posted 13 percent quarterly growth, as a one-time gain offset higher costs and falling sales from phone calls, Bloomberg reported. KT …

Link:
S. Korea’s KT reports 13% increase in Q4 profit

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Dave Johnson: Actually, "The Rich" Don’t "Create Jobs," We Do.

May 13, 2011

You hear it again and again, variation after variation on a core message: if you tax rich people it kills jobs. You hear about “job-killing tax hikes,” or that “taxing the rich hurts jobs,” “taxes kill jobs,” “taxes take money out of the economy, “if you tax the rich they won’t be able to provide jobs.” … on and on it goes. So do we really depend on “the rich” to “create” jobs? Or do jobs get created when they fill a need? Here is a recent typical example, Obama Touts Job-Killing Tax Plan , written by a “senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth,” Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others. We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers. Others are parasites who suck the blood and energy away from the productive. Such people are most often found in government. Perhaps the most vivid description of what happens to a society where the parasites become so numerous and powerful that they destroy their productive hosts is Ayn Rand’s classic novel “Atlas Shrugged.” … Producers and Parasites The idea that there are producers and parasites as expressed in the example above has become a core philosophy of conservatives. They claim that wealthy people “produce” and are rich because they “produce.” The rest of us are “parasites” who suck blood and energy from the productive rich, by taxing them. In this belief system, We, the People are basically just “the help” who are otherwise in the way, and taxing the producers to pay for our “entitlements.” We “take money” from the producers through taxes, which are “redistributed” to the parasites. They repeat the slogan, “Taxes are theft,” and take the “money we earned” by “force” (i.e. government.) Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner echoes this core philosophy of “producers” and “parasites,” saying yesterday , I believe raising taxes on the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy and to hire people is the wrong idea,” he said. “For those people to give that money to the government…means it wont get reinvested in our economy at a time when we’re trying to create jobs.” “The very people” who “hire people” shouldn’t have to pay taxes because that money is then taken out of the productive economy and just given to the parasites — “the help” — meaning you and me… So is it true? Do “they” create jobs? Do we “depend on” the wealthy to “create jobs?” Demand Creates Jobs I used to own a business and have been in senior positions at other businesses, and I know many others who have started and operated businesses of all sizes. I can tell you from direct experience that I tried very hard to employ the right number of people . What I mean by this is that when there were lots of customers I would add people to meet the demand. And when demand slacked off I had to let people go. If I had extra money I wouldn’t just hire people to sit around and read the paper. And if I had more customers than I could handle that — the revenue generated by meeting the additional demand from the extra customers — is what would pay for employing more people to meet the demand. It is a pretty simple equation: you employ the right number of people to meet the demand your business has. If you ask around you will find that every business tries to employ the right number of people to meet the demand . Any business owner or manager will tell you that they hire based on need , not on how much they have in the bank. (Read more here, in last year’s Businesses Do Not Create Jobs .) Taxes make absolutely no difference in the hiring equation. In fact, paying taxes means you are already making money, which means you have already hired the right number of people. Taxes are based on subtracting your costs from your revenue, and if you have profits after you cover your costs, then you might be taxed. You don’t even calculate your taxes until well after the hiring decision has been made. You don;t lay people off to “cover” your taxes. And even if you did lay people off to “cover’ taxes it would lower your costs and you would have more profit, which means you would have more taxes… except that laying someone off when you had demand would cause you to have less revenue, … and you see how ridiculous it is to associate taxes with hiring at all! People coming in the door and buying things is what creates jobs. The Rich Do Not Create Jobs Lots of regular people having money to spend is what creates jobs and businesses. That is the basic idea of demand-side economics and it works. In a consumer-driven economy designed to serve people , regular people with money in their pockets is what keeps everything going. And the equal opportunity of democracy with its reinvestment in infrastructure and education and the other fruits of democracy is fundamental to keeping a demand-side economy functioning. When all the money goes to a few at the top everything breaks down. Taxing the people at the top and reinvesting the money into the democratic society is fundamental to keeping things going. Democracy Creates Jobs This idea that a few wealthy people — the “producers” — hand everything down to the rest of us — “the parasites” — is fundamentally at odds with the concept of democracy. In a democracy we all have an equal voice and an equal stake in how our society and our economy does. We do not “depend” on the good graces of a favored few for our livelihoods. We all are supposed to have an equal opportunity, and equal rights. And there are things we are all entitled to — “entitlements” — that we get just because we were born here . But we all share in the responsibility to cover the costs of democracy — with the rich having a greater responsibility than the rest of us because they receive the most benefit from it. This is why we have “progressive taxes” where the rates are supposed to go up as the income does. Taxes Are The Lifeblood Of Democracy And The Prosperity That Democracy Produces In a democracy the rich are supposed to pay more to cover things like building and maintaining the roads and schools because these are the things that enable their wealth. They actually do use the roads and schools more because the roads enable their businesses to prosper and the schools provide educated employees. But it isn’t just that the rich use roads more, it is that everyone has a right to use roads and a right to transportation because we are a democracy and everyone has the same rights. And as a citizen in a democracy you have an obligation to pay your share for that. A democracy is supposed have a progressive tax structure that is in proportion to the means to pay . We do this because those who get more from the system do so because the democratic system offers them that ability . Their wealth is because of our system and therefore they owe back to the system in proportion. (Plus, history has taught the lesson that great wealth opposes democracy, so democracy must oppose the accumulation of great, disproportional wealth. In other words, part of the contract of living in a democracy is your obligation to protect the democracy and high taxes at the top is one of those protections.) The conservative “producer and parasite” anti-tax philosophy is fundamentally at odds with the concepts of democracy (which they proudly acknowledge – see more here , and here ) and should be understood and criticized as such. Taxes do not “take money out of the economy” they enable the economy. The rich do not “create jobs, We, the People create jobs . This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Simon Johnson: Why Would Small Banks Oppose Debit-Card Reform?

May 12, 2011

It’s not hard to understand why large banks oppose any attempt to overhaul the financial arrangements currently surrounding credit cards and debit cards. In the duopoly run through Visa and MasterCard, big banks earn fees that far exceed their costs.

Read the full article →

Bank Of America’s Mortgage Business ‘Struggling Mightily,’ CEO Says

May 11, 2011

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (Joe Rauch) – Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) is working to improve profits by reducing its number of problem mortgages and cutting other costs, Chief Executive Brian Moynihan told shareholders on Wednesday. Moynihan, speaking at the company’s annual meeting in downtown Charlotte, said the mortgage business of the largest U.S. bank by assets is “still struggling mightily” as it slowly crawls out from under the billions in soured home loans. “There’s still a lot of work ahead to get through this,” Moynihan said to shareholders. (Reporting by Joe Rauch; Writing by Lauren Tara LaCapra; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Commercial Real Estate Loan | TrendsOf.biz

May 9, 2011

Commercial Real Estate Mortgage Business Actual Estate Loan – What industrial actual estate lending to compare the costs of residential real estate loan .

Read the full article →

Robert E. Scott: Putting U.S.-China Trade in its Proper Perspective

April 11, 2011

An April 7 column in the New York Times Economix blog highlighted the rapid growth of U.S. exports to China, which look impressive in isolation. But this is a biased and one-sided view — exports have been overwhelmed by the growth of U.S. imports from China and the bilateral trade deficit, as shown in the graph below. When trying to assess the costs and benefits of the U.S./China trade relationship, counting only exports is like judging a baseball game by only counting runs scored by the home team. It might make you feel good, but tells you nothing about who is winning or losing the game. Properly measured, U.S. imports from China were $364 billion in 2010, vs. domestic exports of only $85.8 billion (excluding transshipments of goods from other countries), for a trade deficit of $278.3. Even when goods made in other countries are included with U.S. exports, the deficit in 2010 was $273.1 billion, substantially more than estimates reported by the Times (“$180 to $250 billion”). A sizable share of U.S. exports to China is raw materials used to produce goods that are re-exported back to the United States. Four of the top six industries producing exports are waste and scrap products, semiconductors, resins and synthetic rubber and fibers, and basic chemicals. Sectors such as cash grains (the top export commodity) and waste and scrap support very few U.S. jobs. Such trade may be good for U.S. multinational companies (MNCs), but provides few benefits for the domestic economy. Overall, the large and growing trade deficit with China has displaced millions of U.S. jobs , most in the manufacturing sector which has lost 5.5 million jobs since 2000. The Economix report relies on data published by the U.S. China Business Council, a trade association representing MNCs doing business in China. These firms have profited enormously by outsourcing production to China. China has subsidized these firms through massive currency manipulation, which reduces the costs of their exports by 25 to 40%, and by pouring tens of billions of dollars into subsides of products like steel , glass and paper products . U.S. MNCs should not be allowed to dictate U.S. trade policy. The U.S. needs to get tough and demand that China and other currency manipulators revalue their currencies and end other unfair trade practices. Nibbling around the edges with a WTO case for one sector and import surge protection for another will not get the job done. The U.S. should start by threatening to impose large tariffs on all U.S. imports from currency manipulators.

