media

Michael Thornton: Gibbs: 99ers Will be Saved by Jobs, Not Unemployment Benefits. But Honestly….

December 31, 2010

In replying to ABC’s Jake Tapper’s question about 99ers and what can be done to help the millions of long-term unemployed, Presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs offered a baffling, disjointed, mishmash answer chock full of clichés and lacking any substance. Gibbs-speak, shall we say? First let’s look at the unedited version of the 99er exchange. TAPPER: … they’re individuals who have been — whose unemployment insurance has run out. They were not included in the deal, the tax deal that the president signed with Mr. McConnell, the Republicans and others. Is there anything that the president can do for them? GIBBS: Well, I think the best thing that we can do as a country is to get — get a fragile economy more stable, and one that creates more jobs. I think that’s — that’s why I think, you know, economists said that they would reorient their growth estimates based on the agreement that the president signed. And obviously, the best thing we can do for them is to create an environment where businesses are hiring. Look, we have — what you’ve heard me say on a number of occasions, that one of the great benefits of the agreement was taking the politics out of — out of unemployment insurance. We — we — we have — it’s been a contentious battle just to get unemployment insurance to continue up to 99 weeks. It’s not — it’s not in any way been easy. And this takes the politics out of that throughout 2011 and hopefully we can focus — continue to focus on getting the economy moving again and providing — providing those guys with a helping hand with a job. As Mr. Tapper alludes, the 99ers, those who have exhausted all unemployment benefits, were not part of the $856 billion tax agreement brokered between Obama and the Republicans. While many 99ers are certainly glad that Mr. Tapper at least brought up the subject of 99ers, his question to Mr. Gibbs lacked any sense of urgency or breath of the issue. After all, millions have exhausted all available unemployment benefits and have no other means of support What was most telling was that the interview Q & A ignored reality. Mr. Tapper posed a softball question to a hardball subject and Mr. Gibbs tried his best to spin a bad situation into a confusing situation. Let’s see if this interview can be better understood with some realities added to the question and answer. Here’s how the interview segment would have made more sense: Honest Mr. Tapper: Estimates are that 4-5 million unemployed have exhausted all their unemployment benefits – the 99ers. Since job creation is near zero and millions more 99ers are in the pipeline for 2011, why didn’t the president demand some relief for these long-suffering jobless, instead of just giving billions more in tax cuts to businesses that aren’t hiring and to the wealthy who don’t need the extra money? Honest Mr. Gibbs: Yes, the economy is still unable to create the jobs needed to help the four to five million and growing ranks of 99ers. We didn’t include 99ers in the monster tax package plan because economists think job growth will increase and you know how much you can trust economists to be correct (LOL)! We are more concerned about continually giving untold billions in tax breaks to businesses that still are not hiring even though they have recorded record profits and are sitting on over one trillion dollars in capital. Eventually, they will have to hire some additional people, maybe even a couple 99ers, just to count all that extra cash! We took the politics out of the next 13 months of unemployment benefits extensions for those who haven’t exhausted benefits, but when millions more do exhaust benefits in 2011, well, honestly, tough luck. In fact we didn’t even bring up the matter of unemployment benefits exhaustion because we were afraid to make Republicans angry. You know how nasty Republicans can get if you bring up government job creation or longer term benefits! Are you crazy (LOL)? Did you see what that whacko Sen. Bunning did last year when we tried to extend unemployment benefits? We didn’t want to go there again. Those guys are nuts! We feel it’s much more important to bailout corrupt and mismanaged Wall Street and foreign banks, large insurance companies and auto manufacturers than it is to bailout the long-term unemployed. I mean, do you think the president will receive more money for his 2012 reelection campaign from corrupt business leaders or 99ers? Get real, Jake. Sure, we hope 99ers support us, but we know where our bread is buttered and it’s not from contributions from unemployment checks! We will continue to go down the same path of giving billions in tax breaks to businesses and the wealthy, but we have our fingers crossed that they create a few jobs for the very long-term unemployed. Our job creation policies haven’t worked for the past two years, but we’re certain, certain those same policies will work this time. Third time lucky, we think! Tapper: Thank you for being honest with your answers. Gibbs: Thank you for asking a probing, difficult question. Although that interpretation is over the top, many long-term unemployed 99ers may not see it that way. They have been ignored for almost a year and their ranks are growing quickly. 99ers were and are being ignored by elected representatives, but the media has a responsibility to do more than simply ask questions, they need to investigate and determine why so many are being ignored for so long. You can see the entire interview: Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper . Weakness, fizzle and pleasantries may be a more appropriate title to Mr. Tapper’s interview, but he does deserve some credit for having the decency to ask the 99er question. Observing how many politicians and media pundits avoid, disparage, manipulate and dismiss those who have exhausted unemployment benefits is disturbing, but it’s demoralizing, depressing, damaging and destructive to those families who have to live through it, the long-term unemployed, the 99ers.

Read the full article →

Tom Doctoroff: The Chinese Consumer: Still Projecting and Protecting

December 29, 2010

Contemporary Chinese society, still Confucian to the core, is driven by: 1) the need for societal acknowledgment and 2) diffused insecurity. Mainland consumer behavior, characterized by status projection and risk avoidance, reflects these truths. Status and Public Consumption. The Chinese consumer, pulled between conformism and ambition, regard brands as tools for success, not self-actualization or fulfillment. Publicly consumed products command huge price premiums relative to goods used in private. All leading mobile phones, for example, are international. Even in tier five and six cities, Nokia commands a 40% market share, despite significantly higher retail prices relative to local competitors. Sony’s Handycam, a product brandished outside the home, boasts 50% market share. However, Sony televisions are still niche. The leading household appliances are, without exception, cheap domestic brands such as Haier, TCL and Changhong. The “public display” imperative leads to fundamental positioning differences versus what works in Western markets. Benefits should be “externalized,” not “internalized.” Even for luxury goods, individualism — “what I want, how I feel” — does not work. Shower gels should not promote “sensory indulgence.” They should help a woman begin the day with a kick. Beauty products must help “move her forward,” “get her man,” or “open doors.” Automobiles, now a middle-class “must buy,” should make a statement about a man on the way up. Sports cars — “thrill vehicles” — are not big sellers. BMW, a middle kingdom winner, has fused its global “Ultimate Driving Machine” proposition with a Chinese declaration of ambition. Passat, Honda, Toyota, Ford and Buick are also positioned as status vessels. Even beer must do something. In Western countries, “letting the goods times role,” or “making weekends great” is enough. Fun is fun. In China, Pilsner must: 1) bring people together, 2) reinforce trust, and 3) optimize opportunity for mutual (financial) gain. The importance of public display is also a critical consideration in shaping business models. Starbucks in China is not a comfortable environment — i.e., an urban retreat — in which coffee is sipped. To conform to Chinese taste, the company: 1) broadened the sandwich menu, 2) identified prime site-to-be-seen real estate, and 3) expanded average store size. From day one, it successfully established itself as a public place in which professional tribes gather proclaim affiliation with the new generation elite. Both Pizza Hut and Haagen Dazs have built mega-franchises based on out-of-home consumption. Insecurity and Price Sensitivity. The Chinese still do not feel “safe.” On a daily basis, they confront: shredded safety nets, lack of institutions that protect individual wealth, contaminated dairy products and other risks to home and health. Therefore, consumers’ instinct to project status through material display is counter-balanced by conservative buying behavior, at all socio-economic levels. Protective “benefits” are fundamental. Even high-end paints must establish anti-toxicity before move on to “colorful” self-expression. Baby formula, rooted in immunity claims, commands huge price premiums in both middle class and mass markets. Chinese on average take ten times as many antibiotics as people in other countries. Safety is a key benefit for Mercedes and Ford Fiesta buyers alike. The Chinese will never spend freely. Savings rates will always be higher than in the West. There is no question China’s consumer economy will expand as incomes rise. So will purchasing power. (In most urban areas, homelessness is not a major problem. There are beggars but not many.) But price-sensitivity runs deep because the average Joe is skittish about keeping up. One anonymous viral e-mail that made the rounds in late-2010 as inflation was picking up steam said it all: “Can’t afford to be born because a Caesarean costs RMB50,000; can’t afford to study because schools cost at least RMB30,000; can’t afford to live anywhere because each square meter is at least RMB20,000; can’t afford to get sick because pharmaceutical profits are at least 10-fold; can’t afford to die because cremation costs at least RMB30,000.” Beyond ever-rising prices, investment opportunities are limited; the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets are riskier than gambling casinos. To boot, health care is a tattered quilt of patchy coverage. (Low-paid surgeons receive bribes from patients and kick backs from drug manufacturers.) Even wealthy consumers are wed to cash. They shy away from multiple credit cards and on-line “virtual” transactions. Most cars are still purchased without loans. New Media, Traditional Values. Finally, digital technology has not transformed consumer behavior at an elemental level. “Young China” is savvier than a decade ago. New media has broadened awareness of the outside world. However, Chinese netizens’ underlying conservatism is clear. First, on-line transactions are relatively infrequent, particularly when compared to the high levels of digital penetration in major cities and, increasingly, smaller towns. According to the China Internet Network Information Center, by 2008, only 25% of Internet users have bought something online, and most of these purchases involve off-line cash-for-product exchanges. The barriers are no longer technological; people simply do not feel “safe” making electronic payments. Safety-seeking China is “high touch”; tires must be kicked. Second, so-called digital liberation is anonymous. Social networking sites such as Weibo (China’s Twitter) and Kaixing Wang (China’s Facebook) are popular platforms of self-expression. But even the angriest on-line protesters hide behind avatars and pseudonyms. To quote one on-line gaming fan: “I can be gay. I can be king of darkness. I can be whoever I want to be because no one knows who I am.” A joint survey conducted by JWT and IAC supports the importance of on-line anonymity. In response to the statement, “I feel free to do and say things I wouldn’t do or say offline,” less than a third of young Americans agree and a large majority (41%) disagrees. Among Chinese respondents, almost three-quarters agree (73%), and just 9% disagree. Consumer culture is advancing. But buying decisions will always reflect Chinese cultural realities.

