journal

David Isenberg: FAR 49.402-4(b) to the Rescue

by David Isenberg on January 10, 2012

Huffington Post…

From an oversight perspective, the situation in Iraq today where the bulk of private military and security contractors are now working for the State Department, and not the U.S. military, is certainly interesting, and more than a little ironic. I mean after all, how diligent can the client, the U.S. State Department, be in overseeing its contractors, when those very same contractors are responsible for preserving the security, indeed, the very lives of all the client’s staff in Iraq? Saying “do better or I’ll fire you and do it myself” isn’t a viable solution. This bring us to the article, “Private Military Contractor Liability Under the Worldwide Personal Protective Services II Contract” published in the Spring 2009 issue of Public Contract Law Journal by Samuel P. Cheadle, then a student at the George Washington University Law School. WPPS is the State Department’s effort to pre-plan, organize, set up, deploy and operate contractor protective service details around the world. It has also been the main cash cow for what was once Blackwater, now Academi . Its primary public contract was WPPS and WPPS II umbrella contracts, along with DynCorp International and Triple Canopy, Inc. for protective services in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Israel. This is not a contract which will go down in contracting history for its transparency. In January 2010, the state’s inspector general office released its August 2009 Memorandum Report on the Preliminary Review of the Second Worldwide Personal Protective Services (WPPS II) Contract Task Orders . The memo informed various State offices of the audit cancellation of the WPPS II contracts due to “insufficient documentation.” The Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security contracts with Triple Canopy, the U.S. Training Center (formerly Blackwater), and DynCorp for personal protective services around the world, including Jerusalem, Iraq, and Afghanistan. OIG’s review of Triple Canopy, Blackwater, and Dyncorp contract TOs found insufficient documentation to meet the objectives of the audits. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 4.805 requires contract files listed in FAR 4.803 to be retained for a minimum of six years and three months after the disbursement of the final payment on the contract. OIG requested 34 contract and procurement documents for each TO. The table below depicts the number of documents provided for review and the number not available for review. Based on DIG’s receiving insufficient documentation during its preliminary review of the Office of Acquisition Management, DIG is cancelling the following previously announced audits immediately: …. Audit of Contract Administration of the DynCorp Second Worldwide Protective Services (WPPS II) Contract in Iraq, Task Order 009, under Contract Number S-AQM-PD-05-D1099; … Audit of Contract Administration of the Triple Canopy Second Worldwide Personal Protective Services Contract in Iraq, Task Order 007, under Contract Number S-AQM-PD05-D-1100. I’ve written before on the limitations of such laws and regulations as the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and the Uniform Code of Military Justice and thus won’t rehash them here. But putting aside their specific problems what they have in common is that they focus on creating avenues of criminal liability for individual contractors, as opposed to ensuring corporate accountability to ensure long-term compliance with “use of force” policies. According to Cheadle, contract enforcement is a simple vehicle to achieve corporate accountability. Yet, little has been written on the actual terms of the contracts that PMCs hold with the U.S. government and the potential liability they could face for criminal actions that breach specific terms of those contracts. Just like PMC trade groups, Cheadle recognizes that PMCs are a necessary element of our armed forces abroad and that removal of PMCs from their responsibilities is an option the government cannot afford. Yet he believes that at the same time the U.S. government must find a means of punishing PMCs for criminal conduct while not hindering their essential roles in the war effort. His solutions is elegantly simple; especially so, given that he is not proposing a new law; remember that PMC trade groups always say that there are plenty of laws on the books to ensure proper PMC accountability. Cheadle agrees with this view. He thinks the government should resolve this dilemma by holding PMCs liable for breaches of contract under an alternative clause in FAR Part 49, termination for default. FAR 49.402-4(b) permits the performance of a contract to continue in lieu of a termination for default, but only under a third-party contract or subcontract. Termination for default is generally the exercise of the government’s contractual right to completely or partially terminate a contract because of the contractor’s actual or anticipated failure to perform its contractual obligations.” Specifically, the government can terminate a contract for default if the contractor fails to perform any provision of the contract. However, standard termination for default, however, is not a feasible solution to the problem of how best to enforce a violation of the WPPS II contract. PMCs cannot simply be uprooted from their roles abroad and replaced by military. PMCs cannot simply be uprooted from their roles abroad and replaced by military personnel because, to name one reason, there are not enough military personnel to replace them. Thus, part 49 of the FAR to the rescue. It provides several options for the government “in lieu of termination for default. Under one such alternative clause, FAR 49.402-4, the government may, when in its best interest, permit the contractor to continue performance under a revised delivery schedule 8 or continue performance “by means of a subcontract or other business arrangement with an acceptable third party.” This permits a contract to continue, benefiting the government, while effectively punishing the contractor by transferring the work to a third party. How would this work in real life? Think back to the killing of Iraqi civilians by Blackwater contractors in 2007. According to Cheadle the government may, “under FAR 49.402-4(b), let Blackwater’s duties under the WPPS II contract continue upon a finding of termination for default through a subcontract or third-party contract. Discussed below, this could be in the form of requiring Blackwater to hand some of its duties over to one of the other contractors under the WPPS II contract-DynCorp International or Triple Canopy-companies already familiar with the contract and fit to meet its demands.” Considering that PMC trade groups always say that it is free market competition which allows the private sector to produce “cost-effective” high performance solutions. Cheadle agrees, writing that “The key to this system is its focus on competition within the existing contract. The purpose of this competition would be to create incentives to comply with the “use of force” policy. Competition is the heart of the government contract system, the policy being to get the best price and product through competitive procedures.” Thus, trade groups can hardly complain when the laws of supply and demand are used to ensure contract compliance. This would be a great opportunity for trade groups like ISOA and PSC to match their corporate funding with their talking points. Cheadle recognizes that a “potential problem presented by applying FAR 49.402-4(b) is that it may cause the government to hire an entity unfamiliar with the dangers of operating in Iraq and Afghanistan to take over the contract, endangering the lives of the individuals the PMCs were hired to protect. Thus, he proposes that: The government should utilize this clause by establishing a system that requires the contract to continue through one of the two nonbreaching parties already under the WPPS II contract. Creating a system of competition among the parties already under the WPPS II contract is the best option to attain the necessary balance between a policy that ensures the safety of the con tractors and the officials they are hired to protect and a policy that ensures compliance with the “use of force” terms of the contract. This remedy would allow smooth transitions between contractors because all parties involved would already be familiar with the contract and the terrain, and would have the experience to negotiate the dangers inherent in providing security services in Iraq. Essentially, if a contractor screws up by, say, shooting someone it shouldn’t have, the company will pay the price by see its work go to another company working on the same WPPS contract. But perhaps the greatest benefit would be this: The greatest asset of this system would be its ability to achieve the delicate balance between the best protection of U.S. and foreign officials and compliance with the “use of force” policy of the contract, which ensures the safety of Iraqi civilians. All three of the contractors already at work under the WPPS II contract know the territory and know what they have to do to keep their subjects and their own employees safe. They would, over time, learn what steps are necessary to ensure compliance with the “use of force” policy while maintaining maximum levels of safety for their security subjects. No contractor would go so far as to sacrifice safety by not firing when there is a clear and present threat of danger. Competition among the three contractors would force them to find the balance between an effective defensive policy and maximum safety for the officials who are at the heart of the contract. The competition also likely would induce greater oversight of contractor actions within the contracting companies themselves. PMCs would likely monitor each other for potential violations, creating another layer of oversight on top of the Regional Security Officers and the Diplomatic Security High Threat Protection Program Office.

Visit link:
David Isenberg: FAR 49.402-4(b) to the Rescue

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

Huffington Post…

The Wall Street Journal reports today that the EU is “leaning toward proposing a ban on the issuing of sovereign credit ratings for countries in bailout talks.” The EU’s internal market commissioner, Michel Barnier, says that he thinks “it’s legitimate to have a special treatment when a country is in negotiation or is covered by an international solidarity program with the IMF,” and, indeed, new IMF chief Christine Lagarde has signaled that she believes it’s appropriate for the EU to “prevent ratings for bailout countries.” As the EU has been “tightening rules on rating agencies progressively since the financial crisis,” according to the Journal , with a new set of proposals on the matter scheduled to be made in early November, odds are decent that this will emerge as the consensus view. However, there are dissenting opinions, and, as Reuters’ Ryan McCarthy points out, they are “hilarious” : “If ratings are banned, it will make it difficult for investors to assess the risk when a country returns to the bond market.” That’s from economist Marchel Alexandrovich, and if you want to know why he should consider taking that act on the road, let’s flash back to this piece from Shahien Nasiripour from September of 2009 — one year after the global financial crisis: Analysts at the three biggest credit rating agencies who gave positive, investment-grade ratings to AIG and Lehman Brothers up until their collapse have not been fired or disciplined, the heads of the agencies admitted at a Congressional hearing today. Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch Ratings all maintained at least A ratings on AIG and Lehman Brothers up until mid-September of last year . Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy Sept. 15; the federal government provided AIG with its first of four multibillion-dollar bailouts the next day. At the hearing today, the exchange between [Representative Jackie] Speier and the agency chiefs was particularly contentious. “You had rated AIG and Lehman Brothers as AAA, AA minutes before they were collapsing. After they did fail, did you take any action against those analysts who had rated them?” Speier asked. “Did you fire them? Did you suspend them? Did you take any actions against those who had put that kind of a remarkable grade on products that were junk?” McDaniel answered first. “No, we did not fire any of the analysts involved in either AIG or Lehman,” he replied. “LOL,” is what I believe the Internet would tend to say to all of this. The Wall Street Journal reports, “There was no immediate comment from Fitch, S&P or Moody’s.” Yeah, I wouldn’t think so! [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .]

See the rest here:
If EU Bans Ratings Agencies From Evaluating Bailout Countries, Who Will Investors Turn To For Terrible Advice?

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

If EU Bans Ratings Agencies From Evaluating Bailout Countries, Who Will Investors Turn To For Terrible Advice?

October 20, 2011

The Wall Street Journal reports today that the EU is “leaning toward proposing a ban on the issuing of sovereign credit ratings for countries in bailout talks.” The EU’s internal market commissioner, Michel Barnier, says that he thinks “it’s legitimate to have a special treatment when a country is in negotiation or is covered by an international solidarity program with the IMF,” and, indeed, new IMF chief Christine Lagarde has signaled that she believes it’s appropriate for the EU to “prevent ratings for bailout countries.” As the EU has been “tightening rules on rating agencies progressively since the financial crisis,” according to the Journal , with a new set of proposals on the matter scheduled to be made in early November, odds are decent that this will emerge as the consensus view. However, there are dissenting opinions, and, as Reuters’ Ryan McCarthy points out, they are “hilarious” : “If ratings are banned, it will make it difficult for investors to assess the risk when a country returns to the bond market.” That’s from economist Marchel Alexandrovich, and if you want to know why he should consider taking that act on the road, let’s flash back to this piece from Shahien Nasiripour from September of 2009 — one year after the global financial crisis: Analysts at the three biggest credit rating agencies who gave positive, investment-grade ratings to AIG and Lehman Brothers up until their collapse have not been fired or disciplined, the heads of the agencies admitted at a Congressional hearing today. Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch Ratings all maintained at least A ratings on AIG and Lehman Brothers up until mid-September of last year . Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy Sept. 15; the federal government provided AIG with its first of four multibillion-dollar bailouts the next day. At the hearing today, the exchange between [Representative Jackie] Speier and the agency chiefs was particularly contentious. “You had rated AIG and Lehman Brothers as AAA, AA minutes before they were collapsing. After they did fail, did you take any action against those analysts who had rated them?” Speier asked. “Did you fire them? Did you suspend them? Did you take any actions against those who had put that kind of a remarkable grade on products that were junk?” McDaniel answered first. “No, we did not fire any of the analysts involved in either AIG or Lehman,” he replied. “LOL,” is what I believe the Internet would tend to say to all of this. The Wall Street Journal reports, “There was no immediate comment from Fitch, S&P or Moody’s.” Yeah, I wouldn’t think so! [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .]

Read the full article →

SEC probes trading before U.S. rating cut: report

September 20, 2011

(Reuters) – Securities regulators have sent subpoenas to hedge funds and other trading firms as it probes possible insider trading before the U.S. government’s long-term credit rating was cut last month, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) officials demanded more information about specific trades made shortly before Standard & Poor’s downgraded the country’s rating to AA-plus from AAA on August 5, the paper said. SEC officials are zeroing in on firms that bet the stock market would tumble, the Journal said. It is unclear which investment firms are being investigated, but the subpoenas are unusually broad, seeking information about why certain trades were made, a person told the Journal. An SEC spokesman declined to comment to the Journal. SEC could not immediately be reached for comment by Reuters outside regular U.S. business hours. (Reporting by Sakthi Prasad in Bangalore; Editing by Kavita Chandran)

Read the full article →

MediaNews delays deal to buy Freedom’s newspapers: report

August 21, 2011

NEW YORK (Reuters) – MediaNews Group Inc has delayed a deal to buy Freedom Communications Inc’s newspapers due to trouble with financing, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday on its website. Inhospitable debt markets led MediaNews, publisher of the Denver Post and other newspapers, to postpone attempts to get financing for the deal, the Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter. MediaNews has been in talks for several months with Freedom about buying the Orange County Register and more than 100 other newspapers for around $350 million, the paper said. Discussions between the two companies broke down earlier this year over price, the paper said, but renewed talks during the summer. They could revisit a deal in coming weeks, the Journal said, depending on market conditions. The companies could not immediately be reached for a comment. (Reporting by Martinne Geller, editing by Maureen Bavdek)

Read the full article →

UK Companies Pull Ads From News Of The World

July 6, 2011

LONDON — Companies rushed to pull ads from British tabloid News of the World on Wednesday amid public outcry over alleged phone hacking, but media mogul Rupert Murdoch insisted his top executive in Britain, Rebekah Brooks, would not resign. As reports emerged that employees at the paper – owned by Murdoch’s News Corp. media empire – hacked into the phones of missing schoolgirls and families of victims in London’s 2005 terror attacks, the backlash from consumers escalated. Twitter and Facebook users listed companies that normally advertise with News of the World and urged people to contact them and demand that they pull their advertisements. Some companies, unwilling to alienate their customer base, agreed. Ford was the first to pull its advertising from Britain’s biggest Sunday newspaper, on Monday night. Other car makers including Renault, Mitsubishi Motors and Vauxhall followed on Tuesday as the allegations built. The Cooperative Group – a retail giant that prides itself on its ethical business model – said it has suspended all advertising until a government investigation is concluded. The group said the allegations “have been met with revulsion by the vast majority of members who have contacted us.” Virgin Holidays canceled several ads due to run in the Sunday newspaper this week, but said it will review the situation on a week by week basis. Halifax bank also said it had canceled ads. Some of the fury spilled into other parts of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, such as satellite channel Sky. Mumsnet, a popular online community for mothers, said it would refuse to take advertising from Sky after members complained. The contract would have been worth around 30,000 pounds ($47,924). One week of an advertisers’ boycott is unlikely to hurt News of the World’s finances much. A large part of the advertisements are already paid for and the advertisers, not the newspaper, will take the financial hit. But investors seemed worried – they dumped shares in News Corp., causing them to slump 4.2 percent on the Nasdaq index in New York. Despite the mounting pressure, Murdoch brushed off U.K. politicians’ demands for the resignation of Brooks, the tabloid’s editor at the time of the alleged phone hacking. She now heads News International, the British newspaper division of News Corp. Murdoch will be eager to contain the fallout to the one paper – his empire includes the Wall Street Journal, The Times, The Sun, a tabloid, and Sky. For the most part, those titles did not play down the story. Phone-hacking revelations were front and center on the Sun’s website and Sky news’ homepage was dominated with multiple hacking-related stories along with a “breaking news” banner. Phone-hacking also featured prominently on the Journal’s home pages on Wednesday – though the newspaper’s article addressed its ties to the scandal-ridden tabloid in the fifth-to-last paragraph of a lengthy piece. The Journal’s article also made no mention of Murdoch himself, despite heaps of attention paid to the tabloid owner in most other publications. In the longer term, the scandal threatens the expansion of News Corp., particularly in the U.K., where it is trying to buy British Sky Broadcasting. Britain’s communications regulator said Wednesday it is monitoring the phone-hacking investigation to be sure that News Corp. is a “fit and proper” company to hold a broadcasting license. While a decision allowing the takeover is up to the government, regulator OFCOM has the right to deny News Corp. of a license. Cameron on Wednesday again rejected calls to refer – and thus delay – any BSkyB takeover by referring the issue to the Competition Commission. Cameron and his wife are friends with Brooks. A veteran investor in media, Murdoch has seen a public boycott against one of his newspapers before. In 1989, people in Liverpool boycotted The Sun after its coverage of the Hillsborough disaster, when 96 football fans died at a football game crush. The Sun ran unsubstantiated stories about drunken Liverpool fans stealing from the dead, sparking outrage in the city. Sales of The Sun in Liverpool have never recovered.