Read the full article →

Ohio Union Bill Poised To Become Law

March 31, 2011

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Legislature voted Wednesday to severely limit the collective bargaining rights of 350,000 public workers, sending a bill that sparked weeks of pro-labor protests to Republican Gov. John Kasich, who is expected to sign it by the end of the week. The full House had passed the measure on a 53-44 vote Wednesday after it cleared committee, and the Senate followed with a 17-16 vote of approval. The measure affects safety workers, teachers, nurses and a host of other government personnel. It allows unions to negotiate wages but not health care, sick time or pension benefits. It gets rid of automatic pay increases and replaces them with merit raises or performance pay. Workers would also be banned from striking. Kasich has said his $55.5 billion, two-year state budget counts on unspecified savings from lifting union protections to fill an $8 billion hole. The first-term governor and his GOP colleagues argue the bill would help city officials and superintendents better control their costs at a time when they too are feeling budget woes. Pickerington teacher Patricia Kuhn-Morgan said she is confused by connections being drawn between the bill and job creation. “As teachers, the best way we can have to job creation is to educate the public.” She said she believes Wednesday’s vote will hurt the GOP with voters. “I’ve spoken to a lot of educators who are typically straight-ticket Republicans that have said to me that they won’t ever vote for another Republican because of how this bill’s been pushed through and the democratic process has been abused,” she said as she awaited the Senate’s vote. Contentious debates over restricting collective bargaining have popped up in statehouses across the country, most notably in Wisconsin, where the governor signed into law this month a bill eliminating most of state workers’ collective bargaining rights. That measure exempts police officers and firefighters; Ohio’s does not. The Ohio bill has drawn thousands of demonstrators, prompted a visit from the Rev. Jesse Jackson and packed hearing rooms in the weeks before the Senate passed the measure. Its reception in the House has been quieter, though Wednesday’s vote drew several hundred demonstrators to the Statehouse. But the overall response by protesters in the Rust Belt state, despite its long union tradition among steel and auto workers, paled in comparison to Wisconsin, where protests peaked at more than 70,000 people. Ohio’s largest Statehouse demonstrations on the measure drew about 8,500 people. Democrats oppose the measure but have offered no amendments to it. Instead, they delivered boxes containing more than 65,000 opponent signatures to the House labor committee’s chairman. Many Democrats, along with other opponents, have vowed to lead a ballot-repeal effort if the measure passes. The vote in the House comes after the committee added GOP-backed revisions Tuesday that would make it more difficult for unions to collect certain fees. The committee changed the bill to ban automatic deductions from employee paychecks that would go the unions’ political arm. They also altered the measure to prevent nonunion employees affected by contracts from paying so-called “fair share” fees to union organizations. Unions argue that their contracts cover those nonunion workers and that letting them not pay unfairly spreads the costs to dues-paying members. ___ Associated Press writer Julie Carr Smyth contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Medicare Eligibility Age Increasing Could Mean Higher Health Insurance Costs For Some

March 29, 2011

WASHINGTON — Employers and even some younger people would pay more for health insurance if lawmakers raise the eligibility age for Medicare, a study to be released Tuesday concludes. The findings suggest that the emerging debate over Medicare’s future matters not only to seniors and those nearing retirement, but to a broad cross-section of Americans. The report from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation shows that federal taxpayers would save billions if the Medicare eligibility age, currently 65, is increased by two years. But people ages 65 and 66, employers – along with states, Medicare recipients and even some younger families – would see ripple effects that add to their costs. Those costs could total more than $2,000 a year for some individuals. Medicare covers 47 million elderly and disabled people, and it’s is widely seen as financially unsustainable over the long run. Raising the eligibility age is among the leading fixes under discussion. Years ago, lawmakers decided to gradually increase the Social Security retirement age to 67 for people born in 1960 or later. But they left the Medicare eligibility age unchanged. Now some policymakers are saying the qualifying ages for the two programs should be yoked together – at 67 or even higher. “There are so many moving parts in a program as big as Medicare that it’s difficult to make changes without having ripple effects for others,” said Tricia Neuman, Kaiser’s leading Medicare expert. The foundation serves as a clearinghouse for information about the nation’s health care system. The study assumed that President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul remains in place, and doesn’t get overturned by the courts or repealed by Congress. Without Obama’s health insurance expansion, raising the Medicare age could potentially leave several million more people uninsured. With the new health care law, the main consequence appears to be a big shift in costs from the federal government to others. Among the report’s findings: _ Most 65- and 66-year-olds would pay significantly more for their health care because they would not be in Medicare. If the Medicare age was raised to 67 in 2014, about three out of four people ages 65 to 66 would pay $2,400 more, on average. The rest would be eligible for various kinds of subsidies for low-to-moderate income people provided under the health care law. _ Employers would pay an estimated $4.5 billion more for health insurance in 2014, because older workers would stay on the job longer to remain eligible for their company’s coverage. Under the rules, workplace plans must provide primary coverage for employees who keep working past 65. _ People under 30 buying coverage in new health insurance markets that open for business in 2014 would see their premiums rise nearly 8 percent over previous projections. The health care law sets up insurance markets to provide one-stop shopping for people who buy their coverage directly and for small businesses. An influx of older adults no longer eligible for Medicare would raise costs for that pool. _ Medicare recipients would face monthly premiums about 3 percent higher because the youngest seniors would be removed from the program’s insurance pool, raising per-person costs for those who remain behind. _ States would face somewhat higher costs because some low-income people currently eligible for Medicare and Medicaid would be left with Medicaid only. “This analysis drives home the tough policy choices that lie ahead when Washington gets serious about reducing the federal deficit,” Neuman said.

Read the full article →

Joan Williams: Stop Socializing the Downside and Privatizing the Upside

February 1, 2011

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . I have been watching Clint Eastwood films lately and thinking about his role in fueling the belittlement of government. In Dirty Harry , for example, the Eastwood character is a loner who stands up to lily-livered bureaucrats who lack the cojones to do what needs to be done and to morally corrupt politicians who cave in to bad guys for a living. This kind of film was part of a sustained, and dazzlingly effective, cultural agenda to discredit government. A key mechanism of enforcing this view is the snarl — it’s not really an argument — that having the government undertake any given task is… socialism . For thirty years, Democrats have lacked a cogent response. In the debate over health care, they tried to counter the socialism charge by designing reform according to Republican principles: no to single payer, no to the public option, yes to private health insurance (an industry so inefficient that Americans spend one third of their health care dollars on paperwork, but I digress). Democrats are left still facing sneers of socialism. Trying to counter this charge by messing around with policy design details is a strategy fated to fail. What we need instead is a way of reframing the debate that begins to reverse the discrediting of government. The financial crisis presented a golden, largely squandered, opportunity to begin this process. No better time than the present. Americans recently heard reports of bank profits so high that major banks are declaring dividends . This presents a teachable moment to send a much more effective message than Obama’s old fashioned populism that demonizes bankers as “fat cats.” Here’s a fresh response: What conservatives are proposing is to privatize the upside of the economy while socializing the downside. Take the banks. Back during the Great Recession, they were only too happy to socialize risk. But now, with profits aplenty, banks have lost interest in sharing. After we socialized the downside risk, now they want to privatize the upside risk. This doesn’t make a whole heck of a lot of sense. But it’s a consistent theme in Republican proposals. Take the new Republican health care proposal . It wants to preserve for private industry the right to insure relatively healthy people off whom insurers can make a profit. Again, Republicans want to privatize the upside and let industry keep those profits, and socialize the downside — and then deride government for needing to levy taxes to cover the costs of shouldering that risk. A similar dynamic is at work at the local level. A recent California ballot initiative makes it more difficult for local governments to impose fees on developers as a condition of approving development. The fees required the developers to pay for the costs of the water, sewers, schools, and parks that would serve the new subdivisions. Not surprisingly, the developers hate fees because they prefer to socialize the costs of infrastructure and privatize the profits of development. So here’s the message: The next time Republicans snarl “socialism,” Democrats need to re-examine the baseline assumptions. Often you’ll find a proposal to privatize profits and socialize risk. Calling that out is the first step towards changing Americans’ negativism towards government. Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Read the full article →

Video: Nomura’s Adams Says Rolls-Royce Shares Have `Lost Shine’

November 12, 2010

Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) — Jason Adams, a defense analyst at Nomura International Plc, talks about the costs to Rolls-Royce Group Plc of rectifying a failure in one of its engines. A Trent 900 engine exploded on a Qantas Airways Ltd. Airbus SAS A380 on Nov. 4, grounding the airline’s fleet of superjumbos. Adams speaks with Francine Lacqua on Bloomberg Television’s “On The Move.”

Read the full article →

Gates Starts Detailing Proposed Defense Cuts

September 14, 2010

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Tuesday started laying out some details of his plans to save $100 billion over the next five years as he tries to run the Pentagon more efficiently. Over the past decade, the Pentagon’s spending has averaged a growth rate of 7 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that rate is expected to slow to 1 percent as the wars wind down. Money saved in cutting overhead and other inefficient costs on weapons programs will go toward modernizing and recapitalizing military equipment and sustaining troops, Pentagon officials said.

Read the full article →

Video: Anglo Irish’s Aynsley Says Outflows `Starting to Settle’

September 10, 2010

Sept. 10 (Bloomberg) — Mike Aynsley, chief executive officer of Anglo Irish Bank Corp., talks about the costs of bailing out the bank, which was nationalized in January 2009. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “The Pulse” with Andrea Catherwood.

Read the full article →

Sebelius To Health Insurers: Stop Lying About Your Rate Increases

September 9, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration won’t tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law. “There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby. “Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections,” Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the law. They’d lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide. The letter to America’s Health Insurance Plans was the latest volley in a war of words over who gets the blame for rising premiums. Polls show that many people expect their costs to go up as a result of the law, but there’s also widespread mistrust of the insurance industry. An HHS official said the letter is a pre-emptive move, after the department learned that several smaller carriers around the country are blaming the new law for rate increases this year. The industry’s top lobbyist responded that the health care law is a factor behind higher rates, but not the only one. “Health insurance premiums are increasing because of soaring prices for medical services, the impact of younger and healthier people dropping their insurance during the weak economy, and additional benefits required under the new law,” said Karen Ignagni, president of the insurers’ trade group. “It’s a basic law of economics that additional benefits incur additional costs.” Sebelius asked Ignagni to help stop “misinformation and scare tactics.” Although the law’s big expansion of coverage under the law won’t take place until 2014, several new benefits go into effect starting later this month. Lifetime dollar caps on coverage are abolished, and plans must allow parents to keep their children on the policy up to age 26. Many plans will also have to guarantee coverage for children regardless of a medical condition, and provide preventive care with no cost-sharing for the patient. The administration estimates that those new benefits will raise premiums by no more than 1 to 2 percent. Major benefit consulting companies say the impact will be in the single digits, although it may vary considerably from plan to plan. “Health plans will continue to do everything they can to incorporate all of these new benefits while keeping health care coverage as affordable as possible for families and employers,” Ignagni said. Unpredictable premium hikes are a constant worry for small businesses and people who buy coverage directly. Employees of large companies are generally shielded from big rate swings from year to year, although their costs also creep up. Obama used premium hikes to his advantage earlier this year in the final push to get health care overhaul legislation through Congress. After Anthem Blue Cross sought an increase of as much as 39 percent for some of its California customers who purchase coverage directly, the president made the company into a poster child for insurance problems. California regulators recently approved an increase averaging 14 percent for Anthem customers. Analysts say the industry is generally in good financial condition this year, and that may help to keep premiums in check.