Read the full article →

Indosat Mega Media deploys Elitecore’s convergent OSS/BSS platform

December 23, 2010

Indosat Mega Media deploys Elitecore’s convergent OSS/BSS platform

Read the full article →

Target Continues To Make Political Donations They Previously Apologized For

December 21, 2010

This past fall, mega-retailer Target caught a heap of bad publicity when it was revealed that they had made campaign donations in support of then-Minnesota gubernatorial hopeful Tom Emmer , whose hostility to the LGBT community began “with opposition to same-sex marriage and runs through to wholesale denial of equal rights and alliances with organizations whose takes on the gay community neatly align with those Ugandan madmen .” Target CEO Greg Steinhafel was forced to make an apology , and promised to begin a “review process for future political donations.” Over at The Awl, Abram Sauer, who covered this story thoroughly during the election season, has made a review of this review process. You’ll never guess what he found out ! According to documents filed with the FEC in October 2010, Target continued donating to a bevy of anti-gay politicians even after Steinhafel apologized and committed to reforming the review process for future political donations. These donations even included some of the same anti-gay politicians the company had already been criticized for supporting. Here’s a taste of the specifics: After Steinhafel’s August 5 letter, Target’s Political Action Committee, helmed by the former right hand of Senator Thune, Matt Zabel, recorded $41,200 in federal election activity. Of that total, $31,200 went to anti-gay rights politicians or PACs supporting those candidates. Supporters of gay equality did get some money. In September, Target PAC gave $1,000 to Chuck Schumer. It also sent a whole $500 to Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Congressman that anti-gay leader Bradley Dean accuses of supporting LGBT rights as a way to bring Sharia law to America. But donations such as $1,000 to Kelly Ayotte (reported on September 22), who resigned her state post in protest of the legalization of gay marriage and same sex adoption, are far more the norm. That same day, there is a record of a donation by Target PAC to Spencer Bachus, who voted to ban same-sex adoption. Michigan’s David Camp, who, in addition to supporting a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, voted against protecting gays from job discrimination based on sexual orientation, also reported money. Through October, Target PAC thousands of dollars in donations were recorded to Michael Crapo and Dave Reichert, both supporters of anti-gay Constitutional amendments, and Rob Portman, a supporter of banning gays from adopting. Portman’s position on other gay rights won’t surprise. On October 4, a donation was reported: $2,000 to David Dreier, whose position on gay rights is quite a bit of theatre. Sauer also digs up this magical puff piece by Bill George at the Star Tribune , attesting to Steinhafel’s general wonderfulness as a CEO. Amid the assertion that Steinhafel is “always classy” and the insistence that it “isn’t easy being CEO of a public company,” (I mean, you try living off this pittance in America) there’s glancing mention of that minor dust-up over these anti-gay political donations: Suggestions that Target was somehow “anti-gay” cut deeply. The worst one could say about this incident is that Steinhafel may have been naive. But he admitted his mistake and reaffirmed the company’s long-standing support for gay rights. As he told me, “Target has the most gay-friendly policies in this state.” I don’t think the worst you could say about Steinhafel is that he is naive! More like, “is a liar.” But, as Sauer points out, this Strib handjob was written by a former member of Target’s board and the author of a book titled 7 Lessons for Leading in Crisis that “just happens to count Gregg Steinhafel as one of its profiled ‘leaders.’” So, you know: hard-hitting . GO READ THE WHOLE THING: The Anti-Gay Donations That Target Apologized For? They Never Stopped [The Awl] [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 →

US- CyberLink launches ultimate Media Suite 9

December 19, 2010

US- CyberLink launches ultimate Media Suite 9

Read the full article →

Don McNay: Wealth Without Wall Street

December 11, 2010

The four points of WealthWithoutWallStreet.org are: Move your money. Take the power away from Wall Street banks and give them to banks and credit unions in your community. Don’t use credit cards. They are a tool that Wall Street uses to tie the average consumer in chains. Give back to your community. The point that I primarily want to focus on is creating and promoting a small businesss. As a writer and businessman, I know firsthand the value of a well-written media story. If you trace the history of almost any national company, you’ll find that somewhere along the way a story in a publication put that company in the spotlight. It’s like winning the media lottery. You toil for many years in relative obscurity and suddenly you become an overnight sensation. It happened to me. I was 23 when I started my structured settlement and financial consulting business, McNay Settlement Group. For a few years, it grew only by word of mouth. That all changed because of a story in the Lexington Herald Leader . Business Editor Jim Jordan wrote a feature about my work with injury victims that explained it in a way that captivated the reader. It also grabbed the attention of many national publications. We went from being a local business to a national business as a result of a few hundred well-written words. Now the shoe is on the other foot. I’m a writer. I know that comments in my newspaper column or in my blogs on the Huffington Post have tremendous power. I want to scream when I see small businesses, with the potential to be “overnight sensations,” screw it up. Journalists are not interested in being public relations or marketing people. They are interested in finding good stories. Some business people don’t seem to get that. It helps if a business has an identifiable owner or spokesperson. It’s more than just ego that made the late Dave Thomas, who started Wendy’s, or John Schnatter, who started Papa John’s, star in their company’s television commercials. It was a way to remind people that the fast food chains were not started by nameless, faceless corporations. They were started by entrepreneurs chasing the American dream. Faceless corporations do not make for a good story. Chasing the American dream does. If you have some connection to the rich, famous, or powerful, make sure the world knows about it. I watched Ted Gregory build his small Montgomery Inn, a rib joint outside of Cincinnati, into a national powerhouse. Whenever a Bob Hope or an Arnold Palmer or a well-known celebrity ate at the restaurant, Ted made sure that the world knew about it. I watched another Cincinnati restaurant owner, Jeff Ruby, use the same celebrity strategy. Not everyone has a celebrity clientele, but anyone who is successful in business knows how to sell. Ironically, that selling skill often goes out the window when dealing with journalists. Business owners who can be charming and customer friendly in business dealings can turn uncooperative, pushy or defensive when talking to the news media. Business owners need to treat journalists just like any other clients they are talking to on a one-on-one basis. They just keep in mind that the world might be listening. And as with any good client, once a media relationship is developed, the business owner needs to make sure to keep it up. The same skills that will make you a business success, like following through on commitments and saying “Please” and “Thank you,” will make you successful in communicating with the media. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is the founder of McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement firm based in Richmond Kentucky. He is also an award winning columnist and Huffington Post Contributor. McNay is a member of the Eastern Kentucky University Hall of Distinguished Alumni and has masters degrees from Vanderbilt University and the American College. He is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table.

Read the full article →

Yvette Kantrow: Polishing the Dimon

December 10, 2010

The media has always loved Jamie Dimon. After all, he turned around Bank One Corp., kept J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. profitable through one of the worst financial crises in history and helped the government save Bear Stearns Cos. and Washington Mutual from oblivion. And he did it all after being cast out of Citigroup by his longtime father figure and mentor, the now-reviled Sandy Weill. How wonderfully Shakespearean. These days, of course, loving a banker is no easy task — even one who might remind you of Hamlet and who started to sound the alarm on subprime mortgages before his rivals. After being severely chastised for failing to call the bubble because it was too busy cozying up to its pinstriped sources, the media now takes it on faith that pretty much all bankers — except those who toil at the Bailey-esque small bank down the street — are to blame for our economic woes. The profession’s notoriety is so complete that John Cassidy, writing in The New Yorker, deemed much of what investment bankers do as “socially worthless.” But Dimon’s reputation remains intact, perhaps even enhanced, as evidenced by his recent gracing of the cover of The New York Times Magazine, which dubbed him “America’s Least-Hated Banker.” That headline might be ambiguous, but the accompanying story, by Roger Lowenstein, is not. Like much of the Dimon hagiography that preceded it, the piece celebrates Dimon’s famous aversion to risk, his immersion in details, his passion for organization and his blunt-talking ways. And while it allows that Americans now display “a sort of Jacksonian animosity toward big financial institutions,” it notes that Dimon is the exception to this rule, mostly because he kept J.P. Morgan, and every business he has ever run, out of serious danger. But is it really that simple? Is what Lowenstein calls Dimon’s “radar for trouble” enough to keep him on the right side of a media that routinely calls for a Wall Street CEO perp walk? “The country is deeply divided over the proper role, and the size, of banks, and nothing epitomizes these tensions like the narrative of Jamie Dimon,” the piece intones. But Dimon doesn’t just epitomize these “tensions,” he epitomizes much of what the country dislikes about big banks. In fact, the very virtues the press constantly praises in Dimon — his cost cutting, his wonkiness, his blunt speech, his faith in the virtue of banking behemoths — we find reprehensible in everyone else, including, most strikingly, his old mentor, Weill. Indeed, in the Times piece, when Dimon spouts his Wal-Mart theory of banking — that just as people want to buy lettuce and TVs under one roof they want to visit one financial institution for credit cards and mortgages — an impressed Lowenstein writes that “few people think of banks this way.” Really? Weill thought about and talked about banks that way constantly, as did any number of proponents of so-called supermarket banking — an idea that, thanks to the crisis, has fallen into ill repute. But when uttered by Dimon, the concept is treated as not just novel, but fascinating. “It is an intriguing comparison,” Lowenstein writes of likening Chase to Wal-Mart. “This is how Dimon wants to be seen — as a retailer with 5,200 branches nationwide whose products happen to be financial services.” That’s also how Weill wanted to be seen, but it didn’t quite work out for him as Citi grew too large and discombobulated to be effectively managed. The story does not discuss that, however, choosing instead to boil down Citi’s myriad problems to “hubris” and to Weill’s failure to name a capable successor — someone like Dimon, we assume. So far, things are working out for Dimon, whom Lowenstein describes as “trim” and somewhat “boyish” with “a puckish, faintly suppressed grin” — features that surely help bolster his reputation almost as much as J.P. Morgan’s balance sheet. Contrast this to how Lowenstein portrayed Weill in an August 2000 cover story, also for the Times magazine: The then-Citi CEO was described as “superficially ordinary,” “moderately articulate,” “lacking in grace,” “exploding” and “screaming.” (The story was so unflattering to Weill, who was then at his peak, that it prompted The New York Observer to wonder about anti-Semitism.) But for all of Dimon’s success, is it still enough to grant him an exception to the media’s general disdain for big bank CEOs? After all, he’s not going to run J.P. Morgan forever. And, like any mere mortal, past performance is no guarantee of future success. Yvette Kantrow is executive editor of The Deal magazine.