Read the full article →

U.S. Banks Finally Increasing Lending In Good Sign For Investors

July 6, 2011

Major U.S. banks appear to be finally opening the lending spigot. Second-quarter earnings reports due this month are likely to reveal a slight reversal of the long-term shrinkage in bank loan books, one of several positive signs for investors, bank analysts said. A number of other long-term clouds over the weakened banking sector may be clearing. Credit quality is on the mend, signaling that many large banks will bolster their bottom lines with money that had been reserved to cover losses on bad loans. And Bank of America’s startling $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage bond investors last week adds clarity and may spur rival banks to clear up their own legal liabilities from home loans. Another big question mark — how much banks will be hurt by a new law limiting debit card fees — was answered last week when regulators finalized rules that were not as ferocious as initially proposed. “We’re chipping away at the problems here,” said analyst Jason Goldberg of Barclays Capital. The earnings reports begin on July 14 with JPMorgan Chase & Co. Danger Signs Banks, of course, are far from being in the clear. Weak fixed-income trading and market volatility are believed to have weighed heavily on the biggest banks in the second quarter, while their net interest revenue continues to be pummeled by low interest rates. And low rates are expected to continue for the indefinite future. A growing loan book, however, could cover a multitude of woes. The Federal Reserve said last week that loans and leases in bank credit grew about 1 percent on an annual basis in both April and May, with the biggest growth — over 11 percent each month on an annual basis — coming from commercial and industrial loans. Real estate lending is still shrinking, and consumer lending, while stabilizing, is still tepid. Consumer lending grew just 0.1 percent on an annual basis in the second quarter, primarily from increases in credit cards and other revolving loans. “Banks are beginning to lend again and that’s a good sign,” said Timothy Ghriskey, co-founder of Solaris Group, which owns bank stocks. “There are a lot of issues out there that still have a potential impact on future earnings. This is going to take years.” Large banks are starting to loosen their standards for credit card applications, according to a Fed survey of senior bank loan officers in April. JPMorgan Chase, widely considered the strongest of the top three U.S. banks, is expected to report a second-quarter profit of about $1.22 per share, up from $1.09 a year earlier, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S. Citigroup will be next to report, on July 15, and is expected to post a profit of 97 cents per share. A year earlier it earned 90 cents, adjusted for 1-for-10 reverse stock split in May. Bank of America’s mortgage settlement will likely bring it to a quarterly loss of $8.6 billion to $9.1 billion, or 88 cents to 93 cents per share. It reports on July 19. Regional banks such as US Bancorp and BB&T could be the biggest beneficiaries of loan growth since they won’t have large trading businesses offsetting increased lending fees. Even Regions Financial , the only one of the 19 largest U.S. banks that has not yet repaid the government bailout it received during the financial crisis, is expected to see its loss shrink to 1 cent per share. It lost $335 million, or 28 cents per share, in the comparable 2010 period. Kitchen-Sink Quarter Investors breathed sighs of relief last week over two costly developments that answered questions long weighing on the banking sector. BofA complemented the$8.5 billion settlement of mortgage repurchase claims from institutional investors with notice that it would take an additional $11.9 billion of charges for other mortgage settlements, and write down the value of its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial, among other items. The settlement put a ceiling on what other banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo & Co , could be expected to pay to resolve their own legal issues, investors said. “Everyone can assume that Countrywide was as bad as it got … that’s the worst-case scenario,” said Nuveen Investments analyst Alan Villalon. On the same day that BofA announced its settlement, the Fed unveiled final guidelines for its long-debated crackdown on fees that banks can charge merchants who accept debit cards. The rules on the “swipe” fees, mandated by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, are expected to shave $9.4 billion from an estimated $23 billion of annual debit card processing revenues in the banking industry, according to CardHub.com. That’s far better than the $14 billion hit that many analysts had forecast. New capital surcharges from bank regulators, announced last month, also resolved some questions about global regulatory requirements banks will have to meet. On top of a base of 7 percent risk-based capital that banks must set aside, the biggest banks will have to add as much as an additional 2.5 percent, depending on size and risk. “That’s been the largest overhang on these stocks, just the unknowns that are out there,” said Jason Ware, equity analyst at Salt Lake City-based Albion Financial Group. “On the debit card fees, the banks got a gift. With the capital guidelines, we’re starting to get some numbers we can use.” Large banks are starting to loosen their standards for credit card applications, according to the April Fed survey. Undervalued? The main thing going for bank stocks today is that they have been beaten down to cheap valuations, according to some analysts. Large banks on average are trading at about 1.25 times tangible book value, according to Nuveen’s Villalon, while Citigroup and Bank of America are closer to a multiple of 0.85. JPMorgan Chase is trading at about 1.33 times tangible book, he said. As Ghriskey notes, however, uncertainty about the economy and regulatory developments still loom over bank stocks. Trust banks such as Bank of New York Mellon , State Street and Northern Trust , which avoided many of the credit issues weighing on their competitors, are grappling with the same pesky issues that have dogged them for several quarters: low interest rates and few remaining opportunities to trim expenses. State Street and BNY Mellon also have an overhang of lawsuits accusing them of overcharging pension funds on currency trading. In coming years, analysts expect trust banks will have to adjust pricing for a number of products they sell, with currency trading likely taking in less money. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

eDiscoveryJournal Hires Industry Veteran Jason Velasco as CEO

May 23, 2011

Velasco Brings 15+ Years of Legal and eDiscovery Expertise to Grow eDJ’s Products and Services, Including the Journal’s New Quarterly Industry Report

Read the full article →

Google Set To Launch New Music Service

May 10, 2011

According to the Wall Street Journal , Google will be announcing an online music service at its I/O 2011 event . The Journal’s “people familiar with the matter” suggest it will be similar to Amazon’s Cloud Drive , which launched earlier this year and is more like a Web-based hard drive than a subscription service like Spotify or Rdio. Launching as an invite-only beta today, Google’s simply titled ‘Music Beta By Google’ service will reportedly function as an online music locker that can store 20,000 songs for free — Amazon only offers 1,000 songs. Reports suggest Google had trouble negotiating with record labels, and is pushing ahead without a music store or the ability for users to share songs. Google’s Jamie Rosenberg told All Things D’s Peter Kafka , “Unfortunately, a couple of the major labels were less focused on the innovative vision that we put forward, and more interested in in an unreasonable and unsustainable set of business terms.” Much like Amazon’s Cloud Drive, the service is likely to let users upload music, and then stream it over the Web to their desktop, Android phone, tablet, or any other device that supports Flash. This, of course, will probably leave iPad and iPhone users out at launch. All Google users in the U.S. should have access to the service “within weeks,” and The New York Times reports that invites for the service will go first to Motorola Xoom users, leaving everyone else to sign up at music.google.com . See our guide to Google’s I/O conference here .

Read the full article →

Global Warming Causing Food Prices To Rise

May 5, 2011

Over the last few decades, global warming has hindered the world’s food production causing prices to rise, new research reveals. The study, which NewScientist says is the first “to demonstrate a link between global crop yields and climate change,” not only tracks the link between rising temperatures and its effect on food production, but highlights the importance of finding new ways to adapt farming methods to the changing climate. From The Guardian : The drop in the productivity of crop plants around the world was not caused by changes in rainfall but was because higher temperatures can cause dehydration, prevent pollination and lead to slowed photosynthesis. According to David Lobell, a Stanford University scientist and an author of the report, “This is tens of billions of dollars a year in lost productivity because of warming,” The Washington Post reports. To conduct the study, Lobell and his colleagues gathered data dating from 1980 to 2008 for growing regions around the world, including their temperature, rain fall, and crop production. Then, they compared annual yields of four staple crops — corn, wheat, rice and soy beans — from every country in the world to what production would have been given precipitation and temperature remained the same since 1980, calculating the predictions with statistical models. Corn yields were 5.5 percent lower than the predictions showed they would have been if the environmental factors remained constant, and wheat yields were 3.8 percent lower. Wheat production in Russia showed the biggest drop, with yields 15 percent lower than what they could’ve been. Soy beans and rice were relatively unaffected due to being grown in areas not experiencing as much warming and thriving in higher temperatures, respectively. “Agriculture as it exists today evolved over 11,000 years of reasonably stable climate, but that climate system is no more,” Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, told The Guardian . Not everyone agrees with the findings. Ken Cassman, a professor of systems agronomy at the University of Nebraska, told The Washington Post , “It’s not clear how well these analyses are capturing how well farmers can respond, and have been responding, to changing temperatures.” Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado told NewScientist that the results were undermined by using a purely statistical model. Food prices have reached a record high this year , fueling unrest in regions like North Africa and the Middle East. A recent study presented at 2010′s UN climate summit in Cancun predicted that global warming could double grain prices by 2050 and leave millions more malnourished. This latest research, “Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980,” was published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Science .

Read the full article →

Minimum Wage Boost Wouldn’t Hurt Job Growth: Study

April 25, 2011

Raising the minimum wage wouldn’t cripple job growth and hurt businesses like some conservative groups have argued , according to a new study . To the contrary, it could pump money into the economy and reduce turnover in low-wage positions, the researchers found. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25, or about $15,000 a year for a full-time job. Until 2007, the minimum wage had been set at $5.15 for over 10 years. Seventeen states currently have a minimum wage set higher than the federal standard, and a number of states are considering giving their standards another boost. The food and retail industries often fight such hikes, arguing that higher wages discourage growth, particularly in down economies. Sylvia Allegretto , an economist at the University of California-Berkeley and the study’s lead author, believes those concerns are unfounded. “A lot of people say we can’t increase the minimum wage during recessions because it’ll have this big negative effect,” said Allegretto, whose study was published in the journal Industrial Relations . “We didn’t find that — in general, or when there were recessions.” Researchers, who focused specifically on teen employment, looked at every federal and state minimum-wage raise over the last twenty years, including during the recession from 2007 to 2009, and found that the effects of wage raises on job growth and unemployment didn’t change with the business cycle. Allegretto said a lot of the benefits of higher minimum wages tend to be overlooked — like higher morale and productivity, and less time spent searching for workers and training them. Advocates of a minimum-wage boost often argue that the extra income for workers functions a lot like unemployment benefits or food stamps, in that it’s money pumped immediately back into local businesses. Jen Kern, who runs the minimum wage campaign at the National Employment Law Project, says a wage hike “could provide a boost to families and the economy, putting money into the hands of people who have no choice but to spend it.” According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , 1.8 million of the country’s 73 million hourly-paid workers were earning the federal minimum wage during 2010, with another 2.5 million earning even less than that. Minimum-wage earners tend to skew young, with workers under age 25 accounting for roughly half of those making the minimum wage or less. Kern says if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since it’s peak in the 1970’s it would now be over $10. A survey conducted last year by the Public Religion Research Institute found that roughly two-thirds of Americans supported raising the federal minimum wage to at least $10 per hour.

Read the full article →

Paul Carr: The Strip Diary, Day Twenty One: From Sin City to Sim City — Tony Hsieh’s Plan to Rebuild Downtown Vegas

April 25, 2011

“So, how are you going to write sarcastically about all of this?” Tony Hsieh makes a good rhetorical point. We’re standing in the Downtown Cocktail Room , the epitome of a hipster San Francisco bar: hot young locals lounging on sofas, sipping cocktails with names like ‘Sniff Happens’ and ‘Persephone’s Pomme’; moody lighting; bathroom stalls with two-way mirrors so you can look out as you pee; half of the people in here work for an Internet company. You know the drill. The only difference is, we’re not in San Francisco. We’re in Las Vegas. And all of these Internet people work for Zappos, the Internet shoe retailer that relocated here from San Francisco in 2004. I’ve been invited to join company CEO Hsieh (pronounced “shay”) and his team for one of their regular Friday night social events so that he can tell me about his big new project. And what does the CEO of a company that was acquired by Amazon for almost a billion dollars do next? He rebuilds downtown Las Vegas, obviously. Since the start of my trip to Las Vegas , I’ve received dozens of emails and tweets encouraging me to get off the strip and explore “downtown”, the area around Fremont Street which formed the town’s original gambling center, before the advent of the Strip. “There’s a thriving arts scene downtown!” some wrote. “There are great bars!”, insisted others. Frankly, though, there seemed to be more than a touch of wishful thinking to the claims: pressed for specifics, most mentioned First Friday — the monthly arts and culture “block party” held downtown on the – uh – first Friday of every month. At a push, a few could identify a specific bar or coffee shop they frequented, but the overall consensus from those I spoke to – cab drivers, waiters, PR people, actors and lawyers alike – was that Vegas is a at heart a small, transient, town yearning for a cultural community. Even Tony Hsieh — who wrote a book called ” Delivering Happiness ” and is capable of putting a positive spin on almost anything – admits that “Vegas isn’t really known for having a sense of culture or community.” But, unlike the cab drivers and waiters and PRs and actors and lawyers, Hsieh is actually in a position to do something about it. Zappos currently employs 1100 people at its main headquarters in Henderson. The company boasts of its culture of happiness and how employees are made to feel part of a giant family. Indeed, on Thursday, en route to a tour of the Zappos campus, I asked my company-supplied driver what first attracted him to the job. “I was living in Las Vegas but all my family was in New York,” he said “People told me that working at Zappos was like joining a family – and it is. Every night I have at least one or two invitations to parties or social events organized by other people from the company. The difficult thing is knowing which ones to say no to.” Comparing those two realities — the uber-social Zappos family (set to double in size in the next two years) and Vegas’ perceived lack of community, particularly downtown — Hsieh saw an opportunity to ‘deliver happiness’ to all sides. When the City Council announced plans to change the location of City Hall, Tsieh made his move, buying the building and announcing plans to move Zappos HQ from Henderson to Fremont East. As Mayor Oscar Goodman told the Las Vegas Review Journal the move “revolutionizes the way downtown will exist in the future… It creates a critical mass of [creative] folks… They’ll be over at the Arts District. They’ll be milling around the downtown and creating energy.” Put simply: the relocation of the Zappos family to Fremont East will inject a ready made community of 2000 people into the area, transforming its social and cultural scene from “burgeoning” to “established” at a stroke. The big move won’t happen until at least 2013, but already the effects have been seen: Zappos employees are starting to look for homes nearer to the new location, and every night after work more and more of them make the journey downtown to see what all the fuss is about. Which is what brings Hsieh and his team to the Downtown Cocktail Room. Come on,” he says, “I’ll give you the tour.” Fremont street is a curious thing – ” Checkpoint Charlie ” as one Zappos-ite likened it – forming a dividing line between the tourist-heavy Fremont Street Experience and the ‘real’ downtown: the burgeoning hub of bars, coffee shops and arts and entertainment venues which make up Fremont East. The effect on crossing from the tourist zone to the local zone is instant, and a little trippy. Suddenly gone are the gigantic plastic cups of booze and the staggering, belching drunks, and in their place swarms a thick cloud of hipsters, munching gourmet hotdogs from curbside food carts and patiently lining up outside drinking hole with names like ” The Beauty Bar “. As Tony and I walked, something started ticking away in my brain. A feeling that I’d been here before, and not just because there’s also a bar called The Beauty Bar in San Francisco’s Mission district. Continuing on, past a sign for 6th Street – “this whole area is closed to traffic at the weekends” — it clicked: the streets of Fremont East feel uncannily like the streets of Austin, Texas during the South by Southwest festival. Stepping inside the bars, though, one is instantly transported West to San Francisco: the inside of Vegas’ Beauty Bar is the spitting image of it’s San Francisco counterpart (later Googling would confirm they have the same owners ). Another recently-opened Fremont East bar that should be in San Francisco, but isn’t, is ” Insert Coin(s) “: essentially a karaoke bar for gamers. Open until 6am, the bar offers multiplayer games on giant flat-screens as well as coin-op arcade classics: The line outside stretched halfway around the block – but, fortunately, I’m with Tony so there’s no waiting. Everyone in Fremont East knows Tony. The bar’s owner comes over to say hello. “You’ve come at a good time,” he tells me when Tony explains that I’m writing about the rebirth of Fremont East, “you’re witnessing the start of something big here.” A block or so away from Insert Coin(s) stands City Hall which seems as good a place as any for Hsieh to spell out his vision, not just for the building — “there are jail cells in there; we’re thinking of turning them into nap rooms, or maybe a speak-easy” — but for the whole of downtown Vegas. “This will be a completely different area in the next five years,” he says, “we’re bringing food, live music, an entertainment scene; we’ve even talked about opening a charter school. Did you ever hear of the game Sim City?” “Of course.” “Well, for us it’s like playing Sim City in real life. One tagline we’ve come up with is ‘from Sin City to Sim City’…” He pauses. “…you know, like adding another little hump on the ‘n’” It’s impossible not to love Tony. Speaking of which, if I were a cynical man, then I’d be convinced that what happened next had been set up in advance. “Excuse me, are you Tony Hsieh?” say the slightly breathless fellow who accosts us as we walked back towards the Cocktail Room. Tony extends his hand, instinctively — clearly he gets this a lot. The man proceeds with his pitch; he’s the founder of a not-for-profit art collective, and was wondering whether Zappos might care to display some of their art. The moment brings all of the pieces of Tony’s vision together: Zappos, local art, downtown Vegas… “Sure,” says Tony, “in fact we’re having drinks at the Downtown Cocktail Room, why don’t you come by and I’ll introduce you to the person in charge of our art.” Like I say, Tony couldn’t have scripted the encounter better. Delivering happiness indeed. Even the Downtown Cocktail Room itself is conveniently on-message, owned as it is by Michael Cornthwaite. Michael and his wife Jennifer have been described as ” the first couple of Fremont East “, responsible for numerous local artistic and cultural initiatives including ” Emergency Arts “, a cultural center, housed within the former Fremont Medical Building. Where once there were waiting rooms and doctors surgeries, now the space has been taken over by dozens of independent artists and retailers. Tony’s tour of Emergency Arts takes me past painters and fashion designers and tattoo parlors and even the headquarters of the ‘Burleseque Hall Of Fame’, each neatly packed into its own space — “look at this: there’s a whole hair salon built into an old waiting room — isn’t that great?” It is great. On the ground floor of the building sits The Beat Coffeehouse which, judging by the number of people who have suggested meeting there during my continuing exploration of off-strip Vegas, has become the de facto social hub of Fremont East. Again, the vibe at Beat is unlike anything I’d experienced in Vegas so far; but very like what I’m used to seeing in places like San Francisco or Austin. (Even the name screams San Francisco, although actually it refers to the fact that the coffeehouse also sells vinyl records.) Finally back at the Cocktail Room, I ask Jennifer Cornthwaite to explain Fremont East’s problem. Why, given the lines around the block at Insert Coin(s) and streets bustling with local hipsters, had so many locals complained to me about the lack of community downtown? I’d asked dozens of self-described locals for suggestions on where the local arts and cultural scene can be found. With the exception of First Friday, none of them had been able to offer specific recommendations. Unless — “were they trying to keep me — a tourist — away?” “No, it’s surprising how few locals even know about these places,” Cornthwaite said, clearly exasperated. “We’re trying to raise awareness, but it takes time.” She’s also keen to persuade out-of-towners to venture down, away from the Strip, she insists, but — another echo from San Francisco — admits that she doesn’t want the area to become flooded with drunken tourists. At the Downtown Cocktail Room, that “people like us” test starts with figuring out how to open the damn door. It’s fun to watch the increasingly drunk procession of tourists passing by, trying to push on the glass wall at the front of the bar to gain access. In fact the real door is a handle-free metal panel tucked away to the left. “We didn’t design it to confuse people,” Michael Cornthwaite insists, “but it’s pretty effective at keeping out drunk people.” (The locals vs tourists attitude is contagious: I hesitated for an embarrassingly long time before deciding to include the ‘secret’ of the door, or even the name in this piece). Another of Jennifer Cornthwaite’s goals is to attract some of the creative talent from the Strip to venues around Fremont East. “Las Vegas has some of the world’s best musicians, and artists and performers. There’s so much artistic and creative talent in the town,” she says. By way of example, Cornthwaite mentions Absinthe — the circus-meets-burlesque show I’ve been raving about for the past two weeks. “A big part of me really wants Caesars to screw it up,” she says, “then we can be like ‘come put the show on here!’ We’d be the perfect venue for it.” She’s not wrong. In the meantime, given the echoes of Austin and San Francisco, surely it’s time for Fremont East to host its own arts and technology festival, to rival South by Southwest. Especially as — paging Portlandia — many early adopters are declaring the original festival “over”. Vegas plays host to the CES conference every January. “Why not pitch Fremont East as a kind of Vegas Fringe for those guys?” I suggest. Cornthwaite likes the phrase “Vegas Fringe”, but as for the other stuff “It’s already happening. During this year’s CES, I asked around the bar, who was in town for CES? It was like — woah — so many of them were. We just have to keep spreading the word.” Fortunately spreading the word is something Tony Hsieh is very, very good at. This, after all, is the man who bought a tour bus once owned by the bass player from Dave Matthews Band and drove around America on a ” Delivering Happiness Tour ” to promote his book. The bus is parked down the street, and Tony offers to give me a ride back to my hotel, stopping only to pick up a gourmet hotdog on the way (price $3, with toppings including pineapple and crushed potato chips). “I always order what I call ‘an underdog’” he says, “that’s where you put the condiments on first, and then the dog on top, so all the stuff doesn’t fall out.” I laugh. Every day millions of people complain about the messiness of hotdog toppings. But the difference between those people and Tony Hsieh is that Tony didn’t just bitch about the problem. He fixed it.