Read the full article →

Unemployed Are Seeing A Rise in Health Care Costs

August 30, 2010

While the national unemployment rate has been hovering at about 9.5 percent for the last year, the average cost of health care plans for jobless Americans is steadily on the rise. Terminated workers are paying an average of $429 a month this year for individual HMO coverage, compared to $399 for the same coverage in 2009, according to a survey conducted by Aon Consulting. COBRA coverage for an entire family now costs an average of $1,251, up from $1,171 per month at this time last year. With COBRA costs on the rise and the average unemployment check totaling less than $300 a week, a growing number of jobless Americans are no longer able to afford their health insurance plans. Dianna Walker, 41, of Clearwater, Florida, said she and her husband have been struggling to afford COBRA since she was laid off on June 3, three days after the COBRA subsidy expired. “We are charged $884 per month for COBRA,” Walker told HuffPost. “Try paying that with a $240 unemployment check.” Walker said her husband has a pre-existing health condition that requires up to $1,000 per month in medications, but he doesn’t qualify for the government’s new Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan because he hasn’t been uninsured for more than six months. HuffPost’s Arthur Delaney recently reported that only 1,200 people have been approved so far for the PCIP program, whose steep premiums ranging from $140 to $900 a month make it no more affordable than COBRA for many unemployed Americans. Walker said COBRA is draining her savings, but she and her husband are out of options. “We just missed our first mortgage payment ever,” she said. “I have checked into all the new options from Obama’s new health care reform and it is next to impossible to qualify. And if you do, it is very little coverage and costs more than COBRA without the subsidy. John Zern, executive vice president and Health & Benefits Practice director with Aon Consulting, said the costs of COBRA are rising because so many people are using the system. “The increased frequency and duration of COBRA use is creating a significant strain on the program, leading to higher costs,” he said. “Those who are unemployed, and facing uncertainty about employment prospects and future COBRA availability, are utilizing the program more than we’ve traditionally seen to treat a variety of conditions prior to potentially losing coverage.” Current employees should also expect to see their plans become more expensive in the next couple of years as employers shift the costs over to them. The Aon survey found that 65 percent percent of employers plan to increase cost-sharing in 2011 for deductibles, co-pays and out-of-pocket maximums, and 57 percent of companies polled said they will ask employees to contribute more for the overall cost of health care next year. A summary of the “2010 Benefits Survey” and information on how to obtain the full survey is available at http://aon.mediaroom.com .

Read the full article →

Usha Haley: The Pandora’s Box of Trade With China

August 27, 2010

Statistics released last week confirmed that China became the second-largest producer in the world, overtaking Japan. This marker received much more breathless media attention (see ” Fareed Zakaria GPS ” ) than another, more significant milestone. In 2009, China surpassed Germany to become the world’s largest exporter. In the first half of this year, China increased its export lead over Germany. As Leo Hindery wrote recently in the Huffington Post China’s overall trade surplus surged in July to $28.7 billion, its highest level in 18 months. Its surplus with just the U.S. was about $26 billion, or an almost unbelievable 90% of the total. China’s exports rose 38% year on year, while its pace of growth in imports slowed sharply….Yet China’s enormous positive trade balance with the U.S. alone reduces each year our country’s GDP by more than $400 billion or nearly three percent. My studies of the Chinese steel, paper and glass industries indicate that these extraordinary increases in Chinese production and exports have arisen through massive Chinese government subsidies and concomitant expansion of Chinese production capacity. Labor costs, a traditional explanation for China’s rise, are small portions of total costs in the capital-intensive industries in which China has export prowess. Two millennia ago, the military strategist, Sun Tzu wrote that if you know neither your competitor nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. The U.S.’s ballooning trade deficit with China, and associated job losses, testify to this dictum. As every student of economics knows, free trade leads to efficient resource allocation only when three conditions hold: lack of subsidies to distort true prices, lack of monopolies and lack of negative externalities so companies, rather than societies, bear production costs such as pollution. China’s subsidized, government-bolstered and polluting manufacturing industries negate these conditions. Consequently, the markets have failed, and U.S. government intervention needs to close the Pandora’s Box. A cogent letter from 104 U.S. Senators and Representatives highlighted the effects of Chinese trade. Citing a study I conducted on Chinese subsidies , the bi-partisan Congressional letter called on President Obama to conduct an in-depth examination of China’s unfair subsidization of its domestic paper industry. Congress asked the President to use the study as the basis for action to remedy these unfair trade practices: America’s paper industry is the most efficient in the world and is part of a supply chain that promotes sustainable forestry practices and good-paying jobs. This industry should not be asked to continue to compete on the unlevel playing field that China has constructed through heavy subsidization of domestic production. Let us examine the facts on China’s paper industry to which Congress alluded. Since 2000, China has tripled its paper production. In 2008, China overtook the U.S. to become the world’s largest producer of paper. In 2009, China produced over 17% of the world’s paper output and consolidated its place as one of the world’s largest paper exporters. However, the research showed that rather than economies of scale or scope or labor costs, China’s rapid rise in the global paper industry was fueled by over $33.1 billion in government subsidies from 2002 to 2009. China has no inherent cost advantages in the capital-intensive paper industry. Labor makes up only 4% of the costs in this industry; in contrast, imported recycled paper and pulp comprise over 35% of the costs. Raw materials, which make up three-fourths of the costs of producing Chinese paper, as well as electricity, coal, and transportation, have doubled in price over the last decade. Yet, Chinese paper sells at a substantial discount compared to U.S. or European paper. The Chinese paper industry has limited economies of scale or scope, with 88% of the companies being small and 12% medium-sized. The industry is geographically fragmented as well, operating in 30 of 31 Chinese provinces. China’s forest base is among the smallest in the world per capita. With no natural advantage for the production of paper, China is the largest importer in the world of pulp and recycled paper. Despite global overcapacity, China’s paper industry has added on average 26% of new capacity every year from 2004. With saturated domestic markets, exports have led the development of China’s paper industry, with detrimental effects on the U.S. and global economy. The U.S. trade deficit with China on paper has been increasing exponentially since 2002. Imports from China are rising faster than those from any other country for this industry. In February 2010, the annualized growth rate of Chinese paper and paper-product imports into the U.S. approximated 22%. Government involvement occurs every step of the way in China. The Chinese government’s policies on forestry have systematically aimed to reduce China’s dependence on imported raw materials and to subsidize the paper industry’s restructuring. Central and local governments’ subsidies and soft loans have also protected debt-ridden, state-owned enterprises and small, local companies with excess-production capacity in China. Only timely U.S. government intervention on trade with China will forestall the demise of U.S. manufacturing. This is not protectionism, but wise competitive policy in a global environment where market failures stave off the benefits from free trade. As U.S. manufacturing jobs in paper and elsewhere evaporate, never to return, so do interlinked competencies in other U.S. manufacturing sectors, including high-technology and green manufacturing. President Obama must realize that inaction too constitutes action, and with respect to trade with China, would be an irreversible, strategic mistake.

Read the full article →

BP oil spill Costs Ppass $6Bn mark

August 9, 2010

BP oil spill Costs Ppass $6Bn mark

Read the full article →

Rob Carmona: New York Times Article Misses Benefits of Job Training Benefits

July 29, 2010

A recent New York Times article: “After Job Training, Still Scrambling for a Job” paints an inaccurate picture of the benefits of job training, and I’d like to illustrate why. STRIVE International , a workforce development non-profit organization, was overjoyed to place 49% of its 2009 New York trainees in jobs during one of the worst recessions in memory. Among our graduates who pursued STRIVE’s vocational skills training, 58% have secured employment and are earning an average wage that is 56% above the minimum wage. In the world of the chronically unemployed, these statistics represent a substantial victory over the cycle of failure and rejection that perpetuates poverty. Our pool of clients is drawn from the hard core unemployed: 30% have been convicted of a felony, 66% are male, and 62% are African-American. Most have no prior employment history. The majority receive some form of public assistance. When the costs to society of sustaining the unemployed are considered, a more accurate picture of the benefits of job training emerges. On average, a year of incarceration costs taxpayers roughly $50,000 per inmate in New York State. A year of TANF cash benefits for a family of 3 is approximately $6,000 – $8,000. When factoring in Medicaid, Food Stamps and housing subsidies, governmental outlays for a family of three can exceed $25,000 per year. STRIVE’s program converts these individuals into economic contributors who will earn starting salaries between $19,000 and $24,000 per year along with medical benefits. Not only will these individuals develop credentials in the workplace and become taxpayers themselves, they will cease to engage in activities that negatively impact our society, while also providing financial security to their families and modeling responsible behavior to their children. We agree that skills training must be closely aligned with available jobs. Hence, STRIVE’s Skill training regimens are drawn from the Department of Labor’s research on growth industries and close collaboration with local companies. Our program is flexible enough to quickly adapt to the requirements of the job market. These are the keys to success that those of us in the workforce development profession follow. An evaluation of job training programs must consider the specific challenges of the population served and the costs to society of not providing vocational training. Further, no program can be evaluated only one year out – STRIVE follows its graduates for a minimum of 2 years and we continue to serve them after that period when they reach out to us for help. A blanket rejection of job training ignores the many examples of success and hope provided by the Workforce Development Community.