Read the full article →

AudienceScience(R) Hires Peter Bassett as VP of Media Transaction Platform – AudienceScience Connect(TM)

December 9, 2010

Bassett Departs Glam Media to Manage the High Demand for New AudienceScience Connect(TM) Business

Read the full article →

Gary Shapiro: Deficit Tests Our Democracy

December 7, 2010

After a disaster we look back to see what we should have done differently. The Challenger retrospect revealed a flawed launch decision process. The failure to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction disclosed weak and exaggerated intelligence. Katrina showed that Mother Nature, poor planning and weak design could fatally combine. 9-11 taught us that a 747 could be a weapon of mass destruction. The sub-prime mortgage fiasco popped the canard that we should overreach our income when buying homes. These crises and lessons, while horrible and painful, did not test or threaten our unique form of democracy. However, a century from now, historians may declare that our nation failed because our elected leaders did not confront and resolve our budget deficit problem. I applaud President Obama for trying. Failing to get congressional approval of a binding vote from a deficit commission, he tried a voluntary approach. He appointed a deficit commission, and they have put forward a plan to increasingly lower the annual deficit. The measures proposed are difficult but long overdue – bitter medicine to avoid grave illness. The plan, if enacted, will avoid the tougher situation we will face in the next decade: our lenders get nervous, interest rates rise, and debt consumes our budget – shriveling funding for national defense, children, elderly and the poor. The issue is not whether the Obama debt commission’s plan will work. The math paints clear choices. The issue is not even whether the plan fairly shares the pain. Yes, the entitlement crowd complains that age 65 is a sacred retirement milepost, but its historic relativity to lifespan is irrelevant. The anti-tax people protest that by some definitions the plan raises taxes without guarantees of spending cuts. Others whine that certain historic incentives like the mortgage interest deduction are divine and more important than our national health (yet, when Congress eliminated the credit- card interest deduction, somehow we kept borrowing). Rather, the big issue is whether our cleaved parties and the American people can address and avoid the impending debt crisis. The jury is out, but the tea leaves concern me. On the one hand, with roughly half of Americans receiving government payments, we may be past the tipping point of finding politicians who are willing to risk reelection by cutting largesse. With only half of Americans actually paying income taxes, the entitlement society is putting the productive society at risk. Politicians have responded by avoiding the issue, and the media and American public have been complicit in this denial. Take the 2008 presidential election. The choice was either a candidate promising bigger government and no tax increases for all but wealthy Americans, or a candidate promising no new taxes and not offering any spending cuts. After the big government candidate was elected and delivered on his promises, the 2010 voters voiced concern about government spending. Yet, even in the 2010 election, few candidates described how they would cut government spending. The earnest promise of cutting “waste, fraud and abuse” is the bi-annual electoral ruse. It avoids the challenge of saying which programs will be cut or what taxes will be raised. The only alternative to spending cuts or taxes is economic growth. Yet, no economist envisions the type of amazing growth necessary to get us out of our fiscal mess without serious cost cutting, tax increases or a combination of the two. We are not holding legislators accountable. We pay them to decide among competing priorities. Yet, because of re-election concerns or ideology, members of Congress have been unwilling to make or advocate necessary policy choices. Republicans have signed the pledge on tax increases and have shown no stomach for real cost cutting. Democrats are happy to raise taxes on jobs creators, but they also are disinterested in the tough challenge of budget cuts. American business leaders are aghast. They view budgeting as a tool for setting priorities by separating the mission critical from the requested. That’s how businesses and countries succeed. How is it that a new 2010 British government has already decided and begun executing a deficit reduction plan? Americans, sadly, are struggling to attract enough votes just to make a credible deficit commission suggestion to a Congress seemingly incapable of even addressing a unanimous report. How is it that we ask young Americans to risk life and limb abroad while legislators won’t even risk re-election to make tough decisions for our country? The board of directors of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the organization I lead, representing 2,000 technology companies, decided years ago that nothing is more important to the health of our industry than the health of the U.S. economy. Moreover, they agreed that our long-term economic health is in danger primarily due to the actions of our government, especially the exploding deficit. Last week, the CEA board reaffirmed this view and embraced the plan of the Obama deficit commission. While no one likes the sacrifice it entails and we can debate the mix of cuts and taxes, it is our best and, at this point, only hope to avoid the long- term economic destruction of America. If we do not address the deficit, we are threatening not only the nation we leave our children, but also the viability of the representative democratic experiment that is the United States. Gary Shapiro is the president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, which represents more than 2,000 U.S. technology companies.

Read the full article →

Jack Myers: Even Mark Zuckerberg Says Privacy Rights are Fundamental – Jack Myers

December 7, 2010

Even Mark Zuckerberg , in his 60 Minutes interview this week, admits that privacy is among an individual’s most important rights. “Privacy and making sure that people have control over their information is I think one of the most fundamental things on the Internet,” he said. Last week’s Federal Trade Commission recommendations on Internet privacy reaffirm a controversial position I took when I issued my Top 10 Trends for Media, Agencies and Marketers last May. In Trend #1, I wrote ” While data privacy concerns are being discussed at length, with the IAB, ANA and 4As taking the lead in implementing industry regulations in the hopes of avoiding government intervention, it seems inevitable that the issue will be politicized with the industry taking it on the chin. As aggressive as the industry has been, government officials are likely to become more aggressive with both Democrats and Republicans seeking the upper hand on consumer protection regulation.” Legislation is likely to extend to mobile devices and apps as well as Internet tools that track consumer Internet traffic, location and usage. Apps have the advantage of enabling consumers to opt-in to tracking each time they access it. New regulations will benefit established and trusted marketing and media brands that consumers will be more likely to empower to track their usage. The recently implemented Forward i logo, while ambitious and well-intentioned, is a stop-gap measure intended to demonstrate to federal regulators and Congress that the industry can police itself. It appears it has not worked as intended although the industry continues to position the Forward i as its primary initiative to protect consumers. Ultimately, the solution is likely to evolve to a universal opt-out model combined with a requirement that consumers proactively override their opt-out choice on a one-by-one basis – essentially a reversal of existing self-regulation. Most importantly, the industry cannot continue to assume that partial solutions will meet the requirements of regulators. The report states that industry efforts to address privacy through self-regulation “have been too slow, and up to now have failed to provide adequate and meaningful protection.” While research consistently demonstrates that consumers (and especially young consumers) do not consider privacy a priority, once politicians recognize it as a defining opportunity where non-partisan consensus can be reached, they will push it aggressively. The FTC report, which is titled, “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers,” is “intended to inform policymakers, including Congress, as they develop solutions, policies, and potential laws governing privacy, and guide and motivate industry as it develops more robust and effective best practices and self-regulatory guidelines.” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said the FTC “will take action against companies that cross the line with consumer data and violate consumers’ privacy – especially when children and teens are involved.” Democratic Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) is taking the issue a step further with a proposal designed “to ensure that kids are protected.” Markey says he plans “to introduce legislation next year that will include a ‘Do Not Track’ requirement so that kids do not have their online behavior tracked or their personal information collected or profiled.” A response to the FTC advisory has been published by Dan Jaffe , EVP Government Relations of ANA ( Association of National Advertisers ), at www.ana.net . The Interactive Advertising Bureau issued a report arguing that “Foremost, we believe the industry’s Self-Regulatory Program for Online Behavioral Advertising will provide the enhanced notice and simple, comprehensive opt-out mechanism the FTC has called for. The industry successfully developed this program without the need for government regulation.” To comment, visit www.jackmyersthinktank.com . JackMyersThinkTank and MediaBizBloggers are free and underwritten as an industry service by corporate subscribers to Jack Myers Media Business Report . For subscription information, visit www.myersreport.com . Visit the archives of JackMyersThinkTank and MediaBizBloggers . Jack Myers can be contacted directly at jm@jackmyers.com . This post originally appeared at JackMyers.com.