Read the full article →

BACKDOOR IPOs: SEC May Make It Easier For Startups To Raise Cash

April 8, 2011

U.S. securities regulators may ease constraints on share issues by private companies, making it easier for start-ups to raise money, the Wall Street Journal reported. The steps under consideration would help privately held companies like Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc and Zynga Inc to raise more money without going through increased reporting and other requirements of becoming a public company, the report said. Currently, companies can issue shares privately without incurring onerous reporting obligations if they have fewer than 500 shareholders. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is considering raising that limit, though it is unclear by how much, the Journal said. The move could potentially delay or derail initial public offerings by technology companies that want to grow but would rather avoid having to disclose vast amounts of information, the report said citing an SEC letter to a lawmaker. It could also shut out many ordinary investors from one of the fastest-growing market sectors, since shares in private companies are generally available only to investors whose individual net worth is at least $1 million. The SEC could not be reached for comment outside of business hours. (Reporting by Sweta Singh in Bangalore; Editing by Gopakumar Warrier) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Nathan Newman: You’re Not Google’s Customer — You’re the Product: Antitrust in a Web 2.0 World

March 29, 2011

You think Google’s search engine is great. Gmail is easy to use. YouTube gives you instant access to funny pictures of dogs and music videos. And Google maps helps you find where you are and the nearest pizza place. And it’s all free. So you’re a happy customer and don’t understand why anyone would think antitrust action is needed against Google . Or why government officials from Europe to the U.S. Congress and, just last week, U.S. state governments are bringing antitrust investigations against Google. Except remember — it’s free! Google doesn’t make a dime of profit from you, so you aren’t the customer. In fact, all those cool products are just bait to get your information in the Google ecosystem so your attention and eyeballs can be sold to Google’s advertisers. The pleasant experience of using Google products is little different (in any economic analysis) from the pleasant massage administered to Kobe beef cattle in Japan; each is just a tool to increase the quality of the product delivered up to the real customers. What is Google’s Market in a Web 2.0 World? So here’s the key place to start in understanding proper technology policy for Google: there is no market for search engines; there is no market for online geolocation mapping software; there is no market for online video. Google, by making these products free, has destroyed those markets in favor of an alternative economic model of selling individual attention and precise information about those users to advertisers. You are the product, not the customer. That market between Google and its advertisers is where antitrust authorities ultimately have to look to understand what public policy is needed. As law professor Siva Vaidhyanathan describes in his just-published The Googlization of Everything (and Why We Should Worry) , “Google’s method of generating and selling advertisement placement is brilliant.” Through user queries and searches, as well as personal information about those users, Google can deliver a product to advertisers tailored to their exact needs — people looking for shoes are delivered to shoe sellers, people located in a certain town are delivered to local restaurants, and so on. And while individual users may think the brilliance of Google is in the technical design of its search engines, as a company, its profit is driven by its brilliance in nearly monopolizing the online search marketplace serving these advertising companies. And what profits! With revenue coming overwhelmingly from its advertising monopoly, in 2010, Google’s net income was $8.51bn, up 30 percent from 2009 on total revenue that grew 24 percent to $29.32bn. And to understand Google’s dominance, look at this chart of data from E-marketer , which shows Google’s overwhelming dominance over its competitors in delivering search advertising: Note that Google’s dominance is growing and is projected to grow more. In mobile phone advertising, Google has established a phenomenal 97 percent of paid mobile search advertising , which by itself is projected to be worth $1.1 billion by the end of 2011 and is likely to skyrocket as a percentage of advertising. And this dominance cannot easily be overcome by some alternative upstart website, even by well-capitalized competitors, since underlying Google’s enterprise is, in Vaidhyanathan’s words, a “monumental collection of physical sites such as research labs, server farms, data networks and sales offices.” Given the interplay of different Google services and customization of results based on having so many users involved in its ecosystem, there are so-called “network effects” from being dominant that any competitor has too large a challenge in displacing Google. So what are all the cool new Google products like Android, Chrome and Apps for? First, they are more ways to collect the personal information to target advertising to individuals (and new threats to personal privacy as described below). But they also serve a sinister role from an antitrust perspective. They help destroy any alternative economic base for a competitor to challenge Google’s dominance of online search advertising. Citing Warren Buffet’s observation that strong businesses are “economic castles” protected by “moats,” analyst Bill Gurley describes these free products as moats to drown any competitor who “stands between the user and Google”: Android, as well as Chrome and Chrome OS for that matter, are not “products” in the classic business sense. They have no plan to become their own “economic castles.” Rather they are very expensive and very aggressive “moats,” funded by the height and magnitude of Google’s castle… Google is also scorching the earth for 250 miles around the outside of the castle to ensure no one can approach it. To understand how this plays out in antitrust analysis, look at a top current focus of the Justice Department’s Antitrust division, namely Google’s proposed acquisition of travel software provider ITA Software. ITA provides the underlying technology used by online travel agents, travel websites and airline websites. Now, some analysts worry that Google could use its position to unfairly price access to the database to potential competitors in the travel search market or skew search results to favor key partners. But if it just destroys the business model for competing travel agents and websites by absorbing the service into its overall search system, it will undermine a whole set of potential competitors for advertising dollars. Tim Wu, a law professor and author of the book The Master Switch , argues of such a deal , “In the longer term, however, the risk is that this deal could give Google such an advantage that travel search becomes like other forms of search, dominated by one engine, which could eventually stifle innovation.” (And of course, Google may just flat out skew results in travel, given complaints across a wide range of areas by businesses involved in its search and advertising market, as I detailed in my post, The Case for Antitrust Action Against Google .) How Privacy is Threatened by Google’s Business Model: So why should individual users care about any of this if they are still getting the goodies for free? The reason this is not a dry economic issue of whether Google is cutting into the profits of a few competitors or deciding a few winners and losers desperate for a higher ranking in its search results is that Google is not giving anything away for free. Google’s whole business model is based on systematically stripping away user’s privacy to trade Google’s knowledge about you to advertisers. A former Federal Trade Commissioner, Pamela Jones Harbour , highlighted the problem of this model for both privacy and antitrust policy in the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Law Journal . Harbour, who served at the FTC from 2003 to 2009, dissented from the FTC decision to allow Google to take over the online ad display company, Doubleclick. If you understood that the relevant market was “data used for behavioral marketing,” the merger brought together two companies already controlling large amounts of personal data, so the merger left Google even more dominant in this sector. Harbour emphasizes the point made above that you miss the ball if you look at “search engine markets” or “map software markets”, but instead you have to understand that the product is aggregated personal data where: …[revenue] derives from the accumulation of data, which can then be put to myriad commercial uses… The sites are subsidized, in effect, by trading on the value of accumulated data. In many instances, the data come from individual consumers, who may or may not realize that they are paying for “free” information or services by disclosing their personal information. Companies like Google with the most specific personal data can better target ads and thus dominate these advertising markets. What this also means is that non-price factors, such as privacy decisions by consumers, can easily be distorted in a non-competitive online environment. If companies’ real constituencies are advertisers, they then have a strong incentive to violate privacy if it serves their behavioral targeting goals. Thus you end up with Google continually breaching consumer privacy, even going as far as the wi-fi spying through their Street View project , without too much worry about losing consumer support. Some neoliberal doubters of the need for antitrust and other regulatory action on Google might argue that market competition will protect privacy, but if you understand that the relevant customers are the advertisers — and it’s the advertisers who want privacy violated to better target advertising — you’ll understand that the “market”, such as it is, is driving the destruction of personal privacy online. There may be a “market” for convincing customers that companies are trying to protect individual privacy, but, to return to the Kobe beef metaphor, that’s the same incentive for hiding the slaughterhouse from the cattle. It’s only a cosmetic change in a business model driving to the same result. Why Active Regulation is Needed: What’s clear is that “the market” is not going to solve either the antitrust or the privacy problems from Google or comparable actors in other sectors of the online world. A Web 2.0 world requires new tools and analyses, where a company like Google with such dominance needs to be treated a bit more like a public utility — delivering important public benefits but also requiring public accountability to protect the public interest. Mergers by Google deserve more skepticism — and the privacy and antitrust implications of its actions need sharper scrutiny (something the judge who blocked the Google Books settlement this past week thankfully engaged in ). But that’s just the first step. More active regulation is needed to protect privacy and keep competition alive to maintain pressure for innovation on even as dominant a player as Google. One flip side of understanding how critical violations of privacy are to Google’s economic model is that enacting stronger privacy protection also will, in former FTC Commissioner Harbour’s words “directly influence how much competition is able to emerge in related technology markets.” Harbour points to strengthening the ability of consumers to port data from one service to another as an example. While it looks like a consumer protection practice, it also service competition policy as well: Imagine that a given legal regime were to encourage greater consumer control over data (e.g., through open standards), such that a market emerged to accommodate the porting of data relatively easily among applications. In that entry-friendly environment, if consumers were unhappy with the level of privacy protection offered by a popular application or service, consumers would be better able to “vote with their feet” (or, more accurately, their data) and switch to competing providers, without losing the accrued value of their personal datasets. Still, even data portability is not enough in a world where users often don’t know how companies are misusing their data. Analyst and Seton Hall Professor Frank Pasquale argues that data portability and other market-based regulations will fail: “privacy regulators’ monitoring of oligopolistic online entities will be more effective than waiting for the elusive concept of ‘privacy competition.’” That’s one reason I do think U.S. policymakers need to look at policy innovations in Europe that are demanding specific rights for consumers and even promoting key technologies that bypass the privacy-destroying process of many current online practices. They are moving towards policies that give individuals the right to remove personal data from online databases, require transparency in what data has been collected, and require explicit consent to collect personal data in the first place. Germany, for example , is requiring new central online sites where individuals can track exactly what data is being collected on them — and be able to remove it — and even promoting alternative online mapping software that eliminates the requirement by consumers to share their location to access it. Beyond Neoliberal Economics Online: Whatever the salience of the neoliberal economic argument that regulation is not needed and markets will protect consumers — and the bloody financial meltdown should make anyone question the general doctrine — what’s clear is that the Web 2.0 world has its own dynamics that make even the basic assumptions of neoliberal economics invalid. Markets online are odd multi-party affairs, where individuals (often unknowingly) trade off their private information to intermediaries like Google, which in turn market that information to advertisers, who in turn try to market products or services often from other companies back to individuals. Individual interests in privacy are at war with the interests of advertisers in obliterating that privacy and “network effects” allow a company like Google to attain greater and greater dominance, even as it uses giving away free products to undermine the business model of potential competitors. Waving the magic “market” wand seems a very weak and uncertain tool in achieving what we want as a society. Instead, what is needed are clearer mandates on all online companies to deliver what is promised — whether products, searches or social connections — while severely limiting how those companies can resell or market based on personal data without explicit consent. People deserve to be back in control of their online experience, not merely a data point in a product marketed to advertisers. Crossposted from Tech-Progress.org

Read the full article →

GE’s Twitter Campaign Against The New York Times

March 28, 2011

After a damning New York Times story accusing General Electric of having paid $0 in American taxes despite $5.2 billion in domestic revenue, the company is fighting back–by Twitter. In a peculiar gambit, GE’s strategy seems to be to use Twitter –via @GEpublicaffairs , a still uncertified account–to respond to a random assortment of writers at various outlets totally unaffiliated with the New York Times , who just happened to tweet the story at some point. Recipients of @ replies from the GEpublicaffairs account include such figures as Slate ‘s tech columnist Farhad Manjoo, Business Insider editor-in-chief Henry Blodget, and a slew of other writers from places including the National Journal and Atlantic Wire . Though most received the form response “@_____ learn more GE tax facts visit http://bit.ly/ea6Ay2″ followed by nuggets contradicting the Times story, like “GE paid almost $2.7 billion in cash taxes in 2010″ and “GE didn’t receive payment back from govt as a result of the tax benefit,” others, like the Business Insider main account were harangued to “Stop the misleading attacks.” The GE public affairs account calls the Times story “inaccurate,” “erroneous,” and “grossly oversimplified.” But some people GE has reached out to with an @ reply seem less than convinced. Carla Zilka tweeted, “I don’t know if NYT would print false facts re: GE, so someone is not being, ahem, “honest.”" The dispute: what kind of taxes constitute that $2.7 billion GE claims to have paid? @khivi tweeted “@Gepublicaffairs tweets confirm @nytimes that GE paid $0 corporate tax,” to which GE responded “They are separate. Of $2.7B income tax paid, signf portion was US fed. GE also paid $1B+ in payroll, state & local use & property tax.” Henry Blodget, in particular, has engaged in an interrogation of the account. After asking them whether the Times was wrong about GE’s $0 US tax bill, GE Public Affairs responded, “Well, GE paid U.S. $2.7B in cash taxes in 2010.” At this point, he dragged the Times’ Bill Keller into the fight, tweeting, “If I’m not mistaken, GE has now said that the NYT story saying it paid no US taxes last year is flat-out wrong. @gepublicaffairs @nytkeller” Interestingly enough, though, Blodget goes a step further than the official GE response , which, while calling the story “distorted and misleading,” skirts around actually saying the story is “wrong.”

Read the full article →

Fresh Controversy In Wisconsin Union Bill Fight

March 28, 2011

(Reuters) – Opponents of a bill stripping Wisconsin public employees of most of their collective bargaining rights rallied at the state Capitol on Saturday, the day after a state agency published the measure despite an order barring such a move. Republican supporters of the measure said the action by the state’s Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB), which published the bill electronically on Friday, was legal and meant the controversial anti-union measure was now in effect. But Democrats insisted the temporary restraining order (TRO) on publication issued last week by a judge remained in effect and rendered Friday’s publication by the LRB moot. The move injected fresh controversy into the debate here over the measure, which would overturn a 52-year-old state policy encouraging public-sector unionism and sparked massive demonstrations in Madison, the state capital, for weeks. Lester Pines, an attorney who represents unionized teachers in Madison, told the Wisconsin State Journal newspaper the LRB’s action, which appeared to contravene both the court order and specific written instructions from the Secretary of State, would “unleash a tsunami of litigation.” Peter Barca, the top Democrat in the state Assembly, said he had consulted with attorneys at the Wisconsin Legislative Council (WLC), a separate nonpartisan legislative agency, and had been assured the measure would not be deemed legally published without further action by Wisconsin’s secretary of state. Legal publication of the legislation is required for it to go into effect. Barca distributed a memo to the media from Scott Grosz, a staff attorney with the WLC, supporting that interpretation. “While certain statutory obligations regarding publication of Act 10 have been satisfied by the LRB,” Grosz wrote in the memo, “the statutory obligation that relates to the effective date of Act 10 has not yet been satisfied by the Secretary of State, and at this time the Secretary’s actions remain subject to the temporary restraining order issued in Dane County Circuit Court.” Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, who filed the complaint that generated the restraining order, agreed. He said the judge issuing the order had been clear it was designed to “preserve the status quo” — not to enjoin a particular individual. But Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, disagreed. In an interview with Reuters on Saturday, Fitzgerald reiterated his view that the LRB’s action did not violate the TRO because the bureau was not specifically mentioned in the order. “The LRB clearly had authority to do what it did yesterday — not only the authority but the obligation,” Fitzgerald said. “And it’s my understanding that, as of this morning, it’s the law.” Mary Bell, the president of the Wisconsin education Association Council, a teachers union whose members are among those affected by the law, called the Friday move “another sign that the governor and legislature are in a desperate power grab to take away the voice of teachers, support staff, nurses, home health care workers and other public employees.” The court appeal was based on an argument that the state’s open meeting laws had been violated when the bill was passed. rather than a challenge to its contents, meaning even if the appeal were ultimately upheld the Republican-dominated state legislature is likely to simply pass the measure again. But so long as it is not in legal effect, public employee unions can try to use existing bargaining powers to negotiate better contracts before their rights are curbed. Republican Governor Scott Walker had strongly pushed the legislation, saying it was part of a package needed to combat the state’s budget deficit. Union and Democratic critics said that argument was a smoke screen for busting state workers’ unions. The issue attracted hundreds of thousands to demonstrations against the measure. Democratic state senators fled the state in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to block a vote on the measure, and the battle over the bill has become a symbol for other states where unions are trying to preserve bargaining powers as Republican-led legislatures seek to curb them. (Writing by James Kelleher; Editing by Jerry Norton) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Tony Schwartz: Take Back Control of Your Work (and Your Life)