Read the full article →

Video: Barratt Sees `Light at The End of The Tunnel’ for BP: Video

July 20, 2010

July 20 (Bloomberg) — Jonathan Barratt, managing director at Commodity Broking Services Pty in Sydney, talks with Bloomberg’s Linzie Janis about the outlook for BP Plc. BP seeks cash to meet the costs of the worst oil spill in U.S. history. BP’s talks to sell half its stake in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay oil field to Apache Corp. stalled twice over the weekend, raising doubts about whether the deal will be completed, said a person with knowledge of the matter.(Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

BP Oil Spill: Off Death Watch, BP’s Future Still Open Question

July 18, 2010

NEW YORK — The future of BP PLC has shifted in recent days from a death-watch discussion to a debate about how valuable the British oil giant will be after it finishes paying for the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. BP gained temporary control of its broken well in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday and is counting on shutting it off permanently within weeks. Its shares have regained more than a quarter of the value lost in the wake of the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. Talk of a possible bankruptcy or takeover of the company has mostly faded. But the company still faces the daunting task of paying huge government fines and royalty payments, cleanup costs, damage claims and legal expenses for years. Analysts estimate BP’s final tab for the Gulf oil spill will be anywhere from $50 billion to $100 billion. Many analysts feel BP can cover the costs if they’re spread out over years or even decades. But others don’t like the uncertainty. They note that the asset sales needed to offset at least part of those costs will likely make it a smaller company with reduced cash flow. “We still don’t have any way of gauging” how much BP could eventually spend on the spill, Macquarie Research analyst Jason Gammel said. “We’re certainly not buying the stock.” Others are more encouraged. “People are relatively optimistic about the situation for the first time since this started,” said Dougie Youngson, an analyst with Arbuthnot Securities in London. BP shares traded in the U.S. were worth $60.48 on April 20, hours before the explosion of the drilling rig triggered the oil spill. They then spiraled downward to as low as $26.75 during trading on June 28. That slide wiped out $105 billion in market capitalization. The stock began to rebound this month as details emerged about the possible sale of $10 billion or more in assets to help cover BP’s liabilities. The temporary capping of the well helped send the stock 9 percent higher last week to $37.10. BP promised the Obama administration it will set aside $20 billion over four years to pay spill-related claims along the Gulf and has spent $3.5 billion so far. But beyond that, BP says “it is too early to quantify other potential costs and liabilities associated with the incident.” Those include: _ Possible civil fines of up to $1,000 for every barrel of oil spilled. With the government’s estimate of the spill ranging from 2.15 million to 4.3 million barrels, the fine could be from $2.15 billion to $4.3 billion. _ The government also wants BP to pay royalties at a rate of 18.75 percent on the oil it collected from the well. BP put that figure at 826,800 barrels. However, the company could also owe royalties on the oil spillled into the Gulf if investigators determine that the spill was the result of BP’s negligence. _ BP has vowed to stay in the Gulf until the oil is cleaned up, which will take years. It’s hired thousands of people to clean beaches and marshes and skim oil off the water. It also has to pay cleanup costs incurred by the government. _ Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and MOEX LLC, BP’s partners in the blown-out well, are contractually obligated to pay 25 percent and 10 percent of the costs, respectively. But they have refused to pay BP’s initial bills totaling $388 million because they claim BP was negligent in its management of the well. _ The biggest wild card is legal liabilities. Lawsuits have been filed on behalf of workers who died or were injured in the blast, as well as local businessmen, shareholders and employees. Analysts estimate BP’s operations will generate about $30 billion in cash this year if oil prices hold steady. BP recently cut back capital spending to around $18 billion, so that leaves about $12 billion in free cash. Normally, dividends totaling $10.6 billion would come out of that, but BP suspended dividend payments in June. BP also has another $5 billion in cash, plus a $15 billion credit line. Adding in potential asset sales, that means BP will have as much as $30 billion available for paying penalties and other liabilities. The company’s debt level stood at about $32.15 billion at March 31. It has talked to banks about borrowing more money if needed. Even if BP sells some assets, it’s likely to remain one of the largest non-government-owned oil companies in the world. Just how big? The high-end estimate of around 4 million barrels spilled in the Gulf amounts to no more than one day’s output from BP’s vast global operations. If BP can continue to get between $70 and $75 a barrel for the oil it produces, analysts believe its cash flow will remain sufficient to cover its Gulf liabilities. That doesn’t mean people pressing claims against BP have to root for higher prices, but the reality is that a sharp drop in oil could put them at risk. West Texas Intermediate crude, the light oil that is the benchmark for global prices, is trading at around $76 a barrel. Brent crude, which is found in the North Sea among other areas, is priced around $75.40. The company’s financial condition will become clearer when BP reports results for the second quarter on July 27. There’s a chance it will announce the sale of assets at that time. Published reports have suggested the company is talking with Apache Corp. about selling a stake in the Prudhoe Bay oil field in Alaska, but BP has declined to disclose specifics. Youngson, the Arbuthnot analyst, said a sale to Apache would fit with BP’s plan to sell assets that don’t affect the company’s long-term growth, a strategy it had before the Gulf spill. It also would make sense politically, he added. Another candidate for a sale is BP’s 60 percent stake in Argentine Pan American, an Argentine oil and gas producer that also has operations in Bolivia and Chile. Analysts estimate the stake is worth about $9 billion. Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Fadel Gheit said BP doesn’t need to sell assets now, but the company is digging in for years of damage claims. “Eventually they know they’re going to have to sell something,” he said. “It’s not if, but when.” __ Wardell reported from London. AP Reporter Jennifer Quinn contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Amitai Etzioni: Give Them an out

July 15, 2010

The U.S. Department of Justice should draft a contract for every American who opposes “big government” and wishes to cut it down and have their taxes slashed. The contract should stipulate that those who sign it will have to pay only a third of the regular tax rate (to cover the costs of our military and homeland security). However, in exchange they will not be entitled to any government services.  They will not be able to obtain passports, enter public parks, or use the highway system paid for by the federal government. They will all go on the no-fly list because they have not paid for the air control system. They will have to take their children out of public schools. Above all, if they grow ill, they will have to pay the doctors a fee that will help cover the costs of training these physicians which is now largely covered by the federal government. If they are hospitalized, they will have to pay their share of the building costs, also often largely covered by the federal government, including of the so called “private” hospitals.  The contract will of course have to be much longer. In effect, I suspect that it will extend to at least 20 single-spaced pages. However, you get the point. We shall never be able to gain a hearing from the millions who have been brainwashed by the libertarian nonsense and its laissez-faire conservative accompaniments until we find a dramatic way to drive home the point that although there is great room — in effect, urgent need — to reform our government, nobody really wants to live without most of the services it does provide. And if a bunch of libertarians want to sign the contract and move to some mountaintop and take care of each other, so be it. Just remind them not to call 911 in an emergency.

Read the full article →

Frida Berrigan: A Way Forward: Reexamining the Pentagon’s Spending Habits

July 14, 2010

Crossposted with Foreign Policy in Focus What is a trillion? It is a big number for sure. The best explanation I have found for this mind-blowing figure is from children’s book author David Schwartz. “One million seconds comes out to be about 11½ days. A billion seconds is 32 years. And a trillion seconds is 32,000 years.” What is a trillion dollars? What can you get for that much money? Rethink Afghanistan — Robert Greenwald’s effort to help us understand the war on terror, its costs, and consequences — has a new Facebook application aimed at breaking down exactly how much we can get for one trillion dollars. It is fun (in a qualified-world wide web-war on terror sort of way), and eye-opening. During one round of the game, we were able to spend $999.5 billion to: Hire every worker in Afghanistan for one year at a total cost of $12 billion;

Read the full article →

Makerbots: The Rise Of Inexpensive 3D Printers (VIDEO)

July 6, 2010

Have you ever wanted your very own 3D printer? If so you probably realized the costs for a machine that turned your ideas into reality were exorbitant. Well now Makerbots, a Brooklyn-based company, will send you a 3D printer (in pieces) for less than $1,000. Here’s CBS News on the up-and-coming company. WATCH:

Read the full article →

Financial Reform Could Hurt Growth, Cost Millions Of Jobs, Banks Warn

June 10, 2010

VIENNA — Regulatory reforms for banks are generally moving in the right direction but could negatively impact growth and job creation, members of the Institute of International Finance said Thursday. In Brussels, the European Banking Federation issued a similar warning, claiming that new global rules forcing banks to put aside more capital could keep the eurozone economy in or close to recession through 2014. The federation said its analysis of proposed new Basel III banking standards would limit eurozone banks’ credit growth and profits, hurt the economy and prevent the creation of up to 5 million jobs in the 16 nations that use the euro. In the wake of the economic crisis that sent the global economy into recession, the international community has been considering tougher rules for financial institutions. Among the measures currently under consideration are stricter capital and liquidity requirements. Members of the Institute of International Finance, currently meeting in Vienna, said it was important that regulatory reforms are balanced, globally coordinated and not implemented too quickly to avoid thwarting recovery. “Let me underscore that we consider the direction of regulatory reform to be broadly right,” said Josef Ackermann, the CEO of Deutsche Bank AG who heads global association of bankers’ board of directors. But he added: “It will be self-defeating, if it undermines the still fragile recovery.” Ackermann also warned that higher costs for banks to raise capital filter down to their customers and in turn influence the scale of credit growth in the economy. “Some proposed measures may require banks to actually shed assets, which would reduce the volume of credit they can provide to the economy,” Ackermann said. In making their points at a news conference in Vienna’s historic Hofburg, Ackermann and other officials referenced a new Institute of International Finance report that, taking the proposed Basel III global banking rules into consideration, projects GDP levels in the United States, the euro region and Japan to be 3.1 percent lower than it would otherwise be by 2015. As a result, under reasonable assumptions, some 9.7 million fewer jobs would be created over this five-year period than would otherwise be the case, said Peter Sands, group chief executive of Standard Chartered PLC. “What we’re talking about is headwinds that result in slower economic growth and thus slower job creation,” Sands said. “There is a price for making the banking system safer and more stable and that price will inevitably be borne by the real economy.” Ackermann – speaking on behalf of the IIF – said the bankers are not in favor of a transaction tax. While he said that, “in principle,” he was in favor of the disclosure of so-called stress tests of European banks, he warned it could also be “very, very dangerous” if no backstop facilities are in place. He also said it was important for banks to be as transparent as possible about their balance sheets and exposure in order to assure markets and quell a certain “uneasiness.” “It is very clear that the stability and soundness of the banking system is much higher than when the crisis started,” Ackermann said. Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank, acknowledged the IIF’s report but recalled how recent turbulence showed weaknesses in the system. “If I may, you need resilience in the medium and long term,” Trichet told the bankers gathered for dinner at the Austrian capital’s Spanish Riding School. “We have to find the appropriate way to be sure that we are in a resilient state in the permanent regime … of global finance,” he added. In Brussels, the European Banking Federation said the Basel rules would force banks to increase lending costs to eurozone households and businesses by nearly 1 percent on average. The rules are intended to increase banks’ ability to weather future storms by setting new standards – and likely higher levels – for how much capital they must set aside to counter risks. They also would hold back banks from relying heavily on short-term lending from markets. European banks are warning these moves would impose high costs on them which they may have to pass on to customers in the form of higher interest rates. They say it could curtail lending, which already is depressed as banks become more cautious after the recent financial crisis and subsequent recession. “Restraint imposed on banks is sufficiently severe to keep the economy in or close to recession through 2014,” the banks say in the IIF report. European companies rely far more on banks for finance than American companies which also depend selling bonds. The banks say their analysis doesn’t include the full effects of proposed bank levies – such as a yearly resolution fee to raise euro5 billion yearly that would pay the costs of unwinding troubled banks. Some European countries also are suggesting additional bank fees to pay the costs of future bailouts. ____ AP business writer Aoife White contributed to this report from Brussels.

Read the full article →

Video: French, German Divisions Top Concerns for Euro Stability

May 21, 2010

May 21 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Eric Coleman reports on divisions in the European Union over the costs of helping fellow member states pay off their budget deficits to defend the euro.

Read the full article →

G7 Finance Ministers Asks For Strong International Response, While Euro Zone Leaders Ensure They Will Defend The Euro Whatever It Costs  

May 8, 2010

G7 Finance Ministers Asks For Strong International Response, While Euro Zone Leaders Ensure They Will Defend The Euro Whatever It Costs

Read the full article →

G-20 Split on Taxing Banks for Bailout Costs, Ask IMF to Revise Proposals

April 24, 2010

By Sandrine Rastello April 24 (Bloomberg) — Group of 20 finance chiefs were split on whether to tax banks for the cost of bailouts and pushed back talks by ordering the International Monetary Fund to study the issue further. “Some countries are in favor of that, some countries quite clearly are not, it depends whether a country has had to use taxpayers’ dollars to bail out banks,” Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty , who co-chaired the closing news conference, said in Washington. “There was agreement that options would continue to be developed.” In a preliminary report, the IMF recommended taxing financial institutions’ non-deposit liabilities and the sum of profit and compensation to help pay for future bailouts of the industry. G-20 leaders, who commissioned a feasibility study last year, will get the final report at their meeting in June. Policy makers from the G-20 are weighing proposals to have banks shoulder the costs of rescues after governments and central banks provided an estimated $11 trillion to institutions including New York-based Citigroup Inc. and Edinburgh-based Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner , said the U.S. will go ahead with its plan of “a fee on risk” to be paid by the banks over time to cover the costs of the U.S. rescue. Do What’s Needed “We’re going to do what’s necessary for the United States, what’s in our interest and I think the world’s going to want to watch what we do, and I suspect that’ll provide a basis for other actions across some of the other major economies,” he told reporters. While U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling , one of the strongest supporters of a levy, said talks are advancing, his Brazilian counterpart, Guido Mantega , said the tax was the biggest point of disagreement during discussions. Brazil, India, Russia are China don’t want to implement the IMF tax proposals, he said. Darling said the situation is now one where “we are making progress,” compared with the outlook in November when “people gave us cold shoulder.” “There’s an agreement we have to strike the right balance between a tougher regulatory and supervisory regime and a tax system that means banks meet their obligations to the society they operate in,” he said. Winning Support Flaherty, who’s opposed a levy, said he’s won the backing of other nations, though he declined to identify them. He suggested financial institutions instead carry contingent capital. The IMF said in its report that the fiscal costs of direct support to the financial system, excluding the amounts recovered so far, have averaged 2.7 percent of gross domestic product for advanced G-20 economies. In some cases, unrecovered costs remain “very high,” the IMF said, citing 5.4 percent of GDP in the U.K., 3.6 percent in the U.S. and 4.8 percent in Germany. As a result of the crisis, public debt in G-20 advanced economies is projected to rise by almost 40 percentage points of GDP by 2015 from 2008, the institution forecast. “There might be resistance to bank taxes now, but when the G-20 ministers go home to confront angry taxpayers, they won’t have forgotten who should be paying to clean up this mess,” aid organization Oxfam International said in a statement. To contact the reporter on this story: Sandrine Rastello in Washington at srastello@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Wholesale Prices in U.S. Advance More Than Estimated on Food, Energy Costs

April 22, 2010

By Shobhana Chandra April 22 (Bloomberg) — Wholesale prices in the U.S. rose more than forecast in March, boosted by higher costs for energy and the biggest gain in food since 1984. The 0.7 percent increase in prices paid to factories, farmers and other producers followed a 0.6 percent drop in February, the Labor Department said today in Washington. Excluding fuel and food, so-called core prices rose 0.1 percent for a second month, restrained by cheaper autos and appliances. Inflation may be limited as companies rely on productivity gains to offset higher costs of energy and raw materials. Excess capacity and slow job growth underscore the Federal Reserve’s pledge to keep interest rates close to zero for an “extended period.” “Businesses will face a difficult pricing environment for some time because consumers’ ability to afford higher prices is quite limited even now,” John Lonski, chief economist at Moody’s Capital Markets Group in New York, said before the report. “Inflation seems to be well-contained for the foreseeable future.” Producer prices were forecast to rise 0.5 percent in March, according to the median estimate of 78 economists in a Bloomberg News survey. Estimates ranged from a drop of 0.2 percent to a gain of 1.2 percent. Prices excluding food and fuel were estimated to rise 0.1 percent for a second month. The cost of food jumped 2.4 percent in March, the most since January 1984. Vegetable prices rose by the most since December 1994 and the cost of fish posted the biggest gain since April 2006. Energy Costs Rise Energy costs increased 0.7 percent last month. Gasoline prices rose 2.1 percent, while costs for heating oil and residential electricity were also higher. Companies paid 6 percent more for goods in the 12 months ended in March, the biggest year-over-year gain since September 2008, after rising 4.4 percent the prior month. The March gain matched the median forecast. Excluding food and energy, wholesale prices increased 0.9 percent in the 12 months ended in March, after a 1 percent gain. Rising energy costs may keep year-over-year comparisons elevated. Crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange averaged $81.29 a barrel last month, while in March 2009 it averaged $48.06. Costs for passenger cars fell 1.1 percent, the most since July, and appliances prices dropped 1.4 percent, the biggest decline since August 2000. Consumer Prices Producer prices are one of three monthly inflation gauges reported by the Labor Department. Prices of goods imported into the U.S. rose less than anticipated in March. The cost of living index rose 0.1 percent last month, while prices excluding food and energy were unchanged, reflecting cheaper rents and clothing. AK Steel Holding Corp. , the third-largest U.S. steelmaker by 2009 sales, is among companies seeing higher costs for raw materials after reporting a first-quarter profit compared with a loss a year earlier. The West Chester, Ohio-based company said on April 20 that if iron-ore costs jump more than the 30 percent assumed last quarter, it could hurt second-quarter earnings. “AK Steel is firmly on the road to recovery,” James Wainscott, chief executive officer, said in a statement. At the same time, the company said there is “substantial uncertainty with respect to global iron-ore pricing for 2010.” Today’s report showed the cost of intermediate goods, those used in earlier stages of production, rose 0.6 percent in March. Prices for raw materials, or so-called crude goods, increased 3.2 percent. Excess Capacity Helping limit inflation are data on capacity utilization. Economists track operating rates to gauge factories’ ability to produce goods with existing resources. The proportion of plants in use rose to 73.2 percent in March, Fed figures showed last week. Capacity averaged 80 percent over the past two decades. Lower rates reduce the risk of bottlenecks that can force prices higher. Janet Yellen, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said in an April 15 speech that she supported the Fed’s pledge to keep rates low for an “extended period.” “The economy is operating well below its potential, inflation is subdued, and such conditions are likely to continue for a while,” Yellen said. To contact the reporter on this story: Shobhana Chandra in Washington at schandra1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: A Tax Trick That Forces Companies to Close Factories