Read the full article →

Steve Rosenbaum: AOL’s New Video Chief Charts a Course

December 3, 2010

Content Aggregation, Curation, and Syndication are core to the vision Ran Harveno smiles when he tells you he isn’t the “new” head of AOL Video, he’s the first person to have that job. As he sees it — it’s a sign of the times that big web players see video as core to their future. “The news is that there is an AOL video department” said Harveno, speaking to a packed house of the New York Video Meetup at the Samsung Experience in the Time Warner Center. The fact that one of the biggest companies out there believes in video. AOL is becoming a way more innovative company.” “There is no real video company right now on the web that is making more than half a billion dollars. YouTube is at five hundred million. I think that AOL has a great chance to scale and become a really powerful video company. They have a lot of traffic on their own, but it’s billions of page views with a very limited video experience so far.” Looking at the web, he sees lots of folks chasing the “sexy” world of entertainment video, while the web’s audience is looking for information. He sees a huge opportunity in premium ad dollars and premium content — but in the nitchified web world, premium audiences are in nitches, not in mass audiences. “The web is about niches. Its’ about information”, said Harveno. “Health is not that sexy — neither is food or home and garden. There’s no unified experience, there’s no curated library of premium content that people can consume. On the other hand, most of the sites out there are text.” And in taking on the new world of web video, AOL found a guy who had been diligently and steadily winning the key target verticals, one category at a time. “The goal is to start shifting real dollars from TV to the web. Which we don’t see enough. The biggest problem of the online video industry is supply. There are not enough views. People are looking at this as the next revolution and huge adoption — if you compare the video views on the web to inventory that exists on TV, we’re still a fraction.” Today his company, 5min Media, founded just 4 years ago in Tel Aviv, is number one in health, food, home, fashion, autos and travel the six biggest verticals for advertisers. 5min gathers professional quality content, and then provides syndication revenue to content creators. Harveno says his goal is to be the “supply” side of supply and demand. “We basically aggregate a lot of content. 200,000 pieces of content. And it’s all curated. It’s Scripps, Hachette, Hearst, TBS, NBC, and a lot of web originals like Next New Networks and Revision 3.” By aggregating and curating niches, Harveno says he can create quality audiences that will drive CPM’s up, rather than commoditizing mass audiences that drive CPM’s down. “What we’re trying right now at AOL is to create a market where you have the premium layer of good content on the home page and on the site and a huge audience extension with 5min, which is growing all the time. and through ad.com and really create a good marketplace for advertisers. We are going to take the 5min library and our content partners live on every AOL page. We’re live right now 18 sites. We have 50 to go. We’re taking our videos and our semantic technology all across the web. 5min has the brand and the syndication play. Ad.com is a video network. We unified the AOL video unit.” 5min began its relationship with AOL as a provider of syndicated video, but once AOL exec’s saw the impact of 5min’s library on traffic and conversions, an acquisition conversation moved along quickly. AOL bought 5min for a reported 65 million dollars, a meaningful return for the venture firms who’d put 13 million dollars in the company over the past four years. Now that Harveno is SVP of video — he says job one is getting more content into the network. “We want content. One of the things that is critical for every big company is to have a have self-produced content, and aggregated content. We can’t produce it all.” And he sees 5min’s brand and publisher services as remaining core to what they do. He says sites need his brand of quality content. “If you go to most of the travel sites, most of the food sites, there’s a very poor video experience with these sites. So we basicaly understood all the good content producers that don’t find a good ROI on the web and aggregate them in a curated way.” Getting quality content to publishers is core to Harveno’s vision. And he says that companies that try to manufacture video at a low cost have the model wrong. You can’t create all your own content with good economics. Harveno: “There is only one company that is trying to produce all of its own content — Demand Media. I think that the content quality that they produce is questionable. If you want to produce real good content, and not content for one hundred bucks, you need to aggregate.” Says Harveno: “What we’re trying to do is to create an ROI for content producers though distribution, and extend it through AOL so it’s an opportunity to be on the home page. To be on the home pages of all their sites and to be in the 5min network.” So, given that this is largest video company sale in New York, how does Harveno, from his spot at AOL, see the next chapter for video? “The big old companies didn’t take video seriously so far. So I think there will be more acquisitions.”

Read the full article →

Don McNay: A Path Toward Small Business Success

December 3, 2010

Well the program director don’t pull it Then it’s bound to get back the bullet So bring the group down to the station You’re gonna be an overnight sensation — Eric Carman and the Raspberries As a writer and businessman, I know firsthand the value of a well-written media story. If you trace the history of almost any national company, you’ll find that somewhere along the way a story in a publication put that company in the spotlight. It’s like winning the media lottery. You toil for many years in relative obscurity and suddenly you become an overnight sensation. It happened to me. I was 23 when I started my structured settlement and financial consulting business, McNay Settlement Group. For a few years, it grew only by word of mouth. I did well within Kentucky because two of my first clients, Peter Perlman in Lexington and Frank Haddad Jr. in Louisville, were two of the best trial lawyers in the state’s history. They recommended me to their friends and associates. But by age 29, I was still unknown nationally. That all changed because of a story in the Lexington Herald Leader . Business Editor Jim Jordan wrote a feature about my work with injury victims that explained it in a way that captivated the reader. It also grabbed the attention of many national publications. The next thing I knew, magazines like Forbes and Financial Planning were calling to do their own stories. Next thing after that, potential clients were calling from all over the country. We went from being a local business to a national business as a result of a few hundred well-written words. Now the shoe is on the other foot. I’m a writer. I know that comments in my newspaper column or in my blogs on The Huffington Post have tremendous power. I’ve done a number of book reviews for The Huffington Post, and sometimes I’ve seen the Amazon sales numbers jump within hours after a favorable review. It’s a power I don’t take lightly. My readers are looking for guidance and I don’t give my “Good Housekeeping seal” of approval to just anyone. I want to scream when I see small businesses, with the potential to be “overnight sensations,” screw it up. Journalists are not interested in being public relations or marketing people. They are interested in finding good stories. Some business people don’t seem to get that. Byron Crawford spent nearly 30 years writing fascinating stories about unknown people for the Louisville Courier Journal . He told me that every person has a great story. It is just a matter of finding it. It helps if a business has an identifiable owner or spokesperson. It’s more than just ego that made the late Dave Thomas, who started Wendy’s, or John Schnatter, who started Papa John’s, star in their company’s television commercials. It was a way to remind people that the fast food chains were not started by nameless, faceless corporations. They were started by entrepreneurs chasing the American dream. Faceless corporations do not make for a good story. Chasing the American dream does. If you have some connection to the rich, famous, or powerful, make sure the world knows about it. I watched Ted Gregory build his small Montgomery Inn, a rib joint outside of Cincinnati, into a national powerhouse. Whenever a Bob Hope or an Arnold Palmer or a well-known celebrity ate at the restaurant, Ted made sure that the world knew about it. I watched another Cincinnati restaurant owner, Jeff Ruby, use the same celebrity strategy. Not everyone has a celebrity clientele, but anyone who is successful in business knows how to sell. Ironically, that selling skill often goes out the window when dealing with journalists. Business owners who can be charming and customer friendly in business dealings can turn uncooperative, pushy or defensive when talking to the news media. Business owners need to treat journalists just like any other clients they are talking to on a one-on-one basis. They just keep in mind that the world might be listening. And as with any good client, once a media relationship is developed, the business owner needs to make sure to keep it up. Jim Jordan and I remain friends, 20 years later. I call him every year on his birthday (which is easy to remember since it’s the day before mine). The same skills that will make you a business success, like following through on commitments and saying “Please” and “Thank you,” will make you successful in communicating with the media. Maybe enough to be an overnight sensation. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is the founder of McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement firm based in Richmond Kentucky. He is also an award winning columnist and Huffington Post Contributor. McNay is a member of the Eastern Kentucky University Hall of Distinguished Alumni and has masters degrees from Vanderbilt University and the American College. He is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table.

Read the full article →

Jack Myers: Worlds of Difference Between Silicon Valley and Madison Avenue

November 30, 2010

Excerpted from Jack Myers Media Business Report new Top Ten Trends For Advertisers, Media Companies and Marketers 2010-2012 , being distributed this week to report subscribers. The underlying perceptions of both marketers’ and equity investors regarding the future of media value are very different from the value perceptions of most Silicon Valley companies and venture capitalists. A handful of digitally-founded companies, led by Google and Apple, are truly adding unique economic and marketing value to the media ecosystem. While VCs continue to pour endless amounts of money into myriad undifferentiated start-ups and also-rans, advertisers and Wall Street are cooling on the latest “new thing” while they focus on propping up their core media investments. Apple, Microsoft, Intel, H-P, Sony, Amazon and Google are introducing innovative new options for marketers, but their most successful advances are reinforcing the fundamental strengths and value of traditional content and distribution businesses. The advances in 3D and video-on-demand, for example, are reinforcing and supporting the traditional big screen, big budget content and distribution business. The industry’s beachfront properties, and the foundations that support these properties, are being reinforced after years of neglect. Traditional media assets are proving to be more risk free investments for both Madison Avenue and Wall Street. In this context, cost efficient mass media will continue to thrive as the bulwark of marketers’ media plans. There will be fewer and fewer media options that deliver advertiser-friendly content, cost efficiency and scale for marketers who require wide, synchronous and frequent exposure for their ad messages – which represents the majority of marketers. Those media companies that can deliver effective reach and frequency to target audiences on a relatively cost efficient basis and still be profitable, such as the broadcast and large cable networks, radio, selected newspapers and magazines, out-of-home, selected digital-only content providers and networks, will continue to grow. Technology-based players that build advanced tools, resources and services that provide more solid underpinnings for the traditional media businesses will achieve the greatest growth in the next decade. At the same time, content with strong and clearly identifiable brand equity will gain relevance for long-term multi-purpose partnerships between content developers and marketers. To comment, visit www.jackmyersthinktank.com . JackMyersThinkTank and MediaBizBloggers are free and underwritten as an industry service by corporate subscribers to Jack Myers Media Business Report . For subscription information, visit www.myersreport.com . Visit the archives of JackMyersThinkTank and MediaBizBloggers . Jack Myers can be contacted directly at jm@jackmyers.com . This post originally appeared at JackMyers.com.

Read the full article →

Lori Wallach: Obama Trade Policy Perils: Korea FTA Talks Resume Tomorrow

November 29, 2010

That the Obama administration did not agree at the G-20 summit to push the same NAFTA-style Korea free trade agreement (FTA) that former President George W. Bush signed in 2007 is understandable. It’s projected to increase the U.S. trade deficit, is wildly unpopular in both countries, and replicates the most threatening NAFTA provisions that promote offshoring and financial deregulation . And, its chapter on labor rights bans references to the International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions that establish, well, the internationally recognized labor rights. The real question is why the Obama administration would have been willing to sign off on the Bush agreement in Seoul if only the Koreans had agreed to some more market access for U.S. cars and cows. And why they might go for a deal based on those narrow fixes when talks resume tomorrow near Washington. …especially since a large bloc of senior Democratic legislators, unions and other Democratic base groups made clear months ago that a short list of critical deNAFTAization fixes were necessary to avoid a nasty battle in Congress. Recent polling has shown that perhaps the one issue that unites Americans across diverse demographics is opposition to more-of-the-same trade policy. The elections confirmed this , with an unprecedented number of candidates from both parties campaigning on fair trade themes. In its current form, the Korea deal is definitely more-of-the-same . But you wouldn’t know it from the media coverage. You’d think that all anyone cares about are market access issues related to automobiles and beef – and that refusing to move another Bush NAFTA-style FTA somehow undermines Obama’s efforts to double exports in five years. That, despite a recent study showing that, in fact, U.S. exports to countries with which we have NAFTA-style trade deals have grown at half the pace of exports to other countries. I hope they fix the lopsided auto market access provisions and, while they’re at it, the textile terms, which are also unfairly uneven. But dealing with cars and cows is far from sufficient to make the deal acceptable policywise, much less to avoid the foreseeable political disaster if Obama makes Bush’s NAFTA-style trade deal his own. The administration must remove the offshoring-promoting foreign investor protections that provide special privileges to firms that relocate and the new rights for Korean firms to use UN and World Bank tribunals to attack domestic regulatory policies and demand U.S. taxpayer compensation for regulatory costs. A major exception must be added to safeguard recent U.S. and Korean financial reforms from the Bush text’s deregulation requirements. The footnote banning reference to the ILO conventions has to be removed as well. In short, Obama should follow through on his campaign promises . He explicitly identified the Korea FTA’s labor provisions and the “investor-state” enforcement mechanism as problems that needed addressing. Getting rid of the investor-state private corporate enforcement of the deal’s new foreign investor rights is especially critical. Korea is a major capital exporter with about 270 establishments currently in the U.S. that would be newly empowered to raid the Treasury and attack domestic policies using foreign tribunals. These provisions elevate corporations to the same status of sovereign governments by providing them with the right to privately enforce a public treaty. So far, over $326 million in compensation has been paid out by governments to corporations under NAFTA’s similar terms. The cases include attacks on natural resource policies, environmental protection, and health and safety measures. Korea has just as much of an interest in fixing these provisions as we do, and there are indications that Korean officials would be amenable to doing so. Certainly, the Korean public is as upset over them as we are. Anyone who saw the tens of thousands of Korean protestors on the streets during the G-20 FTA talks this month is aware that inking Bush’s NAFTA-style deal does not improve U.S. standing or relations in Korea. That a bad Korea FTA deal was not completed in Seoul means the Obama administration has time to make the handful of other essential changes to Bush’s agreement and avoid a politically disastrous flip-flop on his campaign promises for trade reform. The question is: Will President Obama seize this opportunity to tackle our jobs crisis by starting to reform our failed trade policy like he promised as a candidate? His promised trade reform is a sure winner policywise and politically.