March 22, 2011

I just got back from the SXSW interactive conference in Austin. I went there to give a talk about fueling sustainable productivity by balancing periods of fully absorbed attention with intermittent renewal. Peering out into that vast hall, I fear I saw the future: a sea of the digital elite hunched over blinking technologies, tweeting and texting as I talked. Here’s what I later learned some of them were saying, all in 140 characters or less: “I’m splitting my attention between @tonyschwartz & tweeting that 2 B gr8 U have to be willing to suffer/practice.” “Tony Schwartz tells SXSW attendees to go to bed earlier. Tough sell.” “How can Tony Schwartz stay sane giving a speech on focusing on task at a time while the audience is on their iPads/iPhones at same time?” I wasn’t so worried about my own sanity — I was only doing one thing at a time, after all — but I was a little concerned about theirs. We’ve truly entered a world of nonstop input and output. So what exactly would it take to seize back control of our lives? We need a series of deliberate practices to counter the powerful forces so accelerating our lives. 1. Just say no. Imagine for a moment that you’re downsizing from a house to an apartment one-third the size. Everything you have seems necessary until you realize it simply won’t fit in your new place. There’s always room for less. You likely already have too much to do, too much information to absorb, and too many choices to make. If so, your challenge is learning to say no far more often — “no” to more projects, more meetings, more emails, more tweets, more Facebook updates, more purchases, more friends, more “likes”, and more fans and followers. Prioritization isn’t just what you want to do, it’s increasingly what you ought not do. What can you delegate and eliminate, take off your plate or put on the back burner in each dimension of your life? If you’re going to take on something new, what are you going to stop doing? How are you going to be more ruthlessly selective? My colleague Scott Belsky refers to this as “curating” your life. Curate comes from the Latin curare, meaning “to care” — in this case for yourself. Think of this as a Not To Do list. 2. Create more space in your brain — and your life. Our working memory can’t hold much information. The first solution, as David Allen spells out in Getting Things Done, is to write down everything that’s on your mind — the more often, the better. The less you’re thinking about at any given moment, the calmer and more receptive you’ll be, and the better you’ll be able to manage whatever arises. We also need to create more space in our days. To make sense of our increasingly complex and demanding world, we need times during the day when we step back, reflect on and metabolize what we’ve just taken in. We need less data and more context, less volume and more depth. That can’t happen if we’re running from one meeting to the next, and emailing, texting and tweeting in every moment in between. Where can you insert purposeful pauses? 3. Do one thing at a time as much as possible. I appreciated having the SXSW audience tweet short bits about my talk to their followers, but while they were tweeting, they were likely missing whatever I said next. Human beings aren’t designed to do two cognitive tasks at the same time (much less three or four). The research is clear that we’re far more efficient when we do activities sequentially rather than simultaneously. We also do higher quality work when we’re singly focused, and remember more of anything we’re trying to learn. 4. Revisit and reevaluate. I’ve kept a journal most of my adult life. In my 20s and 30s, I filled it with anguished evaluation of my life’s ups and downs. Today, thankfully, I use my journal as a place in which to collect ideas when they occur to me. The real value of doing so, I’ve discovered, is periodically revisiting what I’ve written. I do that on plane trips, mostly, because that’s the least interrupted time left in my life. By revisiting ideas, and reevaluating them with a fresh eye, I find the best ones become richer and more layered, and the less good ones naturally fade away. It’s a practice that serves as an antidote to instant action, and allows ideas and projects to ripen so I don’t act on them before their time. 5. Take regular breaks from your technology. The digital devices we all now carry around are stunningly seductive and addictive, providing endless access to instant gratification: tweets and texts, stuff to buy, games to play, apps to add, and constant new information. Our devices are the means by which we get our work done, but they’re also a form of digital crack. If they’re turned on, you’ll almost surely use them and very likely abuse them. Here’s the threshold question: Are there websites you check 10 or 20 or even 30 times a day? Consider treating yourself like a parent does a child. Ruthlessly limit the time you expose yourself to irresistible temptation. While I’m writing this blog, for example, I have my cell phone and email turned off. At 90 minutes, I’ll check back in. The other move I’ve decided to make– and am committed to stick by — is to leave my laptop and phone in the kitchen when I head up to my bedroom at night. I’m convinced I’m better off reading books than I am Google Analytics, and truly relaxing with my wife rather than aimlessly surfing websites. Less is more. Reprinted from HBR.org .

Read the full article →

Goldman Banker Behind ‘Smear Campaign’ Against Elizabeth Warren

March 18, 2011

WASHINGTON — A Wall Street Journal editorial writer who has been closely involved with the paper’s recent attacks on Elizabeth Warren is a former Goldman Sachs banker. The same editorial writer, Mary Kissel, is readying another piece critical of Warren and the new consumer agency, according to a source familiar with the coming article. Like most major newspapers, the Journal does not disclose the authors of its editorials. Kissel recently appeared on the John Batchelor radio show as a representative of the Journal ‘s editorial board do discuss Warren, and repeated the main arguments used in the editorials. The editorials paint both Warren and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as an immensely powerful, unaccountable organization. The nascent agency is assuming the consumer protection duties currently exercised by regulators at the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The author, Mary Kissel, worked for Goldman between 1999 and 2002 as a fixed income research and capital markets specialist . Kissel is listed on the Journal’s website as a member of the editorial staff and her bio includes her time at Goldman Sachs and notes that she worked for the company in both New York and London. On Wednesay, Warren testified before a House subcomittee , providing 34 pages of written answers while submitting to two-and-a-half hours of aggressive questioning from congressional Republicans, who deployed talking points similar to those used in the recent Journal editorials. “There has definitely been an uptick in attacks on her and on the agency over the past few weeks, it’s hard to imagine it hasn’t been well-coordinated by somebody,” said a source close to Warren. “The smear campaign by The Wall Street Journal ‘s editorial board this week includes the most unfactual and outrageous hit pieces on her yet. If it’s true that the author of the editorials and Goldman Sachs coordinated on them, they should both be exposed and called to account.” The headline of Thursday’s Journal editorial is “President Warren’s Empire,” which goes on to say, “The consumer bureau is essentially a bureaucratic rogue. We’d like to see Congress kill the agency entirely. But at the very least Congress should remove it from the Fed, make it part of the Treasury and subject it to annual appropriations.” Bank regulators are not subject to the Congressional appropriations process, because the budgeting game allows banks to lobby against the funding of their own regulator. The only financial regulator subject to this process was the agency charged with overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the housing bubble, which proved unable to rein in risk-taking at the mortgage giants as they poured lobbying cash into Congress. In a recent interview, Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) acknowledged that the House GOP’s efforts to curtail funding for the CFPB were essentially an effort to prevent the agency from conducting consumer protection regulation. On Wednesday, the Journal accused Warren and the CFPB of “extorting billions of dollars from private mortgage servicers” in the agency’s role as an advisor in negotiations to settle allegations of widespread fraud in the foreclosure process. The editorial also argues that “Ms. Warren is already using the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to tell banks how and to whom to lend money.” The foreclosure process is in disarray, and even Republican state Attorneys General say that banks have broken the law with improper foreclosures. Consumer advocates have accused banks of levying heavy, improper fees against borrowers, driving them into foreclosure, while other borrowers have been foreclosed on without missing any mortgage payments . Banks have also physically broken into the homes of borrowers in order to pursue foreclosures. Warren has publicly criticized Goldman in testimony before Congress and during on-air interviews with CNBC and Bloomberg. When Warren chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, she told Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) during a hearing that Goldman had not provided her panel with key documents pertaining to the bailout of AIG, from which Goldman reaped over $11 billion. She also said that the Wall Street giant should be investigated for wrongdoing pertaining to the sale of mortgage derivatives during the housing bubble. Goldman eventually settled with the SEC for $550 million over allegations that it defrauded investors. Kissel declined to comment for this article, and the Journal did not respond to an email requesting comment. Goldman Sachs did not return a call requesting comment.

Read the full article →

Criminal Case Against Lehman Brothers Stalls

March 12, 2011

(Reuters) – A government probe into the fall of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc has hit so many snags that enforcement officials fear they may never be able to bring civil or criminal charges against company executives, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday. According to the paper, Securities and Exchange Commission officials have begun to doubt they can prove that Lehman broke U.S. laws by moving nearly $50 billion in assets off its balance sheet to make it appear that the securities firm had lowered its debt burden. Quoting people familiar with the situation, the Journal said SEC officials are also worried they might not win any lawsuit against former Lehman Chief Executive Richard Fuld Jr accusing him of improperly accounting for the value of a large real estate portfolio acquired with the takeover of Archstone-Smith Trust, or to hide losses to investors related to that deal. If the SEC decides not to file charges against Lehman, the securities firm could escape criminal prosecution because the Justice Department often takes its lead from the SEC, the newspaper said. (Reporting by Julie Steenhuysen; Editing by Vicki Allen) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Goldman CEO Will Testify For Insider Trading Case

March 4, 2011

(Reuters) – Goldman Sachs Group (GS.N) Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein has agreed to testify for the U.S. government at the upcoming trial of Galleon hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter. The criminal trial of the Sri Lankan-born Rajaratnam, 53, is scheduled to start on March 8 in Manhattan federal court, part of what U.S. prosecutors call the biggest probe of insider trading at hedge funds. The long-running case took a new turn two days ago when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charged former Goldman director Rajat Gupta with providing inside information to Rajaratnam. Gupta called the charges baseless. The U.S. government would use Blankfein to establish evidence linking information about Goldman that was shared among board members and executives with Gupta, the Journal said. Blankfein’s testimony would be used as a bridge establishing the origin of the tip allegedly provided by Gupta to Rajaratnam, who the government says traded on the information, the paper said. Goldman representatives were not immediately available for comment outside U.S. business hours. (Reporting by Soyoung Kim; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Regulators May Force Wall Street To Defer Half Of Executives’ Bonuses, Wall Street Journal Reports

February 5, 2011

(Reuters) – U.S. regulators will propose that major financial firms defer at least half of bonuses paid to top executives for at least three years, the Wall Street Journal cited sources as saying on Saturday. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp is expected on Monday to approve the draft rule, which seeks to force the largest financial firms — including Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) and Morgan Stanley (MS.N) — to tie incentive-based pay to individual employees’ long-term performance, rather than just hand out large chunks of cash each year, the paper said. Under the proposal, the firms would have to review the results of trades or other business decisions tied to an employee’s bonus pay over the deferral period, the Journal cited people familiar with the discussions as saying. If losses occur, the firms would have to reduce or eliminate the delayed compensation accordingly, it added. The proposed rule also would instruct the boards of firms with more than $50 billion in assets to identify lower-rung employees who are capable of inflicting “material risk” on their company, the Journal said. The firms would have to defer a portion of bonus pay for these employees as well, it said. The Dodd-Frank law, enacted in July, requires regulators to ban pay practices that encourage “inappropriate” risk taking. On Monday, banking agencies will release a rule to implement this section of the law. The rule is expected to require a significant amount of executives’ bonuses to be deferred over a number of years, similar to a proposal G20 leaders agreed to in 2009 in which the proposed period of deferral was at least three years. That proposal also suggested 40 to 60 percent of bonus pay be deferred. In June, a month before Dodd-Frank became law, banking regulators led by the Federal Reserve put out guidance on pay, suggesting compensation should not cause employees to take “imprudent risk” and that the board of directors should be involved in policing pay. The rules to be released on Monday are expected to be more specific. Some banks are already broadly in line with most of those terms, notably Morgan Stanley. Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Hedge Fund Manager Reportedly Brought In $5 Billion Last Year

January 28, 2011

BOSTON (By Svea Herbst-Bayliss) – Billionaire hedge fund manager John Paulson, whose bet against the overheated housing market made him one of the world’s wealthiest people, became a lot richer last year. By earning an estimated $5 billion in 2010 thanks to bets the economy would recover, the 55-year old investor likely set a new record for the $1.9 trillion hedge fund industry’s biggest-ever annual payday. He beat his own record, which he set in 2007 with a $4 billion haul made off the subprime bet. The Wall Street Journal first reported Paulson’s payout in its Friday edition, and investors familiar with Paulson’s portfolios said the number is likely correct given the manager’s asset size and his recent profitable bets on Citigroup and gold. For Paulson, the payday comes after he reversed deep losses in his funds halfway through the year, and it may put to rest lingering talk that his investing prowess was limited to a lucky bet during the subprime era, investors said. “He did it on the short side and on the long side,” said Brad Alford, founder of Alpha Capital Management, which invests with hedge funds. “He proved that he can really do it all.” Other prominent managers like Appaloosa Management’s David Tepper and Bridgewater Associates’ Ray Dalio likely also earned 10-figure paychecks, the Journal reported. EYEBROWS RAISED But Paulson and other managers’ eye-popping earnings are sure to raise new questions about how managers are paid in an industry known for charging hefty fees that often guarantee generous payouts even if returns were merely average. Last year, the average hedge fund gained 10.5 percent, lagging the Standard & Poor’s 500 index by 15 percent and falling short of their own 19 percent return in 2009, data from Hedge Fund Research show. But managers will collect 2 percent management fees and about a 20 percent cut of their gains. By definition, this raises the payouts for managers at the industry’s biggest firms. In Paulson’s case, the fact that his 17-year old firm Paulson & Co oversees about $35 billion fattened up his payout. To be fair, Paulson also invests his entire fortune in his funds and since his gold fund gained 35 percent, his investment gains added billions to his payout. For other managers, including ones who lost money, however, the industry’ payouts may seem less fair, investors and analysts said. “People are fine with hedge fund fee structures as long as they are making great returns,” said Stewart Massey, who invests with hedge funds at Massey, Quick & Co. “But where they get antsy is where managers have middling returns and the managers are still making a lot of money.” As hedge funds look for new investors, experts say that investors’ demands on pay will hold more sway. A push from some investors to set a so-called hurdle rate, or minimum accepted rate of return, for manager pay, or to reward them only if they exceed certain benchmarks may gain traction. ROAD TO BIG PAYDAYS The big paydays at hedge funds are likely to confirm that hedge funds can be modern-day gold mines on Wall Street and spark even more movement from the world of banking and mutual fund management into this asset class. “Many of these big hedge fund managers are now earning more than professional athletes,” said Kenneth Murray, president of Mercury Partners, which recruits staff for hedge funds. “And they can do this for the rest of their lives, unlike sports stars who have to find another job after the age of 35…. 100 percent, hedge funds are the places where everyone wants to be.” But he and other recruiters agreed that the hedge fund industry’s biggest payouts really will be limited to its biggest stars, noting that working at a hedge fund is no longer a sure way to easy riches. As the industry matures, these people said that it is becoming harder for newcomers to break in and that portfolio managers need to bring long records of top performance before getting a job. Also with investors becoming pickier, it is harder to raise a lot of money. “If you’ve been in the game and successful, you may be set for life, but for everyone else it is becoming tougher,” Murray said. (Editing by Robert MacMillan) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Pattern of Higher Returns For Bonds Missing In Recent Years

January 1, 2011

Gerald Buetow Jr Frank Fabozzi and Brian Henderson assert in the Fall 2010 Journal of Fixed Income that the pattern of higher returns and lower standard deviations for bonds during expansive monetary policy periods was not present in recent years

Read the full article →

US- The Journal of Commerce announces keynote-speaker for TPM con

December 22, 2010

US- The Journal of Commerce announces keynote-speaker for TPM con

Read the full article →

CHART: The Number Of Adults Living With Their Parents Has Skyrocketed

December 10, 2010

Empty nest parents, be warned: the number of adults aged 25 to 34 who are living with their parents has exploded, according to this rather shocking chart put together by economist Tom Lawler and posted on Calculated Risk . Earlier this year, a study published in the journal Transitions to Adulthood titled “What’s Going on with Young People Today? The Long and Twisting Path to Adulthood” concluded that the economic downturn has caused an entire generation to delay adulthood. As ScienceDaily summarized the study: “In 1969, only about 10 percent of men in their early thirties had wages that were below poverty level. By 2004, the share had more than doubled. Overall, the share of young adults in 2005 living in poverty was higher than the national average.” Calculated Risk i s slightly more sunny about the below chart: If the job market picks up, the adults living with their parents may transform into a new class of home buyers. Check out the chart below and visit Calculated Risk for more information.

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: A Rose by any Other Name Would Smell Like a "New Humanitarian"