April 16, 2010

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project. I am a Fellow with CAF. Yesterday was April 15, so I wrote about Tax Tricks . Here’s a tax trick to talk about: Offshore Tax Havens for corporations. Here’s one way that offshore tax havens work. You make an item in one country, and sell it at cost to a subsidiary that is based (post office box) in a tax haven country with no or low taxes. So there is no profit to report in the country that it was made in. Then, your company or another subsidiary buys it for import in the US, for a price near to the amount the product will be sold for here. So when it sells, there is no profit to be taxed here. All the profit occurs in the low-or-no tax country. We, the People collect no taxes with which to pay for the schools and roads that make our economy competitive. This tax trick encourages companies to move offshore, closing factories, laying off workers, killing the local suppliers and forcing costs onto the community. So not only are we losing the tax base and suffering the loss of the jobs and factory, we’re picking up many of the costs. When a company like Whirlpool says they have to close a plant and destroy a community for competitive reasons, it’s because they can do it, and if they don’t their competitors will. If their competitors do and they don’t respond they lose out, even to the possible point of going out of business (and closing factories and destroying communities.) Don’t blame the companies. Companies do what we let them do. If you don’t take advantage of this your competitors will. If your competitors gain enough advantage and you don’t you even face going out of business — and closing factories, destroying communities, putting the costs on the public etc. So by allowing this, Congress forces companies to do this. The word you hear is “encourages” but really, in a competitive environment, allowing it at all forces not encourages. It is OUR job to set up the playing field on which these companies compete and to define the rules they will use. Zach Carter writes in 10 Ways to Force the Stinking Rich to Share Their Wealth : According to the Government Accountability Office, 83 of the 100 largest American corporations (pdf) engage in this kind of tax evasion. All of those companies have lobbyists. These companies do it because we let them, which means we make them do it. Congress: FIX IT! Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

China’s Iron Ore Talks With Vale, BHP `Pointless,’ Shagang Chairman Says

April 1, 2010

By Bloomberg News April 2 (Bloomberg) — China’s talks with the world’s biggest iron-ore miners are “pointless” as its steelmakers have to accept the higher terms Vale SA negotiated with Japan this week, Jiangsu Shagang Group Co. Chairman Shen Wenrong said. “We have no options,” Shen, who heads China’s largest privately held steelmaker, said today in a phone interview from Zhangjiagang in Jiangsu province. “Iron ore prices have gone too far. We have to accept it, although we can’t afford it.” Brazil’s Vale, the largest supplier, set a precedent this week by securing a 90 percent price increase from Sumitomo Metal Industries Co. and shifting to quarterly pricing from a 40-year system of selling iron ore through annual contracts. The World Steel Association asked regulators to probe an “oligopoly” among iron ore miners and the China Iron and Steel Association said it will hold an emergency meeting today to discuss the issue. Vale said yesterday it agreed with 97 percent of its global clients to adopt quarterly price contracts, following moves by BHP Billiton Ltd. to replace annual negotiations with more frequent adjustments to prices. The two companies and Rio Tinto Group control about two-thirds of the $200 billion ore market, according to Credit Suisse Group AG. China’s talks with the three suppliers are still on, He Wenbo , general manager of Baosteel Group Corp., which is representing Chinese steelmakers in the talks, said yesterday. “The negotiations are very difficult,” He told investors yesterday in an online conference. Private Deals Some Chinese steelmakers have privately reached deals with the suppliers, Deng Qilin , chairman of the China Iron and Steel Association, said last month. The industry group said on March 16 that Chinese mills oppose the 90 percent price demand. “High prices will spur mine expansions,” Shen said. “In the next three to five years, the oligopoly must be broken.” Annual pricing crumbled last year as Chinese steelmakers failed to set a rate with lead negotiator Rio Tinto, followed by BHP’s move to cut the proportion of ore sold through annual contracts. Increased rates for the steelmaking material are forcing mills to push higher costs on to customers such as automakers and appliance manufacturers. Lakshmi Mittal , chief executive officer of ArcelorMittal, said March 31 the world’s biggest steelmaker will raise costs for customers by $150 a metric ton this quarter. The new price will be 20 percent more than the current rates compiled by Metal Bulletin. “We must raise steel prices to pass on the costs.” Shen said. “If we can’t do it, we will incur losses and will be forced to cut output.” — Helen Yuan . Editors: Indranil Ghosh , Matthew Oakley To contact the Bloomberg News staff on this story: Helen Yuan in Shanghai at hyuan@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Toyota: Prius Brakes Have Design Problems

February 4, 2010

TOKYO (Associated Press) – Toyota admitted design problems with the brakes in its prized Prius, adding to the catalog of woes for the world’s No. 1 automaker still reeling from a massive U.S. recall involving faulty gas pedals. Toyota Motor Corp. spokeswoman Ririko Takeuchi said Thursday that Toyota discovered there were design problems with the antilock brake system and corrected them for Prius models sold since late January, including those being shipped overseas. But the company said it was still investigating how to inform people who had bought the gas-electric hybrid cars. Nothing was decided on that front for Prius cars sold overseas, according to Toyota. Complaints about braking problems in the third-generation Prius have been reported in both the U.S. and Japan, combining to some 180, and come amid a global recall of nearly 4.5 million other top-selling vehicles for faulty gas pedals. “We are investigating whether there are defects in the Prius,” Toyota executive Hiroyuki Yokoyama told reporters at Toyota’s Tokyo. The company gave few details of the brake flaw. A major Toyota dealership in Tokyo said the automaker had informed dealers that Prius brakes can sometimes fail to work for less than a second but it had not told owners. “It is disappointing because the Prius was receiving such rave reviews,” said Hiroyuki Naito, a manager at the dealership. The latest model Prius hit showrooms last May. The problem with the Prius — the best-selling hybrid in the world and Toyota’s flagship model — is a big embarrassment for the automaker in its home turf Japan and another blow in the U.S., its biggest market. In recent weeks, the automaker had answered questions about its overseas recalls for gas pedals with assurances that problems didn’t extend to Japanese vehicles, implying that it was doing a better job with quality control in Japan. The transport minister is ordering an investigation and said a recall for the Prius should be considered. U.S. authorities are also investigating. Earlier in Washington, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood startled the public with a comment, which he later retracted, that Americans should park their recalled Toyotas unless driving to dealers for accelerator repairs. The popular gas-electric Prius was not part of the most recent recall over sticking gas pedals in eight top-selling models including the Camry that spanned the U.S., Europe and China. Toyota senior managing director Takahiro Ijichi defended the automaker’s quality standards. “We have not sacrificed the quality for the sake of saving costs,” he said. “Quality is our lifeline. We want our customers to feel safe and regain their trust as soon as possible.” Toyota for the first time gave an estimate of the costs of the U.S. recall at up to $2 billion with $1.1 billion for the costs for the repairs and $770 million to $880 million in lost sales. The Prius, the world’s best-selling hybrid, has been extremely popular in Japan because of government incentives that made hybrids tax-free. More than 170,000 the new remodeled Prius cars were sold in Japan and about 103,000 have been sold in the U.S. since May. Despite snowballing problems with quality, Toyota said Thursday it returned to profit in the October-December quarter because of healthy sales of its green models including the Prius, and raised its forecast for the fiscal year through March. Net profit for October-December was about $1.7 billion. It forecast a $880 million annual profit compared with its previous forecast for a $2.2 billion loss. Toyota also raised its full year sales outlook to 7.18 million units from 7.03 million. The revised forecast remains lower than the 7.57 million vehicles it sold last fiscal year. And it is unclear how well Toyota sales and profits will hold up in coming months.

Read the full article →

Deutsche Bank Will ‘Globalize’ U.K. Bonus Tax: CEO Josef Ackermann:

December 18, 2009

Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) — Deutsche Bank AG, Germany’s biggest bank, plans to spread the costs of the U.K. bonus tax to all employees worldwide, risking a backlash from bankers outside of London.

Read the full article →

Bair Says Secured Creditors Should Have to Pay Costs of Big Bank Failures

November 24, 2009

By Rebecca Christie Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) — Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said secured creditors should have to help pay for the costs of bank failures that are big enough to threaten the financial system. Bair, in a letter to lawmakers released today, endorsed a proposal that was added last week to the regulatory overhaul legislation making its way through the House Financial Services Committee. It would require secured creditors, like repurchase agreement lenders and the Federal Home Loan Bank system, to bear losses of as much as 20 percent to cover the costs of a systemically significant bank failure. Such lenders currently require banks to post collateral equal to the amount of funding they receive. If a bank is unable to repay the funds, the collateral changes hands and isn’t available to compensate other creditors or to repay losses borne by government insurance funds. “This amendment will help achieve your goal of enhancing market discipline because it will mean that secured creditors, alike with every other creditor, will need to evaluate the solvency of our largest financial firms,” Bair said in a Nov. 18 letter to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank , circulated among committee members and obtained today by Bloomberg News. ‘Bad Decisions’ “This amendment will ensure that the largest firms are not immunized from their bad decisions by relying on short-term financing so long as they have collateral to pledge,” Bair said. The amendment has drawn an outcry on Wall Street, sparking concerns that banks would face far higher funding costs if it is enacted. “This would essentially invalidate all secured lending agreements,” said Louis Crandall , chief economist of Wrightson ICAP in Jersey City, New Jersey. “That would curtail the financial system’s access to funding, and would raise borrowing costs in a number of sectors. “For instance, the cost of financing the public debt would rise sharply if owners of Treasury securities could not pledge them as collateral for fully secured loans,” he said. Representative Brad Miller , a Democrat from North Carolina who sponsored the measure, said banks shouldn’t be able to rely too heavily on short-term funding if their financial condition is precarious. Systemic Importance “That’s an intended consequence,” Miller said in a telephone interview today. “We don’t want big, systemically significant firms to be relying on short-term debt to stay in business.” Miller said the provisions would not be applied automatically. Instead, the FDIC would have leeway to decide whether to impose the losses, commonly called a haircut, in the event of a financial crisis. Community bankers have expressed concern about Bair’s proposal, particularly over its effect on their lines of credit from the Federal Home Loan Bank System, in meetings with FDIC officials and at an Oct. 15 regulatory summit. By law, the federally chartered home-loan banks are only allowed to lend to financial institutions on a fully collateralized basis. Throughout the financial crisis, the home-loan banks have been a “life preserver” for regional financial institutions, said Alfred DelliBovi , president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York, in a telephone interview. He said the House proposal would hurt his bank’s ability to fulfill its mission, according to its federal charter, especially because regulators have discretion to decide when a financial institution is systemically significant. ‘Fundamentally Change’ “It would fundamentally change the situation,” DelliBovi said in a telephone interview. “To lend a dollar and only be able to get 80 cents would be illegal. It would also be unsound practice.” The House Financial Services Committee isn’t considering further changes to the regulatory overhaul bill. The panel could vote to send the bill to the full House as soon as next week, committee spokesman Steven Adamske said today.