Read the full article →

Lloyd Chapman: SBA Loses Legal Battle Over Crisis Management PR Contract

November 26, 2010

The Small Business Administration (SBA) has lost another Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Small Business League (ASBL). The ASBL filed suit after the SBA refused to turn over information on potentially damaging public relations contracts awarded by the agency to APCO Worldwide Inc., an international public relations firm specializing in crisis management. The ASBL suspects the SBA has spent American tax dollars to hire consultants to help obscure the SBA’s role in diverting billions of dollars a month in federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms and other large businesses around the world. The ASBL believes the SBA may have launched a massive campaign to cover-up the diversion of federal small business contracts to large businesses, and to discourage the media from covering the issue. In one case, the SBA paid $30,000 for a one-day meeting with APCO executives. In winning the lawsuit, the ASBL has now forced the SBA to turn over complete copies of those contracts. Since 2003, more than a dozen federal investigations have uncovered billions of dollars a month in federal small business contracts are going to corporate giants. In Report 5-15 , the SBA’s own Office of Inspector General (IG) referred to the issue as, “One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration and the entire Federal government today.” In Report 5-16 from March of 2005, the SBA IG reported that large businesses had committed fraud by misrepresenting themselves as small businesses through “false certifications,” and “improper certifications.” Another investigation from the SBA Office of Advocacy found large businesses had received federal small business contracts fraudulently through what they referred to as “vendor deception.” In recent years, the SBA has claimed the diversion of federal small business contracts to large corporations has been the result of harmless “miscoding.” In May of 2007, the SBA even went as far as to claim that it was a “myth” that large corporations received federal small business contracts. We are going to continue to sue the SBA to force the release of information that shows they have encouraged and protected firms that have committed felony contracting fraud. The proposal to combine the SBA with the Commerce Department is just the latest attempt by the government to cover up billions of dollars in abuse, while trying to further dismantle federal small business contracting programs.

Read the full article →

Al Norman: Wal-Mart’s Wooing of the Reverend Sharpton

November 21, 2010

Preaching Their Way Into Manhattan ‘ By Al Norman Wal-Mart continues its urban warfare campaign, looking to colonize communities of color by co-opting black opinion-makers. They have done this in Chicago, where the retailer enlisted black Aldermen to embrace their cause, and in New Orleans, where developers actually paid black religious leaders to testify at public hearings about the virtues of chain stores. Now they are mining the black community in New York City. The most notable recruitment of black talent happened almost five years ago. In February of 2006, Wal-Mart proudly announced that “civil rights pioneer” Andrew Young had signed on as “national Steering Committee Chairman” of a new corporate creation called the Working Families for Wal-Mart, which the retailer described as “a group comprised of individuals and families who understand and appreciate Wal-Mart’s positive impact on the working families of America.” Less than six months later, Andrew Young’s reputation as a “civil rights pioneer” had crashed and burned in what one newspaper called a “spectacular setback” for Wal-Mart’s PR effort. The meteoric nosedive of Andrew Young came in one embarrassing quote the former Atlanta Mayor made during an interview with the Los Angeles Sentinel . When asked if he was concerned about Wal-Mart causing smaller, mom and pop stores to close, Young replied, “”Well, I think they should; they ran the `mom and pop’ stores out of my neighborhood. But you see, those are the people who have been overcharging us, selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables. And they sold out and moved to Florida. I think they’ve ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it’s Arabs; very few black people own these stores.” It didn’t take long for two events to follow: 1) a contrite apology from Young, and 2) an immediate divorce by Wal-Mart from any connection to Andrew Young. The former Ambassador issued an apology to the media: “I apologize for those comments. I retract those comments. And I ask for the forgiveness of those I have offended.” Young added that his remarks about Jews, Koreans and Arabs “in no way reflect on Wal-Mart’s record, progress or role as a diverse employer and community citizen.” Wal-Mart’s PR creation, the Working Families For Wal-Mart, promptly exited from the stage. The group put the following statement on its website: “Working Families for Wal-Mart is saddened by the resignation of Ambassador Andrew Young as chairman of our national steering committee. We do not condone or support the insensitive statements he recently made, but appreciate his sincere apology. We are hopeful that history will remember the many contributions he has made to the civil rights movement and his tireless efforts on behalf of working families. Our organization consists of over 140,000 members across the country. We have several local advisory boards made up of community leaders and activists committed to our cause. We all believe that Wal-Mart makes significant contributions to America’s working families. Our organization will continue to grow and make a difference in this national debate.” The Anti-Defamation League responded quickly as well. “Andrew Young’s comments that Jewish, Korean and Arab shopkeepers “ripped off” African-American communities…were offensive, hurtful and shameful,” the ADL noted. “That a leader of the civil rights movement and one who knew discrimination firsthand would make such comments, demonstrates that even people of color are not immune from being bigoted, racist and anti-Semitic.” This week, Crain’s New York Business reports that Wal-Mart is wooing black leaders again. The retailer invited a handful of black icons in New York City to visit the mothership in Bentonville, Arkansas. The Reverend Al Sharpton made the pilgrimage to Arkansas to attend a 3 day ‘stakeholder summit’ put on by Wal-Mart. Sharpton mingled with black leaders from other major metro areas, including Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. Sharpton, it turns out, has been a Wal-Mart acolyte for several years, and sits on what Crain’s called “an external advisory board” for the company. At these stakeholder’s events, Wal-Mart touts its philanthropic record, its hiring of minorities, and other corporate policies relevant to the black community. It is unlikely that Wal-Mart discussed the Dukes V. Wal-Mart case, the largest class action lawsuit in the history of retailing, in which the lead plaintiff suing Wal-Mart is a black woman. “There’s a lot of negative information out there about Wal-Mart, and they were trying to get their side of the story out,” Crain’s quoted one member of 100 Black Men of New York as saying. The Wal-Mart summit was apparently a sound check for the retailer’s upcoming push into Manhattan, which will be patterned on its work in Chicago, where black churchs and politicians were recruited to carry Wal-Mart’s water. A company spokesman told Crain’s the black leaders were being prepped for “helping us tell the Wal-Mart story.” Thus far, union and political leaders in the New York boroughs have been telling Wal-Mart’s story too—but theirs is a tale of exploitation, of racial discrimination, and of congenital anti-labor behavior. The Black Power movement of the 1960s, which preached self-empowerment, and local control of business, has been supplanted by Wal-Mart’s pitch for corporate benevolence and southern carpetbagging. Wal-Mart targets minority areas, arguing that only they go into ‘food deserts’ to open up grocery stores where other chain stores have fled. But what happened to the local black entrepreneurs? They now wear a Wal-Mart ID tag on their polo shirt. Crain’s reports that Wal-Mart has retained the same lobbyist that Ikea used to help push its way into the Brooklyn neighborhood of Red Hook, a site that drew fire from the anti-big box neighbors. So Wal-Mart invited leaders from the Urban League, the NAACP and other black groups to drink the kool-aid in Bentonville. But not everyone is drinking. The head of one group, The Black Institute, told Crain’s , “I don’t care who they sequester in Bentonville, they’re going to get a fight.” Some black leaders have been hard to convert to Wal-Mart’s voodoo economics. During the Andrew Young fiasco, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a black church leader in Chicago, criticized Young for taking a paid position as a Wal-Mart spokesman. Wright accused Young of “siding with the filthy rich who are oppressing the poor.” In October of 2006, Jesse Jackson, Sr., president of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, had charged that Wal-Mart was trying to buy off its critics in the black community. “Rainbow/PUSH has criticized Wal-Mart openly and publicly and consistently and they’ve tried to virtually throw money at us,” Jackson told the Louisiana Weekly newspaper. But Jackson refused to take Wal-Mart money. “I think they want to leverage our organization. I think they want to leverage us into silence. And, I’m not being self-righteous, but we feel that we ought to be the last one to stand if it comes to that.” Wal-Mart apparently feels that opinion leaders in the minority community can be purchased at an everyday low price, and that black stakeholders can become Wal-Mart sign-holders. But community leaders of any color who believe that Wal-Mart creates new jobs, don’t understand what the economic libertarians call creative destructionism–the process of destroying existing jobs in order to create ‘new’ ones. The former employees at Circuit City, for example, understand this dynamic. No amount of good works or philanthropy can clean the hands of the “filthy rich,” or cover over the global exploitation of human resources that lies at the heart of Wal-Mart’s success. Reverend Sharpton will find no economic salvation in Bentonville. Instead he will taste the philosophical equivalent of what Andrew Young once called “stale bread and bad meat.” Al Norman is the founder of Sprawl-Busters, which has helped communities fight big box sprawl for the past 17 years. He is the author of Slam-Dunking Wal-Mart.