November 29, 2010

Remember when in February 2009 Blackwater changed its name to Xe Services? Didn’t do much good, did it? Almost everyone still thinks of it as Blackwater, or shades of the other Prince, the PSC formerly known as Blackwater. It just goes to show you that not every attempt at rebranding works well. Sometimes, in fact, they are major disasters. For example, if the SciFi Channel had done more due diligence before it rolled out its new name it would have discovered that, in most parts of the world, “syfy” is a slang term for syphilis. And being associated with a sexually transmitted disease is never a good marketing tactic. Of course, rebranding is par for the course for private military and security contractors. The public debate is frequently shallow and sensationalist, and often outright demagogic, so it is hardly surprising that PMSC seek to change the terms of the debate, considering that its critics often seek to influence it by using inaccurate terminology like “mercenary, “dogs of war,” or “guns for hire.” Remember that the PMSC trade group, the International Peace Operations Association, which then changed its name to simply IPOA, recently renamed itself the International Stability Operations Association. I see the change as an attempt to broaden their market appeal. Offering an organization that is of use to companies that can lay claim to helping establish stability will, at least potentially, cast a far wider net, that just those involved in peace operations. As both a marketing move and an attempt to attract future member companies it is a smart move. The sad thing is that for many years PMSC have been notably bad at doing public relations, or, if you want to use military terminology, information operations. Partly it was because in their early years PMSC were, and to some degree, still are headed by former military officers whose initial reaction to the idea of talking with the media is to echo the famous comment, “Off with their heads!” from the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. Another reason is that they were simply too cheap to pay for a fulltime public relations person or office. And when you are something on the order of DynCorp or KBR you definitely need a whole office. Or to paraphrase the old sports quote, image isn’t everything; it’s the only thing. Given that PMSC trade association have lobbied Congress to consider “best value” when awarding contracts, which involves weighing a company’s reputation among other factors, and not just its bid price, you can see why this is important. So, how’s that whole identity politics thing working out? This brings us to another paper presented at the presented at the SGIR 7th Pan-European International Relations Conference, in Stockholm, Sweden, September 9-11, 2010. This is ” New Humanitarians? Private Military and Security Companies ” by Jutta Joachim & Andrea Schneiker of the Institute of Political Science at Leibniz University Hannover, Germany. They start with the obvious, “Although Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) are gaining increasingly in importance, they still suffer from an image problem… Companies are therefore interested in presenting themselves as legitimate and acceptable contract parties.” And what do they find? Based on a discourse analysis of the homepages of select PMSCs and the industry association International Peace Operations Association (IPOA), we examine the ways in which they respond to negative labels. Drawing on the framing literature, we find that PMSCs present themselves as “new humanitarians.” Not only do they provide increasingly logistics or security for the staff of humanitarian organizations which are confronted with complex emergencies and ever-more dangerous missions, but the respective companies also appropriate the discourses of these organizations. The growing involvement of actors interested exclusively in profit is not without problems. Not only does it challenge the monopoly thus far enjoyed by non-profit organizations with respect to humanitarian assistance and the principles which guide their actions, but it contributes further to the normalization of privatized security. “Armed humanitarians” is also the title of Nathan Hodge’s book which I wrote about previously . Of course, such a rebranding has impact beyond that of image. It goes to furthering the legitimacy and staying power of the PMC industry. After all, who could possibly be against a humanitarian?. It would be like being against the Red Cross or Amnesty International. For PMSCs to present themselves as humanitarians has implications that go far beyond the humanitarian sector. It contributes to the normalization and power of PMSCs. By presenting themselves as do-gooders and others, including state militaries, international organizations, such as the United Nations, and even NGOs as incapable and less caring for the well-being of others, PMSCs enhance their legitimacy. Outsourcing of military and security-related tasks may, in turn, be more acceptable, easier to justify, and more difficult to resist, if not to say a moral obligation. In the view of the authors defining oneself as a humanitarian, which is generally considered to be an ethic of kindness, benevolence and sympathy extended universally and impartially to all human beings, is also smart business: In the case of PMSCs, presenting themselves as humanitarians may enhance their common acceptance and increase their pool of clients, such as NGOs, who might be less apprehensive in relying on their services, as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of RA International, a member company of the IPOA, explains: One should never underestimate the power of private companies who offer aid. Companies are almost always focused on efficiency, good negotiation, building their reputation (their brand) and getting things done on time and on budget. The basic rules of capitalism that work for the good of the communities they aid can in turn aid them in business and ultimately help post-conflict societies to recover and progress. So, in this view, someone like Adam Smith is really Mother Theresa in drag. And, as it turns out, for one of the few times in their history, PMSC are becoming rather deft and adroit in their public relations. PMSCs increasingly refer to themselves as “the New Humanitarian Agent[s]” emphasizing, like AECOM, that they “are committed … to make the world a better place”. Their humanitarian identity has evolved over time in response to scandals and crisis in the industry and is reflective of the post-Cold War kind in terms of the professed ambitions. Most indicative of a change in the industry is the way in which the IPOA more recently refers to it. PMSCs, according to the association, belong to the “Peace and Stability Operations Industry” of which the private security industry is only a “subset.” … The Journal of International Peace Operations of the IPOA is quite telling in this respect. Ads of companies quite frequently show sad looking girls (EODT), babies being fed (Blackwater), boys laughing and waving at one (IPOA), soldiers rescuing little kids (IPOA), or a globe (Blackwater, IPOA). Everyone is entitled to their own spin and it is true that in many cases PMSC are just as capable, if not more so that their traditional NGO counterparts such as Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders or the Red Cross. So, should we care whether IPOA et al is putting itself in the ranks of Nobel Peace prize winners? Well, the authors note a few problems. First, there is what we might politely call the hypocrisy factor: Analyzing the homepages of PMSCs and one of their associations–the IPOA–provides evidence that companies present themselves increasingly as “new humanitarians” interested in addressing the root causes of conflicts. On the one hand, they employ naming strategies, emphasizing their commitment to humanitarian aims and ethics. On the other hand, however, they paradoxically blame while at the same time align themselves with other humanitarian actors. As much as they consider the reluctance of Western states, international organizations, and NGOs to intervene in ongoing crisis as a problem, PMSCs also seek to benefit from and rent their legitimacy. Second, is the conflict of interest issue: First, PMSCs specialize in intelligence and risk assessments. In terms of effectiveness and efficiency, this may be an asset in situations of violent conflicts or humanitarian disasters and a comparative advantage vis-à-vis NGOs or international organizations. Given the kinds of information PMSCs can produce and have available, they may be in a better position to determine where help is most needed, coordinate the assistance and the logistics, or to estimate the effort or the danger involved. From a moral point of view, however, this capability can be problematic. Through their advice, PMSCs may shape and influence our understanding as to what constitutes a humanitarian crisis, who are the victims and who may deserve aid, and who is qualified to assist. Instead of political or humanitarian motives per se, the information companies provide is based on economic reasoning. Whether to intervene or not and offer assistance is, hence, no longer a question of duty or a certain ethics, but one of whether a crisis promises to be a lucrative market. Third, is the commitment issue: Similar to NGOs, most PMSCs operate transnationally and conceive of themselves as apolitical, neutral actors. Again, based on the criteria of efficiency and effectiveness, this makes their involvement appealing. Companies can be at site in a relatively short amount of time, are not be held back by cumbersome political debates, and may enjoy greater acceptance because they are not directly associated with the UN or any particular state. Judged in moral terms, however, their constitution may again be a problem. Compared to states, UN agencies or even NGOs which often have ties to countries other than those established during violent conflicts or natural disasters, companies do not have these kinds of relations. Consequently, they may feel less of a commitment beyond their assignment and ignore the long-term implications of their engagement or even the short-term consequences for ongoing conflicts. If problems arise, they may simply leave and set up shop elsewhere. While some might argue that the exit option is also available to NGOs, the implications are different for them than for PMSCs. Contrary to the former, which are forced to reflect whether their behaviour is in line with their ethics and are held accountable by their members and donors, companies, in comparison, evaluate their actions based on profits and the potential responses of their share-holders. And last, but hardly least: Finally, apart from moral concerns or those related to efficiency and effectiveness, there seems to be a further implication that has to be considered when PMSCs acquire a humanitarian identity. It contributes to their normalization and may, in the long-run, undermine the role of more traditional actors in the field. With PMSCs gaining in acceptance and legitimacy, international organizations and NGOs may either be increasingly be perceived as lacking the ability to take care of those in most need or may even feel less compelled to intervene.

Read the full article →

FDIC Conducting 50 Criminal Investigations Into Failed Banks

November 17, 2010

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) is conducting about 50 criminal investigations at U.S. banks that have failed since the start of the financial crisis, the Wall Street Journal said. The FDIC, which is responsible for dealing with bank failures, is probing former executives, directors and employees at failed U.S. banks and is taking efforts to punish alleged recklessness, fraud and other criminal behavior, the Journal said. Fred Gibson, deputy inspector general at the FDIC, told the Journal in an interview that the probes involve failed banks of all sizes in cities across the U.S. FDIC is also stepping up civil claims to recover money from former bankers at busted lenders, the newspaper said. Gibson declined to identify the people or banks under investigation, the Journal said. “We anticipate results from our investigations, although we cannot predict when a particular case will reach a stage at which disclosure of specifics would be appropriate,” Gibson told the Journal. FDIC could not immediately be reached for comment by Reuters outside regular U.S. business hours. (Reporting by Sakthi Prasad in Bangalore; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Corporate Slogans Cause Students To Rebel: Study

September 22, 2010

From the Associated Press: Corporate slogans can make shoppers rebel, according to a recent study. In an article for the April issue of the Journal of Consumer Research, researchers said corporate slogans exhorting consumers to save money could lead shoppers to want to spend more, while tagwords associated with luxury could inhibit spending. In one exercise, 435 college students were shown brands associated with value, including Walmart and Kmart. After being flashed the brands, they students said they were less inclined to spend. But after students read slogans that promoted savings and deals, such as “Focus on value, think us,” students tended to want to spend more money. When students were shown brands deemed “luxury” such as Tiffany and Neiman Marcus, they tended to be willing to spend more money. However, exposure to catchphrases that promoted spending, such as “Luxury, you deserve it,” often resulted in students saying they would spend less money. The researchers, marketing professors from three universities, said their study suggested that consumers often want to do the opposite of what corporate slogans tell them to do. The study said that shoppers often understand and resist – perhaps unconsciously – retailers’ attempts to persuade them to act in a certain way.

Read the full article →

Dr. Sasha Galbraith: Quota Me On This: U.S. Companies Should Enact Board Quotas

September 11, 2010

Should the United States jump on the female quota bandwagon? Norway has had a quota law in place for the past four years stipulating that all publicly traded companies must have between 33 and 50 percent women on their boards of directors (depending on size). France and Spain are enacting similar laws — minus the penalties. Any Norwegian company that didn’t comply with the law faced penalties and dissolution. Disobedient French companies will simply get a slap on the corporate wrist. For those who are counting, women occupy a paltry 16 percent of Fortune 500 board seats — and this number has hardly budged for years. Some common explanations: it’s only a matter of time, women don’t have the requisite CEO experience; too many women drop out of the corporate rat race before their time; they are unpredictable and want too much too fast and they don’t factor in the “right” networks (i.e. those who pick board members). In Europe and Asia the numbers are even more dismal; less than 10 percent of board members in Europe, on average, are women. And that number includes Norway, which means there are many countries like Italy, Portugal, Greece, Spain and Switzerland with truly pathetic female representation. In Asia, the number is 3.6 percent for developed countries (Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand) and 4.7 percent for emerging markets. Critics of the board quota system claim there are just not enough qualified women to go around. In fact, one frequently cited study claims that the average market value of a company dropped by 2.5 to 5 percent in the 3 days surrounding the announcement of the board quota law in Norway. The authors, however, do not place the blame on women, but rather claim it’s the lack of experience and young age (46) of the new board members on relatively small boards (7 members on average) which likely contributed to the decline in value. But maybe market value isn’t a good measure. After all, market value is a somewhat subjective measure involving expectations of firm performance in the future. Another group of researchers* found investors systematically penalized companies with at least one woman on the board, since all-male board member companies commanded a market value 37 percent higher than the more female-forward firms. However, when those researchers looked at other measures such as Return on Assets and Return on Equity, the women-populated boards did better than those that were exclusively male. Combine that result with several other studies indicating higher earnings quality, higher profits, more long-term focus on a firm’s holistic value and less risk in companies with more women at the top, and it’s hard to argue against the logic of putting more women in senior positions – not least on the board of directors. So how can we achieve parity on boards? Typically, I’m not a fan of quotas or other affirmative action programs. But in this case, I think that asking companies to “do the right thing” and appoint more women won’t happen anytime soon unless we force them to do so. I reject the notion there is a lack of qualified women in the United States. The good old boys on today’s boards are just not looking hard enough. *”Investing with Prejudice: the Relationship Between Women’s Presence on Company Boards and Objective and Subjective Measures of Company Performance” by S.A. Haslam, M.K. Ryan, C. Kulich, G. Trojanowski and C. Atkins. British Journal of Management . Volume 21, Issue 2, pp. 484-497, June 2010

Read the full article →

Obama Strongly Hints At Warren Nomination To Head Consumer Bureau

September 10, 2010

President Obama hailed his long friendship with Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren on Friday, crediting her at his new conference with the idea for what has since become the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, when asked whether she was still the leading candidate to run it. After calling her a “dear friend” and adding that he’s known her since he was in law school, he strongly hinted that she would be the eventual nominee by qualifying that he was “not going to make an official announcement until it’s ready.” Obama’s clear emphasis on “official” left little room for doubt that the matter is all but decided. Speculation has swirled that Obama would name Warren to head the agency during the summer recess to avoid a confirmation battle. His opportunity to do so expires early next week, when Congress returns. But he could also recess appoint Warren in October, after Congress recesses to campaign for reelection. “The idea for this agency was Elizabeth Warren’s. She’s a dear friend of mine. She’s somebody I’ve known since I was in law school. And I have been in conversations with her. She is a tremendous advocate for this idea,” he said. “I’ll have an announcement soon about how we’re going to move forward. I have had conversations with Elizabeth over these last couple of months. But I’m not going to make an official announcement until it’s ready.” Obama’s confidence in Warren comes as the Wall Street Journal continues its assault on her, questioning whether she could handle the job in an editorial Friday. “We hate to pick on Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren, the front-runner for the consumer post, because the other candidates floated so far may know even less about banking than she does. The White House should step back and review a new list of prospects with an eye toward a healthy banking market, not merely a positive reaction from the Huffington Post,” offered the Journal. The GOP’s campaign against Warren has been going on since 2009, when House Republicans attempted to amend the financial reform bill to include language preventing Warren from becoming the CFPB’s chief. Warren met on Tuesday with Obama. Asked by Bloomberg News if he was concerned that Warren would have trouble being confirmed by the Senate, Obama said that even an appointment for dogcatcher would have trouble getting through the divided Senate under such partisan conditions. “I’m concerned about all Senate confirmations these days. I mean, if I nominate somebody for dogcatcher,” he said. “I wasn’t trying to be funny. I am concerned about all Senate nominations these days. I’ve got people who’ve been waiting for six months to get confirmed who nobody has an official objection to and who were voted out of committee unanimously, and I can’t get a vote on them.”

Read the full article →

Don McNay: Bailouts Don’t Work: The Lotto Winners Study

September 7, 2010

“Keep on working hard boy, try as you may, you’re going to wind up where you started from.” – Cat Stevens I nterviewer: “What is your prediction for this fight?” Clubber Lang (the actor Mr. T): “Pain!” -From the movie, Rocky III I stumbled upon a fascinating academic article, entitled The Ticket to Easy Street? The Financial Consequences of Winning the Lottery. It was written by three economics professors, Scott Hankins from the University of Kentucky, Paige Marta Skiba from Vanderbilt University, and Mark Hoekstra from the University of Pittsburgh. The professors were not just looking to learn the habits of lottery winners. They were searching for the answer to a much larger question: “Whether a bailout will have a permanent impact or whether it will merely postpone financial pain.” In other words, does throwing money at people solve financial problems or just push those problems down the road? The paper gives empirical proof of two things that I’ve been saying for a long time: 1. Bailouts don’t work; and, 2. People who get large sums of money run through it in five years or less. I am starting my 28th year in the structured settlement business. I have written a book about lottery winners. I’ve seen people blow huge amounts of cash. The professors came up with an ingenious and comprehensive method for their research. They obtained a list of winners of the Florida lottery Fantasy Five lotto game from April, 1993 to November, 2002. They compared those names to Florida bankruptcy records to see how many of the winners filed bankruptcy and when. Filing bankruptcy means a person has completely hit bottom. You wouldn’t expect that to happen to a lottery winner. Yet it does. Over and over again. In the first couple of years after winning a jackpot, people who won small amounts were more likely to file than were people who won larger amounts. That makes sense. Someone with a large amount of money can initially weather a bad time or keep creditors at bay. After three years, large winners are more like likely to file bankruptcy than small winners. Also, people who received large sums did not use that money to pay down debt or increase assets. Winning the lottery did not help people increase their net worth. They needed to have set goals and an understanding of finance to make their lives better. It appears that they did not have those fundamental tools. Giving someone a lump sum does not make financial problems go away. It’s like putting an overweight person on a crash diet. Unless you can fix the underlying problem, he is going to fall back to his old habits. This is true for lottery winners and the average American, too. The professors’ paper refers to a 2007 study in the Journal of Political Economy, where it was determined that although “consumers initially used federal rebate checks to reduce debt, eventually debt levels returned to pre-rebate levels.” In other words, all of those billions we have been throwing at rebates, bailouts and stimulus programs have been a waste of money. They did not make a long term difference for people on Main Street. Hankins, Hoekstra and Skiba concluded that “While we cannot be sure that homeowners or other beneficiaries of government aid would respond in the same way lottery winners did, the results may warrant some skepticism about the long term efficacy of such a bailout.” You can see why bailouts fail. Wall Street and lottery winners have a common bond. They have access to easy money without restraints. In my experience with lottery winners, some of the biggest reasons behind winners blowing their money is their family and “friends.” Easy money seems to attract an “entourage” or a “posse” of hangers-on who never tell a lottery winner the one word he needs to hear. “No.” The entourage hangs on until the money is gone. Once the party is over, they are nowhere to be found. Wall Street has its own posse, called “Washington.” The easy flow of campaign contributions, the revolving door between regulators and those they are supposed to be regulating, and the explosion of well-connected, highly paid, lobbyists makes it impossible for Washington to tell Wall Street, “No.” I’ve been promoting concepts designed to help Americans create wealth without Wall Street. The first is moving your money away from Wall Street. If you take your money out of the “Too big to fail” banks, you are reducing their political power. You can learn more at www.moveyourmoney.info. If we keep on moving our money, eventually the people in Washington will have the backbone to tell Wall Street, “No.” There has been talk in Washington of another stimulus package. Instead of looking at short term solutions, the country needs to make long term, painful, economic changes. Otherwise, like the Florida lottery winners, we are going to wind up where we started from. Or worse. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC of Richmond Kentucky is an award-winning financial columnist and Huffington Post Contributor. You can read more about Don at www.donmcnay.com McNay founded McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement and financial consulting firm, in 1983, and Kentucky Guardianship Administrators LLC in 2000. You can read more about both at www.mcnay.com McNay has Master’s Degrees from Vanderbilt and the American College and is in the Hall of Distinguished Alumni of Eastern Kentucky University. McNay has written two books. Most recent is Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You Win The Lottery McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table and has four professional designations in the financial services field.