Read the full article →

Deripaska Says Rusal’s $14 Billion Debt Restructuring Is Almost Complete

November 16, 2009

By Katrina Nicholas Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) — Oleg Deripaska , the Russian billionaire owner of the world’s largest aluminum producer United Co. Rusal, said the restructuring of more than $14 billion of debt owed by the company is “almost” complete. “We are just going through the bank procedures,” Deripaska said in an interview. “We have 70 banks but I am pretty sure we are practically done.” Rusal needs to agree on the restructuring with foreign lenders before it can proceed with a planned initial public offering in Hong Kong. The Moscow-based company intends to sell 10 percent of its shares to help repay borrowings, which ballooned last year after Rusal bought 25 percent of OAO GMK Norilsk Nickel , Russia’s biggest mining company, before commodities prices collapsed in the second half of 2008. “I have committed a lot of time and effort to restructure the debt,” Deripaska said yesterday in Singapore, where he was accompanying Russian President Dmitry Medvedev who was attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. “It was not easy to do.” Deripaska, 41, whose Basic Element investment company employs 1 million people in Russia, said Asia is “very important” to Rusal. The company said last week it’s seeking seven or eight major customers in China to secure long-term aluminum deliveries. Rusal’s smelters in Siberia and its hydropower potential offer the region more efficient and environmentally friendly aluminum production, Deripaska said. Asian Partners “We believe we can create a lot of solutions which will cut a lot of waste and create sustainability, but also to attract more partners from this region who are interested in developing new projects with us,” he said. Rusal’s debt almost doubled after it bought 25 percent of Norilsk for $7 billion in cash and a 14 percent stake in Rusal. The aluminum producer had a net loss of $6 billion for 2008, Vedomosti reported last month. Rusal got $4.5 billion from Vnesheconombank in October last year, the biggest state bailout of any Russian company. In December, Rusal announced plans to cut 5 percent of jobs worldwide and reduce aluminum output. “We were able to drop our costs by 25 percent in less than six months,” Deripaska said. “We have more aggressive plans to cut the costs to be even more competitive, and will be considering different opportunities for our business development including building joint ventures.” U.S. Travel Deripaska declined to comment directly on the progress of the IPO. Rusal hired Bank of America Merrill Lynch, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, to replace Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in marketing the offering, which is slated for December. The IPO will be led by Credit Suisse Group AG and BNP Paribas SA, with banks including BOC International Holdings Ltd. and VTB Group helping to manage the sale. Goldman may have abandoned efforts to get a role as an underwriter because of concerns about Deripaska, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month. U.S. officials prevented Deripaska from obtaining a visa because of allegations that he is connected to organized crime, the newspaper said. “We maintain a good relationship with Goldman,” Deripaska said. “I have no restrictions to travel to any country.” He traveled to the U.S. twice in the past four months, he said. To contact the reporter on this story: nsaminather1@bloomberg.net Katrina Nicholas in Singapore at knicholas2@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Michael Martin: The ABC’s of Bias: Puma, Crude Oil, and You

November 7, 2009

Attention airline passengers: Not only do you have to pay extra for your luggage, your meal, and your headphones, you now have a dress code on United Airlines . But that shouldn’t surprise you. The airlines industry in general has been mismanaged for decades, including being overwhelmed with high labor costs and being laden with debt…just like the Big 3. As far as I can see, the airlines have never been a good investment. Most of the publicly traded equities are under $10 save one or two. They’re cheap for a reason: no one wants them. On Monday, ABC News ran an article on increasing energy costs and tried to tie it in with guesses of impending CFTC rules and position limits. They quoted a few sources: a family-owned heating oil company executive, the head of an airline, and a spokesman for the ATA. As a Commodity instructor and trader, I was quoted for my opinion on the reasons for the increase in prices across the board. I gave them 2 pretty good quotes, one they ran, but the most telling one was edited out: “Stable prices and cheap fuel are not our birthright,” argues the L.A. trader/instructor Martin. “This recent run up has everything to do with U.S. monetary policy and nothing to do with Wall Street speculators” was how the article was to have ended, but it was edited out. Instead, they went with a syrupy, sob story to pull on your heartstrings. The weakness of the US dollar can cause crude oil and heating oil prices to rise. Jet Fuel A, heating oil, and gasoline are derived from crude oil. Lower crude production has caused a decrease in supply, as shown in this graphic from Gregor Macdonald . View image I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but not mentioning that there could be just one other reason why heating oil is going higher, looks like ABC News has an agenda or are pandering to their readership. ABC linked an archived video from July of 2009 that features an ABC interview with an equity hedge fund manager who’s testimony was thoroughly refuted by both Jim Rogers and Nobel Economist Paul Krugman , among others, without mentioning that not everyone agreed with the testimony – especially two prominent experts. As an instructor, I’m sometimes in a position where I have to disseminate educational material for the benefit of the students, even though the material might be diametrically opposed from my own beliefs: you have to let the students (and in this case the readers) make up their own minds. With this in mind, ABC’s use of their evergreen material in an article, not an editorial, was a poor choice. Heating oil is derived from crude oil through a process known as cracking and producers make sure they have enough supply to sell to consumers for the colder fall and winter weather. As you might expect, the demand for heading oil is higher in the colder weather than warmer and this creates a seasonal tendency. The chart below is based on 26 years of data and shows that heating oil prices (aka Fuel Oil #2) bottom out in the summer and rise to peak prices in late September and October. (Chart courtesy of Jerry Toepke @ Moore Research Center Inc. ) View image I believe we’ve been spoiled with cheap fuel costs for most of our lives. America’s policy toward drilling for new oil will guarantee you skyrocketing fuel costs and alternative fuels are, although intriguing, years and years away from being practical and affordable for the majority of Americans. A larger carbon footprint is created in the formation of ethanol that the one left by actually burning ethanol. In the ABC News article, US Airways Chairman and CEO Doug Parker was quoted as saying, “we believe unchecked speculative trading of oil futures is distorting the normal market dynamics of supply and demand.” I think what Mr. Parker meant to say was, “we know we can pass higher fuel costs on to Americans if we don’t hedge, and ultimately blame speculators for the higher costs.” CEOs and their Treasurers have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to hedge. David A. Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association (ATA), said that “speculators have been causing such volatility in the market that it is hard for airlines or other oil users to make appropriate business decisions.” Really? Scott Topping over at Southwest had crude locked in at $51 / barrel when oil prices were high by utilizing several hedging techniques. Effective hedging is an ongoing process and needs to cover many years into the future, so if peak oil hits again, the hedges will already be in place. Castelveter attests that “every $1 increase in the price of oil adds about $430 million to airlines’ annual operating costs.” An effective hedging program that will offset EVERY $1 increase in the price of oil will run you but a few percentage points of the $430 million number quoted. (Note to Mssrs. Parker and Castelveter and ATA members: Read all the Nassim Taleb you can get your hands on. He may also be able to help you with some hedging techniques.) American CEOs, including those in the airline industry and ATA, are focused on one thing: hitting their quarterly earnings number…a chicken shit way to run a company. No one is taking any good risks these days: they’ve lost their balls. They don’t hedge b/c they will pass the costs onto Americans . I think they don’t hedge fuel costs because it costs money and that affects their quarterly earnings which in turn affects their share prices and the CEOs’ collective net worth. Tie airline CEO compensation to how effectively they hedge higher fuel costs I say and we might be on the right track to a higher fiduciary standard in that industry…I don’t think we are anywhere near that now. If they can ensure that we can travel for a reasonable fare while their firms remain profitable entities, pay them twice what they’re getting now . They will deserve it. Americans and everyone in the ATA need financial literacy and education, not the blame game and lazy corporate attitudes, nor further regulation. There are already some very stringent position limit rules for commodity futures traders. Any large trader will tell you it’s easy to get into a position, but hard to get out of one . As commodity expert Barry Siler said, “Being unhedged is the ultimate short position,” he says. “You’re betting every day that the price of fuel won’t go up.” I think the CEO’s of America’s airline companies are the real gamblers in the energy markets. They’re betting that world is continually stable and there will be no shocks to the global energy markets. This scenario has the potential outcome of leaving (Puma-clad) Americans stranded at the airports around key travel days while absorbing higher costs for less service.