Read the full article →

American Media Files For Chap 11

November 21, 2010

American Media and its 15 affiliates have filed for Chapter 11 protection in the US Bankruptcy Court

Read the full article →

Steven Hill: Reconsidering Japan, Reconsidering Paul Krugman

November 19, 2010

The New York Times is doing a series on Japan that it describes as an examination of “the effects on Japanese society of two decades of economic stagnation and declining prices.” Reading the series is about as cheery a task as rubbernecking at a car wreck on I-95. But unfortunately the Times series simply repeats the “conventional wisdom” about Japan put out by the same economic experts who missed an $8 trillion housing bubble in the United States, and in fact have been wrong on most of the big economic issues over the past two decades. Look at it this way: In the midst of the Great Recession, the United States is suffering through nearly 10% unemployment and 50 million people without health insurance. A new report has found over 14% of Americans living below the poverty line, including 20% of children and 23% of seniors, the highest since President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. That’s in addition to declining prospects for the middle class, and a general increase in economic insecurity. How, then, should we regard a country that has 5% unemployment, healthcare for all its people, the lowest income inequality and is one of the world’s leading exporters? This country also scores high on life expectancy, low on infant mortality, is at the top in literacy, and is low on crime, incarceration, homicides, mental illness and drug abuse. It also has a low rate of carbon emissions, doing its part to reduce global warming. In all these categories, this particular country beats both the U.S. and China by a country mile. Doesn’t that sound like a country from which Americans might learn a thing or two about how to get out of the mud hole in which we are stuck? Not if that place is Japan. During and before the current economic crisis, few countries have been vilified as an economic basket case as much as the Land of the Rising Sun. Google “Japan and its economy” and you will get numerous hits about Japan’s allegedly sclerotic economy, its zombie banks, its deflation and slow economic growth. This malaise has even been called “Japan syndrome”, sounding like a disease to warn policymakers, as in “you don’t want to end up like Japan.” No one has been more influential in defining this narrative than New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman. Throughout the 1990s, and still occasionally today, Krugman has skewered Japan’s economy and leaders. In the late 1990s, Krugman wrote a series of gloom-and-doom articles, complete with equations, theories and titles like “Japan’s Trap” and “Setting Sun”, bluntly stating: “The state of Japan is a scandal, an outrage, a reproach. It is operating far below its productive capacity, simply because its consumers and investors do not spend enough.” Krugman was commenting on Japan’s so-called “lost decade” of the 1990s, when the Japanese economy was considered sluggish and underperforming. But let’s look at some of the Japanese metrics during that time. Throughout the 1990s the Japanese unemployment rate was — ready for this? — about three percent. Not 30, that’s 3. About half the US unemployment rate at the time. During that allegedly “lost decade,” the Japanese also had universal healthcare, less inequality, the highest life expectancy, and low rates of infant mortality, crime and incarceration. Americans should be so lucky as to experience a Japanese-style lost decade. Reopening the case of Japan raises some important questions. How do economists such as Krugman decide what to value and prioritize, or what to measure? What is an economy for? To produce the prosperity, security and services that people need? Or to satisfy economists and their equations, theories and models? For too many economic Cassandras, if their spreadsheet columns don’t add up, if the surplus nations don’t balance the deficit nations and the supply doesn’t meet the demand, then disaster surely awaits. Krugman has gone on the attack again recently, this time in a debate over fiscal stimulus vs. deficit reduction as a strategy toward economic recovery. As a stimulus hawk, he has written that the Germans — one of the few economic bright spots in a struggling global economy — “seem to be getting their talking points from the collected speeches of Herbert Hoover.” He is criticizing Germany for the same thing he criticizes Japan — not spending or consuming enough to stimulate its economy. But what exactly are the Germans or Japanese supposed to buy more of? Surely Krugman has visited both countries, and it’s plainly evident that neither are lacking in any material goods or modern trinkets to speak of. Americans are the only ones who seem to think they need three refrigerators, four televisions and a car for everyone in the household. Too many economists have yet to figure out that it is this consumer-driven economic model that has crashed and burned. Japan’s economy has been and remains successful. So is Germany’s. Unlike the trickle down U.S. economy, Japan and Germany have reached an economic steady state in which they don’t need roaring growth rates to provide for their people, and here’s why: they are better at sharing the wealth produced by their economies to foster a more broadly shared prosperity among their populaces. But for the economic experts, apparently, it doesn’t matter if people’s needs are being met; what matters is whether their theories and equations balance. Similarly with the media like the New York Times , which has been getting it wrong for years — they also missed an $8 trillion housing bubble, as well as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (prompting the Times to issue an unprecedented mea culpa to their readers). In the same way, the Times and the rest of the media have been missing the real story about what is occurring in Japan and Europe. As a result, there is a common sense aspect to this that gets lost amid the rhetoric and the headlines. Two lessons of our times are that economic bubbles eventually burst, and that the environmental consequences of unbridled growth in this age of global warming are severe. The world needs to figure out how advanced economies can provide for their people without having roaring growth rates driven by asset bubbles. If consumer-driven growth was the order of the day in the post-World War II era, going forward it is going to be steady-state economic growth — growing not too fast, but not too slowly — and learning to do more with less. Yet stimulus hawks like Krugman don’t seem to get this; they want to crank the “growth machine” into full gear with huge government stimulus spending. But the real game is no longer strictly about economic growth, it’s also about sustainability. The era of U.S.-style trickle-down economies is over for wealthy countries because trickle-down is neither economically sound nor ecologically sustainable. The developed nations must lead the way towards a different path of development. This is not an easy challenge, yet it is the course that Japan and Germany have chosen. If the U.S. didn’t have such a trickle-down economy that has produced so much inequality — if it was, in fact, better at sharing its wealth — perhaps it wouldn’t need so much fiscal stimulus and growth. At the recent G-20 meeting in Seoul, South Korea, German Chancellor Angela Merkel rebuffed President Barack Obama and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner’s appeals to go back to the toxic economics of Wall Street capitalism. Said Merkel, “It is essential to return to a sustainable growth path.” One cause of the crisis was that “we did not have sustainable growth. In many countries growth was built on debt and [speculative] bubbles.” Her finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, was even more blunt. He described American policy as “clueless” and said the American growth model is stuck in a deep crisis. “The USA lived off credit for too long, inflated its financial sector massively and neglected its industrial base.” Catch the irony: Germany — previously sneered at by U.S. pundits for its “weak and sclerotic” economy — is lecturing America about how to grow our economy. Given Germany’s 6.7% unemployment (compared to 9.6% in the US) and an impressive record at manufacturing things that the rest of the world wants to buy, the Obama administration as well as Paul Krugman should be listening attentively. Steven Hill is a political writer whose latest book is Europe’s Promise: Why the European Way is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age (www.EuropesPromise.org). He is blogging about his recent 12-nation, 20-city speaking tour in Europe at ” Dispatches from Europe ” posted by the Washington Monthly website.

Read the full article →

Charles Gasparino: GM IPO Continues Trend of Rewarding Those Who Failed

November 18, 2010

What do the General Motors and the nation’s big banks have in common? They’ve both been bailed out by the federal government and, were it not for government largess, neither would be here today celebrating the automaker’s largely successful stock offering. It’s an irony that has escaped most of the media amid all the hoopla over GM’s “initial public offering,” which is an odd way to describe what is happening now regarding GM’s return to the public markets. IPOs, of course, are usually reserved for relatively new companies that have created new products or services in such a way that investors see promise in their future. GM, on the other hand, is a washed up maker or inferior cars. Its laundry list of problems — from failing to compete with Japanese brands to a bloated work force — pushed the company into bankruptcy in 2009, from which it emerged only after a $50 billion bailout from the government. Thanks to yesterday’s stock sale, GM is about 2/3 the way through paying back the money it owes the taxpayer. The rest is expected to be paid back over the next few years. So far, it’s unclear if the taxpayers will benefit from any of this; now stripped of many of its liabilities and flush with government handouts, GM is marginally profitable again. The stock opened at a healthy $33 a share (it “popped” on the opening a couple bucks before coming down a bit in price). But some analysts say it will have to double in value over the next year or so for the taxpayer to be made whole. While it’s unclear whether taxpayers will make money out the GM fiasco, it’s pretty clear Wall Street already has. Yesterday’s rally in the stock market was attributed to strong demand for the IPO of a company designated Too Big To Fail. Traders who managed to get their hands on the new GM shares were “flipping” them or selling them sometime after the market opened, which is why the price shot up at the opening before settling down as investors took profits on the initial run up. Even worse were the fees raked in by the big Wall Street firms that underwrote the stock issue. Let’s not forget that GM has company on the government’s Too Big To Fail list, and it’s the big Wall Street firms like Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, the top underwriters of the deal. Combined, the banks received $135 billion in bailout money during the 2008 financial crisis, and that doesn’t consider the countless billions they received through guarantees and other subsidies over the past two years. They are said to split a little under $120 million in fees, which we are all told is low compared to some other corporate deals. Recently some people at the Wall Street firms have complained not just about the relatively low fees but also about the fact that they had to split those fees with several minority-owned firms, which also have positions in the underwriting group. These outfits, of course, received a much smaller portion of the deal, so they made less money than the big firms. But executives at the large banks noted that many of the minority firms and their executives have made political donations to President Obama, which given the government’s ownership stake in the company, accounted for their presence on the deal. Give me a break. The saddest part about this nonsense is that it actually made its way into the deal’s coverage by a financial news television station (hint: it’s not the one I now work for now). Why is it such nonsense? Aside from the fact that many of GMs’ employees are in fact minorities, that all of the big firms in the main underwriting group were also big contributors to the Obama presidential campaign (for more on this check out my new book Bought and Paid for ), or that in just one example of political cronyism, Tom Nides, the No. 2 executive at lead underwriter Morgan Stanley has been appointed for a top position in the Obama White House, not one minority-owned firm needed a bailout in 2008. In other words, maybe it should be the minority-owned firms running the deal instead of the likes of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs?