Read the full article →

Kimberly Freeman Brown: On Labor Day, Partnerships That Work For a Clean Energy Economy

September 5, 2010

By American Rights at Work Executive Director Kimberly Freeman Brown and BlueGreen Alliance Executive Director David Foster This Labor Day, America is facing a dizzying array of problems, none more acute than the twin crises of how poorly we treat our workers and how appallingly we treat our planet. In case anyone believes these issues are distinct and need to be addressed separately, let’s remember some of this year’s grisly headlines: * ” Massey Accident, Worst Since 1970, Claims 29 Miners ” * ” Families bid farewell to 11 men killed in Gulf rig explosion ” * ” 5 workers killed in explosion at Middleton, Conn., power plant ” While the environmental and labor disasters at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch Mine, the BP oil rig, and the Kleen Energy natural gas plant have topped the news, the everyday struggles of working people have continued unabated. Struggles such as the construction worker forced to work more hours for less pay, building outdated structural designs in dangerous conditions. Or the tomato picker breaking her back in a hot, pesticide-soaked field, gathering vegetables destined for a supermarket shelf. Or the factory worker forced into an ever-faster production line that spits out toxic byproducts, putting his health and safety at risk with little or no healthcare benefits. These conditions are the reality faced by millions of America’s workers. But we do not have to accept them as the cost of doing business in this country. There is a better way. Years ago, labor and environmental advocates realized that in order to preserve our environment and create jobs in America, investing in a clean energy economy was critical. Today, green jobs are growing, and America’s workers must benefit from the full potential and promise of the green economy. There are a select number of forward-thinking employers already paving the way toward a green economy . They are collaborating with their employees as equal partners, respecting their decision to join unions, and creating good, green, union jobs — where workers receive family-sustaining wages, fair benefits, safe workplaces, and retirement security. Green builders such as Oregon-based Gerding Edlen Development are paving the way. Having led the first LEED-Platinum certified renovation of a building on the National Register of Historic Places, Gerding Edlen sees its highly-trained, union workforce as key to its success. As CEO Mark Edlen says, “Union workers bring the skill set, creativity, and workplace safety the company needs to execute such complex projects: that’s why Gerding Edlen uses union labor.” Not surprisingly, the firm has topped the Oregon Business Journal’s annual list of the best green companies to work for two straight years, and has been voted one of Oregon’s most admired companies at least four years in a row. In the agriculture industry, Eurofresh is transforming vegetable production through its sustainable growing practices. Food safety is a top priority at the Arizona-based company, which credits the union-led orientation and training programs for raising production standards. All of its produce is greenhouse-grown, reducing land and water use, and is certified pesticide residue-free — protecting the health of consumers, workers, and the environment. Perhaps most exciting of all, the new clean energy economy is bringing good manufacturing jobs back to the United States. United Streetcar, a subsidiary of Oregon Iron Works, is building the first American-made modern electric streetcars in almost 60 years. And the company is doing more than easing congestion and reducing pollution through its streetcars through good, green jobs in Oregon — its dedication to using U.S. suppliers is reigniting an entire industry. United Streetcar today produces the first modern streetcars to comply with “Buy America” provisions: 70 percent of its trams’ components are domestically produced, and the company is striving to use entirely U.S.-made components. As a result, orders with United Streetcar create or save jobs at vendors across America, from manufacturers of fiberglass and flooring to seats and wheel sets. All of these environmentally-responsible innovators are exciting, and they are made possible by the skill and expertise of America’s union workers. Together with their forward-thinking employers, these employees are proving that we can build a win-win economy in which businesses thrive, the planet prospers, and workers share in the success they help create. This Labor Day, as the country reels from one labor and environmental disaster after another, the United States needs the leadership of pioneering employers like these — visionaries who recognize that in the 21st century, respect for workers, respect for the planet, and respect for the bottom line are, in fact, one and the same. Kimberly Freeman Brown is Executive Director of American Rights at Work Education Fund, an educational and outreach organization dedicated to promoting the freedom of workers to form unions and bargain collectively, which just released its new report The Labor Day List: Partnerships that Work . David Foster is Executive Director of the BlueGreen Alliance , a national partnership of nine U.S. labor unions and two of America’s largest environmental organizations — uniting nearly nine million members and supporters — that is dedicated to expanding the number and quality of jobs in the clean energy economy. # This article was published originally in The Hill ‘s Congress Blog .

Read the full article →

Unemployment Is High And Employers Are Still Struggling To Fill Low Wage Jobs

August 11, 2010

But the Journal article seems to overlook one important factor. Even in an age of historic underutilization of the labor force, the laws of supply and demand apply. Hiring is a negotiation between employers and employees over the terms at which they’ll agree to come to work–wages, benefits, working conditions, length of commute, relocation requirements. Maybe some of these employers just aren’t offering terms that are good enough.

Read the full article →

Barcelone Retail Center in Las Vegas Troubled | Real Capital Analytics

August 10, 2010

Las Vegas Review Journal reports: Global commercial property research firm Real Capital Analytics listed the 10000-square-foot Las Vegas salon and spa Barcelone as a ” troubled ” property in October 2009 and reported that the retail …

Read the full article →

Jamie Court: There’s No Privacy in Third World America

August 10, 2010

A big New York foundation once told me years ago that privacy is the last thing people in the developing world have to worry about. It was a nice way of saying no to funding for my consumer group’s privacy project, but the line rang out to me again this week as new reporting at the Wall Street Journal brings into focus the great privacy betrayals of America’s giant tech companies and Third World America makes its debut. As a one-time homeless advocate, I know the housing, health care or economic crisis can hit a family like a tornado and take away everything in an instant. It’s a more and more common scenario for two of every ten Americans, likely to be hit with a foreclosure, a bankruptcy brought on by medical bills, or a job loss. When you have your eye on your job, your health care or your adjustable rate mortgage, it’s hard to keep track of anything else, let alone your online privacy, or how Google defines “net neutrality.” America’s big tech companies know this too and they are taking advantage of the crisis to rewrite the rules of an open and free Internet, and our privacy rights. Virtually overnight Google — the “don’t be evil” guys — did an about-face on treating the Internet as a freeway, “net neutrality,” and decided to turn it into a toll road for big bidders and the ever expanding wireless world. Google says our data won’t get caught in the slow lane, but it’s hard to believe any of the Internet Goliath’s claims after reading the Wall Street Journal’s latest installment of its excellent series on the loss of online privacy. The Journal nails Google with internal documents showing how each of its services tracks users’ personal information online and the brainstorming inside Googleplex about what can be done with the data. One great idea is to potentially charge Google users for the right not to have their personal information shared with advertisers. Google’s not the only offender, the WSJ found documents at Microsoft as it went through the same type of internal debate about how to monetize our online lives. But Google was supposed to be different, not evil. Some of the leading progressive groups in America were even shocked at Google’s thinly disguised net-neutrality reversal, but it’s consistent with the tech giant’s rapid expansion and focus on economic growth at the expense of principle. That’s why Consumer Watchdog launched Inside Google this Spring to report on such troubling developments at the company as the it veers from the principles it was founded upon. It shouldn’t be hard to believe large corporations would take advantage of a crisis to betray Americans’ trust. But the tech sector was supposed to different, one of the most visible enduring symbols of the American dream, now that home ownership, college education and job security don’t hold up. It’s called high tech, after all, not big tech. The executives must be getting high at Googleplex, though, if they don’t understand that they have handed the American political establishment a huge opportunity to cut the Silicon Valley down to size. A showdown in Washington, DC is inevitable. A recent Consumer Watchdog poll found that more than 8 in 10 Americans support strong online privacy protections, such as a “make me anonymous” button and a “do not track me” list. Make no mistake, privacy and net neutrality are next up on the Capitol stage. Americans will either win freedoms they have taken for granted back, or curse yet another big industry that uses its economic might and the rationale that all reform is a “job killer” to protect itself at Americans’ expense. Such is the plight of the middle class today. Privacy and net neutrality are nearly perfect issues for the middle class to strike back at big tech for its latest betrayals because of the overwhelming support of public opinion for online privacy and net neutrality rights. A good start is signing a petition to the FCC to use its power to stop the latest Google betrayal in its tracks and keep the Internet a freeway. If there’s one thing middle class America needs now, it’s a quick and solid victory. Online rights are an opportunity for Washington to give us all a little piece of the American dream back.

Read the full article →

Banks Cut Prices to Dump Troubled Commercial Real Estate Assets …

August 9, 2010

Banks Cut Prices to Dump Troubled Commercial Real Estate Assets. Friday, August 06, 2010. Source: Orlando Business Journal · Orlando Business Journal reports: According to the Orlando Business Journal, banks are “slashing prices” to …

Read the full article →

Muslims See A Ramadan Rally For Stocks, Investments

August 3, 2010

By Omar Sacirbey Religion News Service (RNS) The Islamic month of Ramadan, which begins on or around Aug. 10 this year, requires Muslims to fast and abstain from sex and other earthly pleasures from dawn to sunset. It is considered a good time to connect to God, purify oneself of sin, do good deeds, and spend time with family. A team of business professors thinks it might also be a good time to make money. Ahmad Etebari of the University of New Hampshire, Jedrzej Bialkowski of New Zealand’s University of Canterbury and Tomasz Piotr Wisniewski of England’s University of Leicester examined stock returns between 1989 and 2007 from 14 Muslim-majority countries and found that monthly stock returns during Ramadan averaged 38 percent, compared to a monthly average of 4.28 percent during the other 11 months of the Islamic calendar. The implications, the study concluded, were obvious. “Investors seeking fast profits in the Muslim world should try to profit from the (Ramadan) fast, buying shares prior to the start of Ramadan and selling them at the end of the holy month or preferably after Eid al-Fitr” (the celebration that follows Ramadan). The researchers attributed the stock spike not to divine intervention, but a collective optimism and euphoria that grips Muslim-majority societies during the monthlong fast. The 14 surveyed countries represent nearly half of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims. “Ramadan positively affects investor psychology, as it promotes feelings of solidarity and social identity among Muslims worldwide, leading to optimistic beliefs that extend to investment returns,” the report authors said. “We hypothesize that the upbeat mood during Ramadan leads to positive investor sentiment and has a positive valuation effect on equity markets in Islamic countries.” While investors in Muslim-majority countries might expect a Ramadan stock bump, investors in non-Muslim countries like the United States should be more cautious since Ramadan does not induce the kind of national euphoria in non-Muslim societies, the report said. “The effects of Ramadan materialize only when the society chooses to participate in this religious experience collectively,” the report said. Rafi-uddin Shikoh, managing partner at New Jersey-based DinarStandard, which covers markets in both the Islamic world and the West, said he was surprised by the findings because working hours in Muslim countries tend to be reduced during Ramadan. “I find it a bit counterintuitive,” Shikoh said. “Ramadan tends to be a very slow month.” Other studies have found that religious holidays and other factors–World Cup soccer matches and even sunshine levels–can alter national moods and influence stock market performance. Several studies have documented stock spikes before Christmas and Good Friday. Writing in the Financial Analysts Journal in 2004, researchers Laura Frieder and Avanidhar Subrahmanyam found that stock returns are significantly up on Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year) and the prior two days, but significantly down on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement). Religion has been used to explain other economic phenomena as well. In 2003, Rene Stulz of Ohio State University and Rohan Williamson of Georgetown University found that religion can explain the differences in creditors’ rights in different countries. The researchers found that a country’s legal system is “more important” than its dominant religion in explaining shareholder rights, but religion often has more influence than “a country’s openness to international trade, its language, its income per capita, or the origin of its legal system” in determining creditors’ rights. While its unclear whether they’re aware of religion’s effects on finance or not, some Islamic financial institutions have promoted new financial products during Ramadan. Last year, the National Bank of Kuwait rolled out special Ramadan offers that included zero-percent interest credit cards and retail loans. In 2008, the Emirates Islamic Bank introduced a car loan “in commemoration of Ramadan” that it touted as “giving its customers an easier way to gift themselves a car during this auspicious time of the year.” For Monem Salam, director of Islamic investing at Saturna Capital in Bellingham, Wash., which manages Amana Mutual Funds that comply with Islamic law, such garish exploitation of Ramadan seems inconsistent with the spirit of the month and its emphasis on charity to the poor. Nevertheless, Saturna’s Islamic finance representatives try to take advantage of greater mosque attendance during Ramadan by arranging more mosque presentations during the month. “There’s nothing wrong with growing your wealth in Islam,” Salam said, “but there is an obligation to handle your money according to Islamic laws.” Although Etebari concludes in his report that Muslims can profit by buying stocks before Ramadan and selling them afterwards, he stepped back from that assertion in a recent telephone interview. “We cannot say year after year it’s going to hold up down the road. Just like everything else in finance, once something is discovered, any benefits, profits, are going to be arbitraged out,” Etebari said. “From that point on, there will be no more fast profits.”

Read the full article →

David Sirota: It’s the Tax Cuts and Wars, Stupid

July 21, 2010

In a terrific column for Tax.com , Pulitzer-Prize winner David Cay Johnston breaks down new government data and puts USA Today ‘s whole “lowest tax bills since 1950″ revelation into dollars and cents we can all understand: In 1979 federal taxes for the median-income household totaled $6,100, but in 2007 taxes slipped to $6,000. That $100 decline, measured in 2007 dollars, understates what a bargain taxes have become. Back in 1979 federal taxes equaled 18.7 percent of comprehensive household income. By 2007 incomes had grown 28 percent in real terms, so the tax burden not only dropped in absolute dollars, it also fell as a share of median comprehensive income to 14.4 percent. So over 28 years median income has risen in real terms by $9,100 while federal taxes have fallen by $100 . As Johnston points out, this is not something you hear very much about from journalists — or as he puts it, “those who play journalists on television talk shows.” And you certainly don’t hear it from congressional Republicans or rank-and-file conservatives, who continue to bewail allegedly high taxes as our biggest problem, despite the real emergency of cash-strapped communities now slashing police forces , tear up roads and even outsource entire municipal workforces . Indeed, what you hear from conservatives — if anything — on spending issues is that allegedly profligate domestic expenditures are supposedly running up all-too-big deficits. But again, that runs you straight back into the government data, as reported by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities : Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections. Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the ($1.4 trillion) deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019. That graph really says it all — if you are genuinely concerned about deficits, then you should be concerned not about domestic spending, but about spending on the Bush tax cuts and wars (and this doesn’t even mention the bloated defense budget that is, according to National Journal , on course to be the biggest in a single presidential term since World War II). That’s the real tax and spend story that conservatives don’t want told.

Read the full article →

Al Gore: 27,000 Potential Leaks

July 16, 2010

This is incredible, the AP reports that : “More than 27,000 abandoned oil and gas wells lurk in the hard rock beneath the Gulf of Mexico, an environmental minefield that has been ignored for decades. No one — not industry, not government — is checking to see if they are leaking, an Associated Press investigation shows.” “The oldest of these wells were abandoned in the late 1940s, raising the prospect that many deteriorating sealing jobs are already failing.” “The AP investigation uncovered particular concern with 3,500 of the neglected wells — those characterized in federal government records as “temporarily abandoned.”" “Regulations for temporarily abandoned wells require oil companies to present plans to reuse or permanently plug such wells within a year, but the AP found that the rule is routinely circumvented, and that more than 1,000 wells have lingered in that unfinished condition for more than a decade. About three-quarters of temporarily abandoned wells have been left in that status for more than a year, and many since the 1950s and 1960s — even though sealing procedures for temporary abandonment are not as stringent as those for permanent closures.” These are 27,000 potential environmental catastrophes waiting to happen. We need action now – not only to make sure these wells are safe, but also to move away from fossil fuels, so no more wells need to be drilled. This post originally appeared at Al’s Journal .

Read the full article →

Inexpensive Generic Drug May Save 100,000 Lives Annually After Accidents

June 14, 2010

By Michelle Fay Cortez June 15 (Bloomberg) — A generic drug that costs less than $10 a treatment may save as many as 100,000 lives a year by preventing people from bleeding to death after accidents, researchers said. The medicine, tranexamic acid , is widely used to control bleeding in hemophiliacs, after surgery, and by women who have abnormally heavy menstrual periods. It had never been studied for accident victims, and doctors worried that it may raise the risk of heart attacks, strokes and other complications of clots. The drug, given in two injections to patients suffering from bleeding after accidents, slashed deaths 10 percent compared with placebo, a study published today in the journal Lancet found. The medicine reduced deaths from bleeding 15 percent, without significant adverse effects, according to the research, covering more than 20,000 patients from 40 countries. “It’s probably one of the cheapest ways to save a life there ever was,” said Ian Roberts, the lead researcher, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, at a news conference in London. “The treatment is seriously cheap. It doesn’t get much more effective than this.” The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research, based in London. Pfizer Inc. , which sells a version under the brand name Cyklokapron , provided the tranexamic acid from its plant in Sandwich, England. Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, is based in New York. The researchers asked the World Health Organization , based in Geneva, to categorize the drug an essential medicine, on a shopping list many countries use to determine which products to purchase, Roberts said. The product costs about 3 pounds ($4.43) a dose, with one given as an immediate injection and the second delivered intravenously over an eight-hour period. In the study, 14.5 percent of patients given tranexamic acid died within four weeks of treatment, compared with 16 percent for placebo. About 4.9 percent given the drug died from bleeding, compared with 5.7 percent for placebo. To contact the reporter on this story: Michelle Fay Cortez in London at mcortez@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: BP Strawmen Won’t Fix the Gulf

June 14, 2010

This from today’s Wall Street Journal : In a letter sent Sunday to U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral James Watson, BP said it expects to have the capacity to capture between 40,000 and 53,000 barrels of oil a day by the end of June. That compares with 15,000 barrels a day now, out of a flow of 20,000 to 40,000 barrels scientists estimate are coming from the well. BP, which said further enhancements will increase the collection capacity to as high as 80,000 barrels a day by mid-July, submitted its latest plan after Mr. Watson, the federal government’s second-in-command for the spill response, told the company Friday its previous plan was insufficient and gave BP a 48-hour deadline to come up with a revised approach. Mr. Watson said in a statement Monday that “BP is now stepping up its efforts to contain the leaking oil,” noting that the new plan’s call for collecting 50,000 barrels of oil by the end of June is two weeks earlier than the previous timeline. But the Journal isn’t telling the truth. BP is not capable of writing a letter or “saying” anything, “submitting” anything, or “stepping up its efforts.” You see, BP is not a person. Like any other corporation, BP is a collection of contracts. The collection includes employment contracts — with people who are paid to be executives, with others who are expert in how to plug holes a mile below the surface of the Gulf, and with lots of workers. There are contracts with BP’s creditors, who expect to be paid on time. There are contracts with numerous suppliers, with other companies like Halliburton, with the owners of tankers. And there are contracts with the U.S. government, which has leased part of the Gulf to BP for drilling. At the center of this web of contracts are BP’s shareholders, who legally own BP. That means they own BP’s assets — oil reserves under land or ocean bed that BP as a corporation is entitled to, its physical capital (rigs, tankers, and so on), and its financial assets, which amount to tens of billions of dollars. BP’s shareholders (including pensioners who have shares of pension funds, small investors who own shares in mutual funds, and major investors, all over the world) are interested in only one thing — maximizing the value of their shares. Over the last month and a half, these shareholders have got clobbered. Some have sold out to other investors who believe BP’s share values will rise. Others are holding on in the hope that they will. It’s impossible for BP to commit to doing anything because BP is not a human being capable of making commitments. BP’s executives (like Tony Hayward) work for BP’s shareholders. They can be replaced by BP’s shareholders if BP’s shareholder aren’t satisfied with their performance. Or, more likely, BP’s shareholders can sell out to major investors who will then replace BP’s executives if they don’t like the job they’re doing. It doesn’t matter if Tony Hayward is called to the White House. It doesn’t matter that President Obama says he’d like to fire him. Hayward’s first responsibility is to BP’s shareholders. Some Americans are also be BP shareholders, but their interests as U.S. citizens aren’t represented in their roles as shareholders. Their citizenship interests are represented by our government, headed by the president. As citizens, we want the hole in the Gulf plugged up as fast as possible, we want the spill contained, and we want everything cleaned up and damages paid — no matter how much it costs BP’s shareholders. But if we’re BP shareholders, we want to minimize all such expenditures — including our long-term liabilities. Get it? There’s no conflict between Britain and the United States. The conflict is between two kinds of interests — shareholder interests and citizen interests. And unless or until citizenship interests predominate in the Gulf — unless or until BP’s shareholders are forced by law to part with their assets to ensure the safety of the American public — shareholder interests will come first. That’s why it’s so important for the Administration (and, if necessary, Congress) to take steps to put BP America under temporary receivership, establish an escrow fund of at least $10 billion that BP must pay into, and whatever else is necessary to trump shareholder interests. This post originally appeared RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: BP Strawmen Won’t Fix the Gulf