Read the full article →

Coal’s Environmental Damage Costs U.S. $62 Billion Per Year, Study Finds

October 19, 2009

By Tina Seeley Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) — Burning coal to generate electricity in the U.S. causes about $62 billion a year in “hidden costs” for environmental damage, not including expenses related to global warming, the National Academy of Sciences said. The cost was part of $120 billion the group identified as total damages from the use of energy in 2005, according to a report the academy’s National Research Council issued today. The study was requested by Congress as part of 2005 energy legislation. The academy was asked to define and evaluate external expenses and benefits associated with production, distribution and use of energy not already reflected in market prices. The report doesn’t include specific costs for damage associated with greenhouse-gas emissions. Congress is debating legislation to limit carbon dioxide and other pollutants in the effort to curb such global warming. “Although large uncertainties are associated with the committee’s estimates, there is little doubt that this aggregate total substantially underestimates the damages,” according to the report by a committee led by Jared Cohon , president of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. Damages associated with the normal operation of nuclear power plants “are quite low compared with those of fossil-fuel- based power plants,” the report found. Renewable energy sources, including wind and solar power, don’t currently produce adverse effects comparable to the larger sources of electricity, the report said. The study calculated the costs of air pollutants from energy on human health, grain crop and timber yields, building materials, recreation and visibility of outdoor vistas. For human health, the report assesses the costs in terms of premature death and disease. Power Plants “The report completely ignores the ‘hidden’ benefits of coal-based generation,” Carol Raulston , spokeswoman for the National Mining Association in Washington, said in an e-mailed statement. “Numerous studies have shown the health benefits of electricity in providing air conditioning, heating and refrigeration.” Raulston said coal, which provides half of the U.S. electricity supply, is the cheapest source of power and benefits low-income individuals. She also said that emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter have all declined as the amount of coal-fired electricity has almost tripled during the past 39 years. Environmental groups said including costs of climate change and other pollutants would make the $120 billion figure higher. ‘Dirty Energy’ “Without quantifying the cost of global warming, many toxic pollutants like mercury or national security risks, the report puts a whopping $120 billion price tag on a year’s worth of mostly air pollution from our dirty energy sources,” Sean Garren, a clean-energy advocate for Environment America, said in an e-mailed release. “With the worst effects of global warming getting closer on the horizon, we know the cost of our current energy system is even higher still,” he said. The study looked at 406 coal-fired power plants in 2005, which represent 95 percent of the nation’s coal-fired electricity. Aggregate damages associated with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emitted by the facilities amounted to $156 million on average per plant. Cars, trucks and the burning of transportation fuels generated $56 billion in health and other nonclimate-related damages in 2005. Aggregate Damages Natural gas produced $740 million in aggregate damages, an average annual cost of $1.49 million per plant. The National Academy of Sciences is a non-profit organization created by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to coordinate the work of volunteer scholars who examine subjects at the request of government agencies. “Failures to account for externalities can lead to distortions in decision-making,” Cohon, the leader of the study committee, told reporters on a conference call today. With distortions, “there’s a case to be made for government intervention of various sorts, like taxes, regulation, etcetera.” To contact the reporter on this story: Tina Seeley in Washington at tseeley@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Sima Gandhi: Why the Savings From Health Care Reform Are Underappreciated

October 12, 2009

The lack of a whole-hearted, landslide, public embrace of health reform is surprising considering that unless your family earns over $250,000, reform costs you nothing and, the President’s health care plan, if enacted, is estimated to increase the income of the average family of four by about $10,000 in 2030. One part of the explanation for public reluctance to embrace reform may be explained by behavioral economics. Behavioral economists have found that people in most situations: Undervalue future money and overvalue money now, Focus on losses over gains, and Prefer the status quo over change. How does this play out in health care? Let’s consider each of these behavioral factors in turn. The first, undervaluation of the future, is called hyperbolic discounting. A classic example of hyperbolic discounting is credit card debt. A shopping spree generates benefits today for costs that occur in the future; because the costs occur in the future, shoppers tend to undervalue them. Accordingly, people tend to prefer actions that produce benefits today with future costs over those that produce costs today with future benefits. Hyperbolic discounting also offers an explanation for low rates of savings and investment in the United States. Savings and investing both involve costs today but benefits are not realized until far off in the future. Healthcare reform is like investing; it requires up front costs for future benefits. Reform benefits families by increasing income. It also, among other benefits, saves families money by lowering premiums, copayments, and out of pocket expenses. Some estimates project families will save $3,759 in premiums in 2020 compared to what they would pay without reform. Despite these real financial savings, people may undervalue the benefits because they will occur in the future. Just as future benefits of change are discounted, so too are the costs of continuing the current health care system. Studies show that without reform a family of four can expect to pay almost $24,000 in premiums by 2020 . Other costs of the current system include benefit reductions, denial of care, and less coverage – these additional costs may not have a price tag on them but they are just as real as the benefits of reform. Yet, research suggests that the public may undervalue these costs because they are still to come. Then there’s loss aversion, which helps explain why people feel anxious about reform despite its benefits. Studies indicate that people experience greater unhappiness from paying out a $1 than they do pleasure from receiving a $1. In short, people don’t get as excited about gains as they get worried about losses. So even though healthcare reform doesn’t cost most taxpayers anything and is revenue-neutral which means it doesn’t affect the federal budget, the fact that it does cost something generates anxiety. Think about the example of the $1. A person that spends a dollar in the morning but gets a dollar back at dinner will be less happy than a person that doesn’t spend or get anything at all – even though at the end of the day they both have the same amount of money. Loss aversion tells us that contrary to logic, a dollar in is not the same as a dollar out. Even people who aren’t satisfied with the current healthcare system will feel anxious about change and can be very susceptible to arguments that they may lose something they value. Finally, change is hard. Behavioral economics explains aversions to change through the endowment effect, or the preference for things simply because they belong to you. The following classic experiment illustrates how the endowment effect works. In it, some students in a class were given coffee mugs and asked to name a selling price. Others in the class were asked how much they would pay to buy the mugs. Rational people should value identical mugs equally. Researchers found that was not the case. Instead of valuing the mugs equally, people with the mugs demanded more than twice as much as the people without the mugs. Simply possessing the mugs increased their value. When it comes to health care reform, many people may want to keep the current system because it’s what they have now — and they value it. The American people have two choices. Implement healthcare reform now, when the future benefits outweigh the current costs — even though it may feel like the costs are higher than the benefits. Or wait as rising healthcare costs slowly drain our bank accounts. Either way, the need for reform is real. Let’s get rational and do it.

Read the full article →

Saul Segan: Tort Reform — Another Dangerous Scapegoat

September 22, 2009

It is amazing how often the subject of tort reform rears its ugly head at convenient times as a means of finding a path to the goal of public change. Not only is Tort reform a red herring, it is one that has been laid out in the sun for so long a period of time that it is polluting the air and clear thinking with odorous excess. Statistics have shown time and time again that the contribution to medical costs of malpractice claims or other tort litigation is minuscule and by their elimination will deprive the public of astronomically more than it will provide any benefit. There is no question that overwhelming percentage of medical providers are dedicated and caring as well as meticulously and compassionately careful. Frivolous lawsuits cannot be brought. The cost of doing so is more frivolous than the litigation. The public has no conception of the expense of managing a medical malpractice case or any personal injury case… These matters cannot proceed without the employment of experts to determine whether or not the errors claimed to be committed deviated from the applicable medical standards that were requisite at the time. Just reviewing a case can costs tens of thousands of dollars before suit is even started. Court costs and the costs of depositions are also monumental. There are also affidavits required to be provided by the lawyers in question in most states that a case has merit. And believe or not, there are very strong ethical requirements to which lawyers carefully adhere and want to adhere. (I refer our readers to the sage comments of Judge H. Lee Sarokin and of “permalink” in the September 11 edition of HuffPost) “Scapegoat causes” are the result of political desperation and always cause more harm than any possible good they are summoned to produce. Legislated caps on pain and suffering or non-economic damages have been a disaster where enacted. The Lone Star State is one agonizing example. Texas experience has been fine for some of the professionals who are now shielded from accountability, but disastrous for the citizenry. Insurance premiums have gone up, not down, and there is never any guarantee, or probably the faintest notion, that insurance companies would even consider passing on a savings to its policyholders. It has been stated by a multitude of impartial organizations who have studied the impact of tort liability on health care costs and the percentage of such influence or effect is minuscule. In most states where the number of malpractice cases have diminished, the medical malpractice premiums have continued to rise. There is no reasonable cause and effect between the costs of health care and the rendering of jury verdicts. The only item that seems to go up are the insurance premiums. On the contrary, the suffering occasioned by serious medical errors which can totally ruin all of a person’s life is barely compensable in any range of verdicts. Medical errors are said to be the third leading cause of death in the United States according to the American Medical Association. The mystique of attorneys is so unfair and inaccurate that there is a tendency to believe that if lawyers oppose something, it must be good for the public. People have been made to be afraid of lawyers and the court system which creates a false notion that dealing with lawyers can be expensive, and valuable rights will be lost, when the converse is true. The sooner an individual contacts a lawyer, the more likely, the particular issue can be resolved more cheaply and with a minimum of hassle. Injury or malpractice cases are handled on a contingent fee basis, so that if there is no recovery, there is no fee. Lawyers are among the most sensitive and caring people in the world. I have shared many an experience with my colleagues in which we expressed our deep concerns about some of our clients and their particular ordeals which we were handling. Many a night has been spent sleeplessly worrying about the outcome of a case and how the particular individual and the family unit could be affected. Many lawyers stay with a client even when they’ve run out of money and fight on to the bitter end. The truth is, that even though it is a professional relationship, you can have no better friend than a lawyer who is fighting for you and for your rights and welfare. I am not trying to elevate us to sainthood. I am afraid that is truly the impossible dream. What I am concerned about is the danger that those who need us the most will be discouraged from coming to us at an early stage when we are needed the most. Lawyers are a popular target, because our citizenry suffers from epidemic jealousy of anyone who has the potential to make a lot of money. However, without lawyers and courts, the wealthy and the oppressors cannot be combatted. Years ago when no-fault insurance was introduced in Pennsylvania, the authors and proponents of the measure stressed that everyone would be required to carry insurance and lower premiums would be mandated. That was all the people heard. They had no conception of their limitations to sue, the essence of the legislation regarding one’s own insurance company paying for certain medical bills or other features that could or could not be helpful. just as they are hearing a minimum of features of the proposed health care reforms, all of which can be legislated by themselves, and are in danger of being blindsided by the dangers (“Unintended consequences”, I think they are called?) which will be disproportionate to any benefits they might accrue. And no matter how eloquently our President may express the cause he believes in, and eloquence is one of his greatest attributes, our society is heading in a frightening direction. Many of our basic rights are dangerously eroding. Tort reform is just one more step in that ominous direction.

Read the full article →

As Jobs Are Lost, So Is The Middle Class

September 12, 2009

Across the United States a sense has taken hold that the Great Recession and the financial crisis are predominantly a result of national profligacy, as if the economy had been undone by insatiable shoppers, foolhardy home buyers and greedy investment bankers. Extravagance and recklessness certainly played crucial roles, and yet they are only part of the explanation. Many have lived beyond their incomes simply because incomes have been outstripped by the costs of middle-class life.

Read the full article →