Read the full article →

Janine R. Wedel: Shadow Elite: Truthiness, Porn and the Real Problem With Reality TV

November 18, 2010

What do the makers of reality TV and the makers of pornography have in common with some of America’s top power brokers? It may be less of a stretch than it sounds. All three exploit (and have helped usher in) a culture of truthiness, resulting in a polarized citizenry content to sit in their own self-assembled fact “cocoon”. This culture has also created a sort of backlash quest among viewers and voters for the scarcest of commodities these days: authenticity. Good luck finding it. Truthiness was named by Stephen Colbert only five years ago, but the trend he identified was already at least a decade in the making. It is one of the ways in which Western culture has moved away from many of the distinctions it once made. Institutional lines of authority frayed with the Cold War’s end. Today, think tanks act as news outlets, news outlets act as entertainment companies and corporations daily stand in for government. In the broader culture, new technology and social networking, along with the collapse of old-school media, fostered an explosion of (cheap) opinionated and confessional content. This meant that the distinctions between politics and entertainment, work and play, truth and fiction have become increasingly amorphous. The concept of truthiness itself bears some similarity to the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard’s notion of “simulacra.” Baudrillard argued that today’s society is constructed around “simulacra,” which (then) become reality. Simulation, unlike pretense, and like “truthiness,” produces real intuitive feelings, emotions, or symptoms in someone, and, therefore, blurs the difference between the “real” and “imaginary.” Today, it is the idea of reality that is often being performed and sought by the media, leaving the reality much more elusive. And there are examples across the culture that people are craving displays of certitude and authenticity, emphasis on the word “displays”: more often than not, what’s billed as true and real is merely the idea of reality or a kind of hyperreality. The explosion of reality TV, of course, is a blatant case. One would have to be as guileless as, say, Kenneth the Page on NBC’s 30 Rock to believe that reality TV is real and yet, does anyone believe that Jersey Shore would reach such a cultural saturation point if it was a fictional program? Its appeal seems to lie in the fact that it’s neither real nor fake, but actually exists in a limbo land between the two. “Snooki” is the bastard child of the contrived and the authentic. It’s notable too that the desperate TV housewives with the most buzz these days aren’t the fictionals ones on ABC, but the supposed “real” housewives on Bravo, who seem more fake than the fake ones. Janine spoke last spring with reality TV creator Howard Schultz who saw a niche to be filled in an environment where verifiable truth was in very short supply: Lying [has now been] elevated to an art form… We have many names – like ‘little white lies’ and ‘spin doctoring’. When the truth becomes relative, you lose your compass for traveling in life. I created [a show] that’s trying to introduce people back to the thing called truth–which is not your opinion, not what you feel. When opinion or feeling becomes the method of the moment, you lose sight that there is something called the truth. The moment everything becomes relative, there’s no way out….Nothing is held to account. People were held to account on Schultz’ show, to be sure – Fox’s wince-inducing Moment of Truth program from a few years ago. Contestants were asked increasingly embarrassing and personal questions, and the answers were judged true or false depending on the polygraph the contestants took before the show. The program aims for what most reality shows aim for and exploit: emotional spectacle. And at the heart of the marketing is that these are real people – would the spectacle be a spectacle if it was fictionalized? In a truthiness era, fiction just doesn’t hold the appeal and the reality has to be “realer than real.” The commodification of authenticity is even seen in what we think of as the land of artificial desire and silicone dreams, where everything is almost by definition a performance: the porn business. Anthropology professor Hülya Demirdirek who studies cyber porn culture, among other things, argues that these days one of the most compelling selling points in online porn is that what you are seeing is “real”, performed by supposed “amateurs”, whereas in the past there was little denial that the porn stars were acting. (It’s worth noting that non-simulated “real” sex has also been showing up in art house films like Michael Winterbottom’s 2004 9 Songs and 2003′s Brown Bunny , which is probably best known for featuring real sex acts between director Vincent Gallo and ex-girlfriend, actress Chloe Sevigny.) Janine in Shadow Elite explores how the most nimble power brokers of our day — she calls them flexians — are not supposed to be performing, but in fact are performing in whichever role suits their interest at that moment. Demirdirek’s porn stars are supposed to be performing but are going to great to lengths to show that they are not performing and that what they are doing is actually real. She argues that once a culture is saturated with performance, the artificial is no longer the premium product. So what does it matter that reality TV isn’t real (cue the collective “Duh”), or that porn stars are (gasp) faking it? The problem is that this blurring of the real and the fake — enabled by technology and social networking — is now hardly confined to popular culture. Those flexians, in Janine’s view, many of whom are purportedly working in the public interest, exploit all these vast new gray spaces where once was black and white. Players can easily get away with stage-managing their self-presentations, portraying themselves in ways that baldly contradict their previous presentations and realities. This is why a top power broker with a dismal track record and numerous controversies (like, say, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers) can keep taking on roles of influence. Some argue that the public has gotten so used to constructed narratives with the veneer of truth that when neoconservatives within the Bush administration wanted to take the U.S. to war with Iraq in 2003, they were readily able to peddle, as the New York Times ‘ Frank Rich put it, “the greatest story ever sold.” For some porn stars, though, the pressure to offer the pretense of real can mean a more private tragedy: some Los Angeles production companies recently shut down because a performer tested positive for HIV. In the porn world, unfortunately, “real” sex is often, by all appearances, unprotected sex. No amount of performing or truthiness can rewrite that harsh bit of reality.

Read the full article →

LEWIS PR Appoints Adam Singer as Social Media Practice Director

November 16, 2010

Founder of The Future Buzz Blog to Drive Social Media Best Practice and Leadership

Read the full article →

Merton and Joan Bernstein: Mistake About Social Security Distorts Sunday New York Times Budget Exercise

November 15, 2010

Sunday’s New York Times , focused on national deficits, introduces its section on Social Security with the statement that, “Social Security is projected to run a deficit by 2015…” There follows a menu of Social Security proposed reductions to avert such a dreadful outcome. You’ll be relieved to hear that the statement is incorrect. But, then you’ll be concerned that the media, deciders and opinion makers and the public, used to depending upon the Times for solid information, will consider the budget debate with that major distortion in mind. The facts: In 2015, the Social Security trustees’ latest report projects program outlays will exceed Social Security payroll tax revenues slightly. But Social Security has two other dedicated income streams. In 2015 one source — taxes on the benefits received by high earners — just about cancels that difference. The third stream — interest on money borrowed by the Treasury from the Social Security Trust fund — would add $154 billion in revenues. So, official projections for 2015 show Social Security generating a surplus of $151 billion. Some pooh-pooh that interest owed by Treasury as IOUs. But IOUs (more formally called “bonds” or “debt obligations”) are what public and private trust funds hold. And among those securities, U.S. Treasury obligations are bought by other nations’ central banks and private investment funds because U.S. Treasuries are so highly valued around the world. Those Treasury obligations came into the Social Security Trust Fund because, since 1983, Treasury borrowed the portion of Social Security income left over after the program paid all benefits when due. Those surpluses and the taxes from high earners were a purposeful part of the 1983 Social Security legislation, designed to provide a long-term cushion for the program and to assure the public that Social Security was socking away funds to supplement payroll tax revenues when needed. Those surpluses now total some $2.5 trillion and will grow to about $4.2 trillion by 2024 enabling the payment of full benefits through 2037. . Social Security participants have already paid for those benefits. So any Treasury borrowing is, not to pay for Social Security, but to repay the borrowing from the Social Security trust fund; that was used largely to pay for the unfunded Iraq and Afghanistan wars and offset the Bush tax cuts. But for that borrowing, income and corporate taxes would have been higher and/or U.S. payments for non-Social Security activities would have been smaller. It would seem fair that the beneficiaries of those wars — certainly not the men and women who waged them, nor their families — but rather the contractors who made out like bandits (which some were) and the general public and corporations spared higher taxes — should replace those funds. That’s an entirely different allocation of future burdens than cutting Social Security as so widely proposed in discussions of deficit reduction. The New York Times ‘ error was not some minor or a technical glitch but a mistake that distorts the whole exercise the Times put before its readers to decide how to reduce projected deficits. Polls repeatedly show popular support for modest increases in the payroll tax, proposals absent from the Times budget exercise. One very gradual change starting in 2015, after the recession is over, would increase the payroll tax by one-twentieth of one percent for both employees and employers for twenty years. That boost would banish more than two-thirds of Social Security’s small long-term shortfall. In combination with raising the taxable amount of wages to its historic level, would make Social Security solvent for 75 years. Both poll very favorably. Preserving, and indeed improving, Social Security should be a top domestic priority. Social Security, the nation’s most effective anti-poverty program, is the mainstay of our retirees, providing the largest source of retirement income. The recession decimated private pensions and savings devices like 401(k)s and IRAs, making Social Security even more vital to seniors, the disabled and their families — over 50 million people. It makes no sense for Republicans to adamantly insist on extending the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, at the cost of $4 trillion, while reducing the most important income support program for the rest of the population. And despite reassurances that current Social Security recipients would be unaffected, reducing cost-of-living adjustments, COLA, starting in 2012, is a central feature of such reductions We should not permit the specter of future deficits to further distract our attention and efforts from the most urgent problems millions of Americans already face — the lack of jobs and work income, the loss of millions of homes to foreclosure, and the huge but avoidable non-benefit costs of our health care non-system.

Read the full article →

Youth Radio — Youth Media International: Future of Business, Millennial-Style

November 11, 2010

Originally published on Youthradio.org , the premier source for youth generated news throughout the globe. By Robyn Gee Youth Radio recently profiled a company called Mr. Youth , a marketing agency targeting youth consumers. They claim to be experts in engaging young people, which includes enticing young people to remain on their own payroll for long periods of time. They were recently voted one of the best places to work in New York City by Crain’s magazine. Mr. Youth recently collaborated with Intrepid , to conduct a study with the goal of finding out how Millennials, or people born in the 1980s, would design and manage a company. The results of the study provide insight into the minds of young people today, and how our companies will be run in the near future.