June 14, 2010

This from today’s Wall Street Journal : In a letter sent Sunday to U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral James Watson, BP said it expects to have the capacity to capture between 40,000 and 53,000 barrels of oil a day by the end of June. That compares with 15,000 barrels a day now, out of a flow of 20,000 to 40,000 barrels scientists estimate are coming from the well. BP, which said further enhancements will increase the collection capacity to as high as 80,000 barrels a day by mid-July, submitted its latest plan after Mr. Watson, the federal government’s second-in-command for the spill response, told the company Friday its previous plan was insufficient and gave BP a 48-hour deadline to come up with a revised approach. Mr. Watson said in a statement Monday that “BP is now stepping up its efforts to contain the leaking oil,” noting that the new plan’s call for collecting 50,000 barrels of oil by the end of June is two weeks earlier than the previous timeline. But the Journal isn’t telling the truth. BP is not capable of writing a letter or “saying” anything, “submitting” anything, or “stepping up its efforts.” You see, BP is not a person. Like any other corporation, BP is a collection of contracts. The collection includes employment contracts — with people who are paid to be executives, with others who are expert in how to plug holes a mile below the surface of the Gulf, and with lots of workers. There are contracts with BP’s creditors, who expect to be paid on time. There are contracts with numerous suppliers, with other companies like Halliburton, with the owners of tankers. And there are contracts with the U.S. government, which has leased part of the Gulf to BP for drilling. At the center of this web of contracts are BP’s shareholders, who legally own BP. That means they own BP’s assets — oil reserves under land or ocean bed that BP as a corporation is entitled to, its physical capital (rigs, tankers, and so on), and its financial assets, which amount to tens of billions of dollars. BP’s shareholders (including pensioners who have shares of pension funds, small investors who own shares in mutual funds, and major investors, all over the world) are interested in only one thing — maximizing the value of their shares. Over the last month and a half, these shareholders have got clobbered. Some have sold out to other investors who believe BP’s share values will rise. Others are holding on in the hope that they will. It’s impossible for BP to commit to doing anything because BP is not a human being capable of making commitments. BP’s executives (like Tony Hayward) work for BP’s shareholders. They can be replaced by BP’s shareholders if BP’s shareholder aren’t satisfied with their performance. Or, more likely, BP’s shareholders can sell out to major investors who will then replace BP’s executives if they don’t like the job they’re doing. It doesn’t matter if Tony Hayward is called to the White House. It doesn’t matter that President Obama says he’d like to fire him. Hayward’s first responsibility is to BP’s shareholders. Some Americans are also be BP shareholders, but their interests as U.S. citizens aren’t represented in their roles as shareholders. Their citizenship interests are represented by our government, headed by the president. As citizens, we want the hole in the Gulf plugged up as fast as possible, we want the spill contained, and we want everything cleaned up and damages paid — no matter how much it costs BP’s shareholders. But if we’re BP shareholders, we want to minimize all such expenditures — including our long-term liabilities. Get it? There’s no conflict between Britain and the United States. The conflict is between two kinds of interests — shareholder interests and citizen interests. And unless or until citizenship interests predominate in the Gulf — unless or until BP’s shareholders are forced by law to part with their assets to ensure the safety of the American public — shareholder interests will come first. That’s why it’s so important for the Administration (and, if necessary, Congress) to take steps to put BP America under temporary receivership, establish an escrow fund of at least $10 billion that BP must pay into, and whatever else is necessary to trump shareholder interests. This post originally appeared RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

BP May Cut Dividend as CEO Hayward Says Company `Considering All Options’

June 11, 2010

By Brian Swint June 11 (Bloomberg) — BP Plc , facing growing public anger in the U.S. over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, is considering cutting or deferring its second-quarter dividend payment, Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward said. BP, which paid $10 billion to shareholders last year, will come under renewed political scrutiny next week when Hayward appears before Congress. The London-based company’s options include paying the dividend in a form of equity and placing the payment into an escrow account until the spill cleanup is complete, analysts said. “They’re going to see what the political pressure looks like before they make the decision on the dividend,” Jason Gammel , an analyst at Macquarie Securities USA Inc., said in a Bloomberg Television interview. “The most likely thing is that they would suspend the dividend for one to three quarters.” A group of lawmakers this week called on BP to stop dividends until the bills for the cleanup and liabilities are paid. The dispute spotlights demands on the company to satisfy the competing claims of investors and the local victims of the spill. The second-quarter dividend is scheduled to be announced on July 27. “We are considering all options on the dividend,” Hayward said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal published today. BP confirmed the comments. “But no decision has been made,” he said. White House adviser David Axelrod dismissed complaints from BP about the U.S. government’s pressure, saying Hayward should “spend less time on hyperbole, and a lot more time on trying to solve the problem,” according to the Journal. The comments from Hayward and Axelrod came as a team of scientists said the well has been leaking twice as much oil as previously estimated. ‘Broad Range’ “Given the broad range of criticism from Obama and others in the United States, BP has been under pressure to take action,” said Huw Williams , an oil and gas analyst at Arden Partners Plc in Singapore. “It appears the company is now preparing the ground to shift funds away from dividends towards putting more money into the clean-up operation.” BP shares have fallen 41 percent the incident started in April, wiping about 50 billion pounds ($74 billion) off the company’s market value. That’s driven the dividend up to 9.1 percent, more than any of 18 peers tracked by Bloomberg. BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg is being summoned to Washington for a meeting with President Barack Obama next week. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen , the government’s national incident commander, requested the June 16 meeting in a letter to Svanberg at the company’s London headquarters yesterday. Oil has been spewing from the well since the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon rig exploded April 20, killing 11 workers. The well is gushing 20,000 to 40,000 barrels of oil a day, according to an estimate released yesterday by the scientists, tasked by the U.S. government with calculating the flow. On May 27, the group pegged the rate at 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day. To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Swint in London at bswint@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

New Hips Gone Awry Expose U.S. Kickbacks in Doctors’ Conflicts of Interest

June 11, 2010

By David Armstrong June 11 (Bloomberg) — A stabbing pain in the hip forced Mark Hirschbeck to abandon his post at third base during an April 2003 game between the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Colorado Rockies. He was 42, among the best umpires in professional baseball and unwilling to quit a job that paid more than $350,000 a year. Dr. John Keggi offered a hip replacement that could get him back on the field by 2004, Hirschbeck says. That didn’t happen. The ceramic joint made by Wright Medical Group Inc. shattered, leading to an infection and four more surgeries that left Hirschbeck permanently sidelined. He later learned that Wright paid tens of thousands of dollars to a foundation Keggi helps run and gave him a trip to a conference in the Bahamas. Keggi recommended the ceramic device over the kinds of implants used in 97 percent of cases. “He was in bed with Wright and picked their product,” says Hirschbeck, who is suing the company and the surgeon, alleging Wright’s product was defective and Keggi failed to install it correctly. “It’s disgusting it would come to that.” Wright’s professional agreements with surgeons are under investigation by the Justice Department, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It’s not clear whether the payments to Keggi were improper or are being examined by prosecutors, who declined to comment. The company and the doctor have denied the allegations in the umpire’s suit. ‘Truly Extraordinary’ The government declared last year that it had overhauled the financial relationships between surgeons and the biggest makers of knees and hips, saying the threat of criminal prosecution for “kickbacks” had forced them to slash payments to physicians. Results of the crackdown were “truly extraordinary,” said Christopher Christie , a former U.S. attorney for New Jersey who is now governor, in testimony to Congress in June 2009. It was too good to be true. Compensation ended up being higher after the September 2007 deferred prosecution agreement because payments were postponed, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and interviews with seven surgeons. “It’s back to business as usual,” says Charles D. Rosen, president of the Association for Medical Ethics, who is a spine surgeon in Irvine, California. “Nothing will change until someone goes to jail. It’s a big game.” Prosecutors in the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office, which headed the case, reported a “satisfactory completion” in March 2009 of the probe of Biomet Corp., Johnson & Johnson ’s DePuy unit, Smith & Nephew PLC, Zimmer Holdings Inc. and Stryker Corp. Payments in 2008 fell to $105 million from $272 million the year before, the Justice Department lawyers said. ‘Common Happenstance’ The companies increased doctor compensation for 2008 to about $300 million, according to the data compiled by Bloomberg from reports posted on the device makers’ websites. Fees for 2008 were delivered in 2009, the surgeons say. Payment delays were “a common happenstance,” says Teresa Ford, a Seattle attorney who represents 150 doctors who have consulting or royalty agreements with orthopedic device makers. “None of them had significant changes in their relationships.” The government numbers were lower than those reported by the companies because Justice Department officials didn’t count payments made to buy out the consulting contracts of some physicians, says Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for Christie, a Republican who resigned in December 2008 to run for governor. A “large number” of implant makers paid to end multiyear arrangements, Drewniak says, because they might not comply with new standards under the settlement. $300 Hips “We weren’t just making up numbers,” Drewniak says. Justice Department officials declined to comment. The reports on the company websites don’t specify whether any payments were to buy out contracts. The financial ties between device makers and surgeons help explain why health-care costs in the U.S. rose at 2.5 times the rate of inflation in the past 10 years and account for a sixth of the economy. The $300 million works out to $300 for each of the 1 million hips and knees implanted in Americans in 2008. The payments show how hard it is for government to hold down costs in a system where pricing is opaque and largely unregulated. In the $14 billion-a-year orthopedic device business, payments to doctors squelch competition, says Chad Rodine, a partner in Castle Rock, Colorado-based Echelon Consulting LLC , which advises hospitals on implant costs. Four Times Higher Hip and knee list prices have increased 5.6 percent so far this year, on top of a 130 percent increase in the average selling price of a hip between 1996 and 2008, according to Orthopedic Network News , a trade journal that tracks costs. In the U.S. in 2010, the average price of a primary artificial hip was $7,200, more than four times the $1,600 in Germany, says Melissa Hussey, a senior analyst on the orthopedic team at Millennium Research Group , based in Toronto. In Germany and other countries, she says, sales representatives have restricted access to surgeons. “These items are ridiculously expensive, and a lot of the monies in that bucket are to keep the surgeon tied to that product,” Rodine says. He figures about half the price charged for devices can be traced to funds companies pour into persuading doctors to pick their goods. Device makers work to form bonds early, in medical school, where they underwrite residency programs, or buy books, or sponsor fellowships. Later, they pay surgeons as consultants, speakers or instructors. Sales Rep’s Car Company sales representatives attend operations. The reps enjoy wide access to surgeons at a time when some hospitals are moving to limit the interactions that pharmaceutical representatives have with doctors. Academic medical centers, including Stanford University and Yale University, restrict when and where drug company salespeople can visit doctors, and ban them from patient areas. The connection between device makers and surgeons is hard to break, says Jeffrey Lerner , chief executive officer of the ECRI Institute in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, which collects pricing data. “The relationship between the manufacturer and surgeon is so deep,” Lerner says. “The first thing they want to see when they pull into the hospital in the morning is their manufacturer representative’s car.” As joint replacements became more complex and numerous, implant makers increasingly relied on surgeons to help them develop new products and train colleagues. Physicians became involved in testing new implants. ‘Routinely Violated’ “Engineers don’t know how to do it,” says Joseph Zuckerman , an orthopedic surgeon at NYU Langone Medical Center who has worked as a consultant. “Advances in the design of orthopedic devices would not be possible if physicians were not part of the development process.” Along the way, according to government investigators, the system was perverted so that many consulting deals, royalty agreements and trips to conferences were intended not to develop better products but to persuade surgeons to use a company’s products. The government charged that the industry “routinely violated the anti-kickback statute by paying physicians for the purpose of exclusively using their products.” Federal prosecutors began looking into the incentives in 2005. The government’s settlement was with the five companies that make 95 percent of artificial hips and knees. They agreed to an 18-month monitoring plan. Four of the producers also paid $311 million in fines to settle civil complaints filed under the Federal False Claims Act. Stryker was monitored, not fined. Ashcroft’s $52 Million Since the agreement, payments to surgeons have been appropriate and for legitimate purposes, according to spokespeople for the five companies. Wright says on its website that it adheres to industry ethical standards in its dealings with consultants. As for 2008 fees that weren’t delivered until 2009, three of the companies say they froze payments while monitors were reviewing contracts with surgeons to ensure they were proper. Spokesmen for Stryker and Smith & Nephew declined to comment. Three of the court-appointed monitors say they’re barred from talking about the details of their work. The two others, including former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft , didn’t return telephone calls. The department declined to release reports the monitors filed. ‘Paying the Price’ A month after the government closed its case, Zimmer CEO David Dvorak told analysts on a conference call that the action didn’t result in a “material change” to what it pays surgeons. Warsaw, Indiana-based Zimmer is the largest implant maker, with 2009 revenue of $4 billion. Christie was criticized by some members of Congress for appointing Ashcroft, his one-time boss, to monitor Zimmer. Zimmer said then that it would have to pay Ashcroft’s consulting firm as much as $52 million, and complained about the amount. The biggest change from the settlement is more paperwork, surgeons say, because they have to document in greater detail the work they do. Some say companies have been stricter with entertainment expenses and have cut the number of meetings at resort locations. “No one is really paying the price,” says U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell Jr ., a Democrat from New Jersey. Deferred prosecution deals “don’t work.” In June 2003, Hirschbeck says, a Wright salesman was in the operating theater when his ceramic hip was installed at Waterbury Hospital in Connecticut, which the former umpire says he was stunned to learn later. “I didn’t know this guy,” he says. “What right does he have to be there?” 2001 World Series Back then, Hirschbeck says, he knew next to nothing about artificial implants or the companies that make them. Stout, of medium height and with a fondness for flat-top haircuts, he loved his job, and just wanted to find a way to do it pain-free. He’d had his moments in the baseball sun. He umpired two World Series, including in 2001 when he became part of the story in game 2 between the New York Yankees and the Diamondbacks. In the 8th inning, Hirschbeck called Yankees third baseman Scott Brosius out on strikes. The Yankees were being shut out. An irate Brosius was soon in Hirschbeck’s face, and a photo of the confrontation ran in sports pages. “I was about to throw him out,” says Hirschbeck, whose bother John is also a Major League umpire. He didn’t. Brosius backed off and the Yankees lost the game 4-0 and the series 4 games to 3. “It was the most pressure I ever felt. One bad call could ruin your entire winter.” Cortisone Shots After joining the major leagues following an eight-year tour in the minors, he was reaping the rewards. But getting into position behind home plate was starting to mean a jolt of piercing pain in his hip, he says, akin to being stabbed with a sharp knife. Cortisone shots provided temporary relief. Then pain forced him off the field in Phoenix, and he started doing his homework on orthopedic surgeons. His choice of John Keggi of Middlebury, Connecticut, was motivated not just by Keggi’s reputation — “I heard he was the best in the state,” Hirschbeck says — but by the notion that he could recuperate close his own home in Shelton, Connecticut. While some others recommended metal implants, Hirschbeck says Keggi pushed a new ceramic hip from Wright. “I will have you back on the field within a year,” Hirschbeck says Keggi told him. Keggi, in a deposition taken in Hirschbeck’s lawsuit, said he told Hirschbeck the replacement “may allow you to return to work” and that the ceramic hip “had the best chance of lasting the longest.” Splintered Pieces Less than two months after surgery, Hirschbeck was on the couch, watching TV, when he heard a pop. The pain was intense; the hip had shattered. On July 26, Keggi opened the patient up, picked out the splintered pieces and installed another ceramic implant. Within a month, Hirschbeck was back on the table. This time, an infection had developed; Keggi washed the joint out and removed infected tissue. The pain didn’t go away, Hirschbeck says, and he his wife decided to seek out a new doctor, visiting the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, which performs the most replacements in the U.S. A specialist there told Hirschbeck his hip was infected, he says, and delivered an additional jolt of bad news: Fixing the problem would mean taking out the joint and putting in a temporary spacer loaded with antibiotics. That would stay in until the infection cleared. Hirschbeck consented. $344,813 Bill For all of September and most of October in 2004, he lay in a hospital bed in the family room. Nurses visited daily to administer additional antibiotics. His wife emptied his bed pan. When he returned to New York in the back of his van in late October to receive yet another hip, he got a combination of components from Zimmer and Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. That operation, his fifth in 16 months, was successful. There are an estimated 80,000 revisions of hip and knee replacements in the U.S. each year in which an artificial joint is removed because it is causing pain, became loose, failed or is limiting a patient’s mobility, according to a study published in 2007 in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. The bill for all his repairs was $344,813, Hirschbeck says, mostly covered by workers’ compensation. In September 2005, Hirschbeck sued Keggi and Wright in Connecticut Superior Court. Keggi’s lawyer, Eugene Cooney, says in an e-mail that his client “has denied these claims and intends to fight them.” Keggi declined to comment. ‘Cooperating Fully’ Officials with Wright, which has denied liability, won’t answer questions about Keggi, Hirschbeck or its products while the suit is pending, according to Tom McAllister, assistant general counsel for the Arlington, Tennessee-based company. It’s the sixth-largest hip and knee maker, with revenue of $487.5 million last year. Wright is “cooperating fully” with the Justice Department probe that began with a December 2007 subpoena, according to a May 5 filing with the SEC. It’s “probable” there will be a settlement that may require a payment of about $8 million, the company says in the filing. Keggi, in a deposition, said Wright had given grant money, though he didn’t know how much, to the Keggi Orthopaedic Foundation, where he said he is director of research and his uncle, Kristaps Keggi, is president. “The Keggi foundation was paid nominal sums by various product manufacturers to collect data on the results of hip replacement surgeries,” Cooney says. Keggi and his uncle, also an orthopedic surgeon, jointly owned the practice at the time of Hirschbeck’s ceramic implant. Bahamas Conference Kristaps Keggi was a clinical investigator for the trial by Wright to get its ceramic hip approved for sale in the U.S. The Wright website features testimonials from two patients of Kristaps Keggi touting the company’s ceramic hip. John Keggi said in his deposition that he attended a Wright conference in the Bahamas and brought his wife. He couldn’t remember the dates or details, according to his deposition. Keggi said the Wright salesman at the time for Connecticut, Scott Fitzgerald, was usually in the operating room to instruct him on the installation of implants. In his deposition, Fitzgerald said that before joining Wright, he had worked in the ski industry and sold outdoor power equipment. Keggi no longer uses the Wright ceramic hip, having switched to a joint made by Smith & Nephew , he said in his deposition. Last year, Smith & Nephew paid Keggi $25,001 to $50,000 for consulting work and reimbursed him for $7,061 in travel and meal expenses, according to financial records posted on the company website. The company’s physician-consultants are “compensated fairly” and their input is “central to the development and introduction of new orthopedic medical device technology,” says Andrew Burns, a spokesman for London-based Smith & Nephew, in an e-mail. The company is the fourth largest hip and knee maker with revenue of $3.8 billion last year. In Ansonia, Connecticut, Hirschbeck lives alone, collecting disability from the league, about 40 percent of his former pay. His marriage ended in divorce, partly, he says, because of the stress of his multiple surgeries. “I’m miserable,” he says. “It screwed up my life big- time.” To contact the reporter on this story: David Armstrong in Boston at darmstrong16@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Youth Hockey Injuries Tripled in Body-Checking Study That May Spur Debate

June 8, 2010

By Nicole Ostrow June 8 (Bloomberg) — Eleven-and 12-year-old ice hockey players showed triple the risk of injuries in games that allow body checking, according to a Canadian study that may “add some heat to the temperature of this topic,” said a director with the U.S. governing body for hockey. Body checking occurs in a hockey game when one player slams into another to knock the puck loose from possession. Youth teams in the Canadian province of Alberta, where the practice is allowed starting at age 11, showed triple the risk of severe injuries and concussions compared with those in Quebec province, where it isn’t permitted in players younger than 13, according to the study. Today’s report , published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, may add to the discussion of body checking already planned at the annual meeting of USA Hockey that begins June 10, said Kevin McLaughlin, the group’s senior director for hockey development. A subcommittee of the sports association is considering raising the age to 13 for the introduction of body checking to allow younger players to develop other skills first — not because of injuries, he said. “I’m interested in every kid having a great experience in youth hockey,” McLaughlin said today in a telephone interview. “We don’t want injuries to happen at any age. It is a contact sport. Injuries still do occur even when you don’t have body checking.” Hockey Basics By developing other game skills initially, young players can become proficient at hockey basics before they’re taught how to body check, McLaughlin said. He said he wouldn’t predict how the organization will react to today’s study. Authors of the research said it is one of the first studies to compare the risk of playing in a youth ice hockey league that allows body checking with one that doesn’t. If the practice wasn’t permitted, more than 1,000 injuries and 400 concussions may be prevented among about 8,800 hockey players ages 11 and 12 in one season in Alberta, said lead study author Carolyn Emery . “The two leagues provided an excellent opportunity to study the public health impact of concussion and injury associated with body checking,” said Emery, an associate professor of sports injury prevention at the University of Calgary, in a statement. “The facts speak for themselves.” 900,000 Youth Players About 900,000 children and teenagers play ice hockey through Hockey Canada and USA Hockey, authors of the study wrote. Many leagues in the U.S. introduce body checking at ages 11 and 12. In Canada, body checking is allowed in some leagues for players ages 11 and 12, with the exception of Quebec, which doesn’t permit the practice until ages 13 and 14, according to the authors. In the U.S., the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that body checking not be allowed in youth hockey until the age of 16. The practice has been associated in previous studies with 45 percent to 86 percent of youth hockey injuries, the authors wrote. McLaughlin said youth hockey players learn a progression of skills that lead up to body checking. About six years ago, USA Hockey offered a nonchecking category for its leagues but few players registered. USA Hockey represents about 99 percent of all youth players in the U.S., McLaughlin said. Fast, Dynamic “We understand the risk related to body checking in the sport,” Paul Carson, director of hockey development for Hockey Canada in Calgary, said today in a telephone interview. “It is the nature of the sport, it’s fast, it’s dynamic.” Hockey Canada represents all youth players who play during the winter months. Hockey Canada offers training programs for coaches on safety for youth players, he said, and there are some leagues in Canada where body checking isn’t allowed. Hockey Canada will be reviewing the study findings, Carson said. In the U.S., about 135,000 children 5 to 18 years old are treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms every year for sports- related traumatic brain injury, including concussions, according to a 2007 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Researchers in the study followed 74 teams in the Canadian province of Alberta with 1,108 players, and 76 Quebec teams with 1,046 players for a hockey season to compare the injury rates. Over the season there were 209 game-related injuries and 73 concussions in Alberta compared with 70 game-related injuries and 20 concussions in Quebec, the researchers found. Identifying the Cause Most of the injuries in Alberta were the result of body checking, the authors wrote. In Quebec, the majority of the injuries were from incidental game contact, Emery said. The study also showed that overall injuries from intentional contact were higher in Alberta than in Quebec, suggesting that kids who are allowed to body check play hockey more aggressively, she said. Emery said a new study is under way comparing players ages 13 and 14 in Alberta with those in Quebec, and that may shed further light on injuries. “This study in conjunction with the next will have significant implications in the reconsiderations of the age at which body checking is introduced,” Emery said in a June 4 telephone interview. Today’s study was funded in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Max Bell Foundation. To contact the reporter on this story: Nicole Ostrow in New York at nostrow1@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

New York Times Circulation Is Holding Up to WSJ Assault, CEO Robinson Says

June 4, 2010

By Greg Bensinger June 4 (Bloomberg) — New York Times Co. Chief Executive Officer Janet Robinson said the namesake newspaper is holding on to its circulation as the Wall Street Journal promotes its New York section and cuts advertising rates. “We are definitely not seeing any effect in regard to the circulation,” Robinson said today in an interview in New York. “Are they discounting? Yes, they are, very, very heavily.” The two newspapers have been fighting for readers on their home turf as industry circulation sales have plunged. News Corp. ’s Journal introduced its metro section in April, in part to attract readers from the New York Times. Times Co., based in New York, has maintained its own advertising rates since the Wall Street Journal ’s “Greater New York” section debut, Robinson said. “If they’d like to leave those dollars on the table and give free advertising, we’re more than happy to clean them up,” she said. The New York Times reported average nationwide circulation in the six months through March fell 8.5 percent to 951,063, while circulation at the Journal, which counts paying Web readers, rose less than 1 percent to 2.09 million in the period, data from the Audit Bureau of Circulations show. Emily Edmonds, a Wall Street Journal spokeswoman, had no immediate comment. Times Co. lost 29 cents, or 3.3 percent, to $8.64 at 12:10 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading . The shares had declined 28 percent this year before today. To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Bensinger in New York at gbensinger1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Commodities’ Biggest Drop Since Lehman Seen as Bear Signal

June 1, 2010

By Millie Munshi and Elizabeth Campbell June 1 (Bloomberg) — The biggest slump in commodities since Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed is undermining Wall Street forecasts for accelerating economic growth and higher prices for everything from copper to crude oil. The Journal of Commerce commodity index that includes steel, cattle hides, tallow and burlap plunged 57 percent in May, two years after a decline that foreshadowed the worst recession in half a century. The index of 18 industrial materials declined the most since October 2008 as Europe’s debt crisis widened and China took steps to curb growth. While the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development raised its growth forecasts for this year and next on May 26, investors who stocked up on oil and more than doubled copper prices last year are dumping holdings at the fastest pace since February. Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. said in April that copper sales will drop 7.6 percent this year and Chinese inventories may weaken demand later. “As risk-taking falls, expected growth is reduced,” said Colin P. Fenton , the chief executive officer of Curium Capital Advisors LLC in Boston who was a commodity analyst at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and at Stanley Druckenmiller’s Duquesne Capital Management LLC hedge fund. “Demand for commodities is going to be softer than it might otherwise have been.” The Journal of Commerce Industrial Price Commodity Smoothed Price Index reflects clearer signs of supply and demand than futures markets because half the items it tracks don’t trade on exchanges used by speculators, said Lakshman Achuthan , the managing director at the New York-based Economic Cycle Research Institute. The gauge dropped to 25.97 on May 28 from 60.56 on April 30. Economic Indicator In June 2008, a month after the index reached its peak, the Paris-based OECD said the U.S. would grow at a 1.1 percent rate the following year. Commodities continued to drop, and in October 2008, the index fell at a 56 percent annual rate, which was then the lowest level since 1949. Almost two months later, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the panel that dates American business cycles, said the U.S. was in a recession. The world’s largest economy shrank 2.4 percent, the worst contraction since 1946. Now, “the collapse in the commodity index is telling us that the peak in global industrial growth is imminent, it’s here right now,” said Achuthan. “Markets are going to have to deal with the reality of a slowdown.” Europe’s debt crisis is only starting to weigh on global growth, said Michael Aronstein , a strategist at Oscar Gruss & Son Inc. who predicted the 2008 commodity plunge and is betting against a rally this year. Sagging Demand The European Union announced an almost $1 trillion loan package last month to halt a slide in the euro and local bonds that threatened to shatter the currency union. Budget cuts across the region may curb demand for Chinese imports as well as commodities including gasoline, aluminum and steel. Raw materials may drop another 10 percent because the economy is on the “cusp” of deflation, said Philip Gotthelf , the president of Equidex Brokerage Group Inc. in Closter, New Jersey. That would drive the Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index of 19 commodity futures down 22 percent from a Jan. 6 peak and into what investors consider a bear market. The gauge plunged 8.2 percent in May, the most in 18 months. Gotthelf correctly predicted in October 2008 that oil would fall below $40 a barrel and said he is now shorting most commodities and buying gold. Fundamental Strength Economic forecasts have been rising. As a group, the OECD’s 30 member nations will grow 2.7 percent this year, the organization said. The expansion will reach 3.2 percent in the U.S. and 10.1 percent in China, according to separate surveys of economists by Bloomberg last month. “The market is underestimating the strength of the fundamentals and overestimating the impact that the European sovereign-funding issues will have on growth,” Jeffrey Currie , a Goldman Sachs analyst, said in an interview from London. He says the decline is a “buying opportunity.” Freeport Chief Executive Officer Richard C. Adkerson told analysts on a conference call May 11 that while “there is still a lot of uncertainty” about the world economy and its reliance on demand from China, the Phoenix-based mining company sees “some pockets of demand improvement” and is taking steps to ramp up copper production. “There are headwinds, concerns both in Europe and in Asia that are making investors rethink their decisions and maybe take some profits, but I believe that the longer-term growth story remains intact,” said Michael Cuggino , who manages about $6 billion at Permanent Portfolio Funds in San Francisco. “I don’t think it’s a broader slowdown. I think it’s a correction.” Lower Prices Inflation is almost non-existent. In April, U.S. consumer prices unexpectedly dropped 0.1 percent, the first decrease since March 2009, government data show. In the 12 months ended in April, the cost of living rose 2.2 percent, following a 2.3 percent year-over-year gain in March. Bank of America Merrill Lynch says prices will continue to deteriorate. On May 25, the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank cut its oil forecast for the second half of the year to $78 a barrel from $92. Doane Agricultural Services Co. in St. Louis said May 18 that corn will drop 14 percent by October to $3.25 a bushel. Copper, a commodity former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan saw as an economic indicator, declined 7.4 percent in May, the biggest monthly slide since January, and traded at $3.07 a pound at 11:41 a.m. Singapore time today. Burlap, used for industrial packaging, is down 9.7 percent this year, almost matching its 9.9 percent drop in 2008. Manufacturing Risk “If commodity prices are coming down, there is some downside risk to the manufacturing sector,” said Chris Rupkey , the chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. “It’s too early to see it in people’s numbers yet, but if I had to guess, people will shave their estimates” for growth this year, he said. Commodities last fell into a bear market in 2008, when the CRB plunged 56 percent in five months as the U.S. suffered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, growth contracted on a global basis for the first time since 1981, and the Journal of Commerce index was below zero. Now, a slowdown in Europe, the biggest destination for Chinese exports, will “badly hurt” the Asian country, said Lewis Wan , the chief investment officer for Pride Investments Group, which oversees $150 million in Hong Kong. The Shanghai Stock Exchange Composite Index tumbled 21 percent this year as the government enacted measures to cool its property market. Euro Outlook As of last month, the European Union’s economy was expected to grow 1.1 percent this year after contracting 4.1 percent in 2009, the biggest drop since 1992, according to 19 economists surveyed by Bloomberg. A “wave of fiscal austerity” in Europe will depress the expansion in the region, in the U.S. and in China, according to Arnab Das , the head of global market research at Roubini Global Economics in London. The euro on May 19 dropped to $1.2144, its lowest level against the dollar since April 2006, as Spain was forced to rescue banks and policy makers including Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said they would cut spending to combat a financial “tsunami” in the region. Investors are getting less bullish, according to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Speculative net-long positions , or bets on rising prices, for 16 commodity futures have dropped 33 percent in the past three weeks, CFTC data show. That’s the lowest level since Feb. 9, after the net-longs plunged 58 percent from a 20-month high on Jan. 12. “It’s the uncertainty that’s the biggest problem,” said John Kinsey , who helps manage C$1 billion ($995 million) at Caldwell Investment Management Ltd. in Toronto. “Commodities are being attacked with these concerns about the debt situation in Europe and the steps that China has taken to tighten. People are afraid this is going to slow the economy. It’s hard to see a way out of it.” To contact the reporter on this story: Millie Munshi in New York at mmunshi@bloomberg.net ; Elizabeth Campbell in New York at ecampbell14@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Gulf Oil Spill: Massive Underwater Plumes Spell Disaster, Scientists Say

May 31, 2010

NEW ORLEANS — Independent scientists and government officials say there’s a disaster we can’t see in the Gulf of Mexico’s mysterious depths, the ruin of a world inhabited by enormous sperm whales and tiny, invisible plankton. Researchers have said they have found at least two massive underwater plumes of what appears to be oil, each hundreds of feet deep and stretching for miles. Yet the chief executive of BP PLC – which has for weeks downplayed everything from the amount of oil spewing into the Gulf to the environmental impact – said there is “no evidence” that huge amounts of oil are suspended undersea. BP CEO Tony Hayward said the oil naturally gravitates to the surface – and any oil below was just making its way up. However, researchers say the disaster in waters where light doesn’t shine through could ripple across the food chain. “Every fish and invertebrate contacting the oil is probably dying. I have no doubt about that,” said Prosanta Chakrabarty, a Louisiana State University fish biologist. On the surface, a 24-hour camera fixed on the spewing, blown-out well and the images of dead, oil-soaked birds have been evidence of the calamity. At least 20 million gallons of oil and possibly 43 million gallons have spilled since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank in April. That has far eclipsed the 11 million gallons released during the Exxon Valdez spill off Alaska’s coast in 1989. But there is no camera to capture what happens in the rest of the vast Gulf, which sprawls across 600,000 square miles and reaches more than 14,000 feet at its deepest point. Every night, the denizens of the deep make forays to shallower depths to eat – and be eaten by – other fish, according to marine scientists who describe it as the largest migration on earth. In turn, several species closest to the surface – including red snapper, shrimp and menhaden – help drive the Gulf Coast fishing industry. Others such as marlin, cobia and yellowfin tuna sit atop the food chain and are chased by the Gulf’s charter fishing fleet. Many of those species are now in their annual spawning seasons. Eggs exposed to oil would quickly perish. Those that survived to hatch could starve if the plankton at the base of the food chain suffer. Larger fish are more resilient, but not immune to the toxic effects of oil. The Gulf’s largest spill was in 1979, when the Ixtoc I platform off Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula blew up and released 140 million gallons of oil. But that was in relatively shallow waters – about 160 feet deep – and much of the oil stayed on the surface where it broke down and became less toxic by the time it reached the Texas coast. But last week, a team from the University of South Florida reported a plume was headed toward the continental shelf off the Alabama coastline, waters thick with fish and other marine life. The researchers said oil in the plumes had dissolved into the water, possibly a result of chemical dispersants used to break up the spill. That makes it more dangerous to fish larvae and creatures that are filter feeders. Responding to Hayward’s assertion, one researcher noted that scientists from several different universities have come to similar conclusions about the plumes after doing separate testing. No major fish kills have been reported, but federal officials said the impacts could take years to unfold. “This is just a giant experiment going on and we’re trying to understand scientifically what this means,” said Roger Helm, a senior official with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 2009, LSU’s Chakrabarty discovered two new species of bottom-dwelling pancake batfish about 30 miles off the Louisiana coastline – right in line with the pathway of the spill caused when the Deepwater Horizon burned and sank April 24. By the time an article in the Journal of Fish Biology detailing the discovery appears in the August edition, Chakrabarty said, the two species – which pull themselves along the seafloor with feet-like fins – could be gone or in serious decline. “There are species out there that haven’t been described, and they’re going to disappear,” he said. Recent discoveries of endangered sea turtles soaked in oil and 22 dolphins found dead in the spill zone only hint at the scope of a potential calamity that could last years and unravel the Gulf’s food web. Concerns about damage to the fishery already is turning away potential customers for charter boat captains such as Troy Wetzel of Venice. To get to waters unaffected by the spill, Wetzel said he would have to take his boat 100 miles or more into the Gulf – jacking up his fuel costs to where only the wealthiest clients could afford to go fishing. Significant amounts of crude oil seep naturally from thousands of small rifts in the Gulf’s floor – as much as two Exxon Valdez spills every year, according to a 2000 report from government and academic researchers. Microbes that live in the water break down the oil. The number of microbes that grow in response to the more concentrated BP spill could tip that system out of balance, LSU oceanographer Mark Benfield said. Too many microbes in the sea could suck oxygen from the water, creating an uninhabitable hypoxic area, or “dead zone.” Preliminary evidence of increased hypoxia in the Gulf was seen during an early May cruise aboard the R/V Pelican, carrying researchers from the University of Georgia, the University of Mississippi and the University of Southern Mississippi. An estimated 910,000 gallons of dispersants – enough to fill more than 100 tanker trucks – are contributing a new toxin to the mix. Containing petroleum distillates and propylene glycol, the dispersants’ effects on marine life are still unknown. What is known is that by breaking down oil into smaller droplets, dispersants reduce the oil’s buoyancy, slowing or stalling the crude’s rise to the surface and making it harder to track the spill. Dispersing the oil lower into the water column protects beaches, but also keeps it in cooler waters where oil does not break down as fast. That could prolong the oil’s potential to poison fish, said Larry McKinney, director of the Harte Research Institute at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. “There’s a school of thought that says we’ve made it worse because of the dispersants,” he said. ___ Associated Press writer Jason Dearen contributed to this report from San Francisco.

Read the full article →