Read the full article →

China Auto Logistics Management Team Further Strengthened With Addition of "Goodcar" CEO Yuan Guohua

November 11, 2010

Experienced Media Exec Expected to Help Foster Significant E-Commerce Growth

Read the full article →

China Auto Logistics Management Team Further Strengthened With Addition of "Goodcar" CEO Yuan Guohua

November 11, 2010

Experienced Media Exec Expected to Help Foster Significant E-Commerce Growth

Read the full article →

Abacast Raises $500,000 for Accelerated Expansion

November 11, 2010

Participating Investors Include Existing Shareholders and New Strategic Investors; Veteran Digital Media Executive Rob Green Named CEO

Read the full article →

Abacast Raises $500,000 for Accelerated Expansion

November 11, 2010

Participating Investors Include Existing Shareholders and New Strategic Investors; Veteran Digital Media Executive Rob Green Named CEO

Read the full article →

Michael Hudson: My Talk With Michael Hudson, Part 1

November 10, 2010

Michael Hudson and Michael Hudson are often mistaken for each other. Along with sharing a name, they share an interest in the creative ways that some people help themselves to other people’s money. Michael Hudson the economist — author of such books as Super Imperialism — teaches at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. In 2006, he wrote a prescient cover story for Harper’s entitled ” The New Road to Serfdom: An illustrated guide to the coming real estate collapse .” Michael W. Hudson the reporter is a staff writer at the Center for Public Integrity , a nonprofit news organization. He’s been credited with being far ahead of the media pack in exposing subprime lenders’ methods. He’s the author of the new book, The Monster: How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America, and Spawned a Global Crisis . This is Part 1 of an edited transcript of an email conversation between the two Michael Hudsons. Michael W. Hudson, reporter : First of all, let me apologize for all the confusion that the publication of my book has caused. I’ve lost count of the magazines and Web sites have identified me as you, and vice versa. I am not trying to assume your identity. I swear. I first became aware of the “Will-the-real-Michael-Hudson-please-stand-up?” problem in the spring of 2006. I started getting compliments from friends and colleagues for your Harper ‘s piece about the coming real estate bust. I pushed aside the unworthy impulse to simply say, “Thanks,” and explained that I hadn’t written the story. A different Michael Hudson, an economist, had written it. Besides the fact that there was another Michael Hudson out there writing a Harper ‘s cover story I wished I’d written, the thing that struck me was your willingness to go beyond a “what-goes-up-must-come-down” analysis of the housing run-up. You came right out and declared that “this particular real estate bubble has been carefully engineered to lure home buyers into circumstances detrimental to their own best interests.” I was also intrigued by the way you questioned not only the sustainability but also the ideology of the housing boom, noting how going into debt — taking on a huge mortgage — had become defined as an “investment,” as a path to not only wealth but freedom as well. As I reported on the mortgage market, one thing that fascinated me was how the impresarios of the housing boom used the idea of the American dream to clear the way. They talked about homeownership as if nothing else mattered. Even Ameriquest , the most notorious of the subprime sharks, called itself “Proud Sponsor of the American Dream” and described its mission as “helping people achieve their homeownership dreams and financial freedom.” There was one problem: Ameriquest almost never made home purchase mortgages. It was a refi shop. In 2004, one quarter of 1 percent of its loans went for home purchases. Rather than promoting home ownership, Ameriquest’s loans increased the odds that borrowers would end up in foreclosure, by ratcheting up the amount of debt they owed on their homes. The rhetoric worked well, though, on Democrats who worried about minority access to credit as well as on Republicans who embraced George W. Bush’s “ownership society.” Some conservatives have pushed the talking point that liberal Democrats “forced” bankers to make subprime loans. The lenders made these loans, however, not because government required them to do so, but because they were wildly profitable. What the homeownership spiel did, though, was give the mortgage lenders a fig leaf they could hide behind. Whenever somebody suggested tougher rules on home loans, the mortgage industry painted it as an assault on homeownership and equal opportunity. Michael Hudson, economist : I first heard of you about a decade ago. A Norwegian economist greeted me at a German economics conference and telling me that he had just bought my latest book. He then proudly held up your first book on consumer debt, Merchants of Misery , and suggested I autograph it. The next year there was a third Michael Hudson at the same conference, giving an article on Georg Simmel’s Philosophy of Money . The offprints were mailed to me by mistake. I began to wonder if there was something in the numerology of names that led to three Michael Hudsons all dealing with money and credit. I never heard of the third MH again, but I began reading your articles , especially after you joined the Wall Street Journal . While you were dealing with the abuses on the ground level, I was dealing with the economy-wide debt level. I’m on the economics faculty at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. UMKC is the main alternative to the Chicago School monetarists. Where the Chicago Schoolers speak of “money” and relate it to consumer prices, I focus on credit and relate it to asset prices. I popularized my academic articles for Harpers in 2006, explaining how real estate prices were determined by how much a bank would lend. Lower interest rates, slower amortization rates (“interest-only loans”), lower down payments and easier credit terms enabled millions of Americans to take on huge debts today with the hope of reaping huge capital gains sometime in the future — or simply to avoid having to pay more as home prices rose beyond their means. Your articles showed how the mortgage brokers and other pilot fish for Wall Street increased debt pyramiding by outright fraud. These sleight-of-hand lending practices at the local level were enabled by junk economics at the highest level. Alan Greenspan became a Bubblemeister, applauded by CNBC and the media for convincing them that prices bid up by debt leveraging was “wealth creation.” This wealth creation really was debt creation. That’s what was bidding up real estate prices — just as was the case with leveraged buyouts bidding up stock prices during the takeover wave. And a rising proportion of this debt was “empty” debt, without any corresponding real value. Much of it simply represented hope that real estate prices would rise all the more. And much of it was based on fictitious income statements, fictitious appraisals, fictitious mortgages filled in by crooks — thousands of people all involved in financial crime. As my UMKC colleague Bill Black has noted, not a single major player has been indicted in the recent financial scandals — except for the one person who walked into a police station with his hands up and surrendered (Bernie Madoff).

Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: Sorkin on the transparency dilemma

November 9, 2010

Like a drum major, Andrew Ross Sorkin leads his marching band to DealB%k’s new page right after Itineraries in today’s New York Times. Welcome to dead-tree media. In his Tuesday M&A column, Sorkin tackles a big issue, transparency, though it’s a little hard to tell where he comes down on it. He’s for it, of course; only communists and denizens of dark markets could possibly be against transparency. But it’s confounding. Sorkin himself admits that he once thought that allowing companies to announce news off their websites was a swell idea. After all, the Internet, birthplace of DealB%k (do we all have to use that damn “%” now?), represented the closest thing to ubiquity that we have. But then Microsoft tried it out, and while the globe still spins, Sorkin got a call from the chairman and CEO of PR Newswire and Business Wire, both of which are threatened by the development, complaining of confusion and delays. Let’s sort this out. There undoubtedly was some confusion, although it’s not necessarily clear that, as Sorkin says, “the system doesn’t work nearly as well [as the old].” Any change requires adjustment. And the biggest problem, slight delays, would seem to affect mostly the high-frequency trading crowd, which has done more to bring opacity back into equity trading than any other group this side of the dark market folks. Should we worry that some high-frequency traders might have to wait? Should the standards of dissemination be set by the cutting edge of speculative trading? And most importantly, have we confused dissemination with transparency? These are difficult questions. Sorkin cites Regulation Fair Disclosure, or Reg FD, which the Securities and Exchange Commission launched in 2000 to “combat selective disclosure.” When Reg FD became effective, the howls, mostly from the media (notably The Wall Street Journal), were loud and strident. The then-mainstream business media worried that banning “selective” disclosure meant that sources would dry up; and indeed orchestrated deal placements did fizzle out. Generally, nearly everyone hated Reg FD except the lawyers: Companies didn’t know what the rules really meant, analysts felt able to cater to some clients and not others (Eliot Spitzer was lurking as well), and investors felt the policy would simply be used to justify disseminating less information. It was a hassle, but while it’s hard to tell whether Reg FD made the world better or worse, the situation has long since settled down. Still, Reg FD did represent a subtle shift, which is exacerbated by the Web-based transmission of information. First, Reg FD was not about transparency as content, but about transparency as a sort of equality of dissemination: No one should have an advantage by getting information first. Second, Reg FD was an acknowledgment by the SEC that fair-trading was important; it was an attempt to level the playing field between institutions and individuals (the fact that it appeared at the height of the dot-com bubble is important). In that sense, Reg FD was a response to abundant Internet data, which gave the appearance of leveling the informational disparity that had long defined the two groups. And of course even then, the Internet had all but destroyed the timeliness and relevance of market quotes and data in the business pages of hard-copy newspapers. In short, Reg FD attempted to set rules for markets defined not by long-term investors, but by short-term speculators. The debate over Internet disclosure took this further. Transparency is not just the equal dissemination of information; it’s immediacy of access: No one should struggle to find information. The issue now is not that newspaper stock pages are rendered obsolete, but that media websites, fed by PR Newswire and Business Wire, find themselves scrambling to pick up information from corporate websites. They’re like everyone else out there. The advantage here goes to those who can quickly and easily monitor corporate sites, which may (or may not be) Reuters, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times, but could as easily be any organization with sophisticated RSS feeds. (Meaning, of course, day traders remain at a disadvantage.) Sorkin now finds himself uncomfortably caught between the omnipresence of the Web and traditional news intermediaries, like PR Newswire and the Times itself. The issue capsulizes the mounting difficulties of transparency in an age of increasingly rapid-fire speculation — and not just for traditional news organizations. Regulators have spent so much time and effort chasing the chimera of the level playing field that they have lost any sense of improving “transparency-as-content” in an age that, through intensive technology and innovation, has made it harder and harder to understand what’s going on out there. More and more, we are struggling to regulate a thin slice of trading time that has little to do with traditional investing and everything to do with capturing the tiny perturbations of stocks, most of which have no “meaning” at all. Meanwhile, derivatives, dark markets, the interconnectivity of markets, remain enormous black boxes. Robert Teitelman is editor in chief of The Deal.

Read the full article →

Brett King: If you are looking for ROI from Social Media? Think again…

November 9, 2010

Thankfully, I think we are almost at the point of having serious conversations about how social media can be utilized in most organizations, rather than still asking the question “Is Social Media just a fad?”. However, there are some massive misconceptions on what social media will do for the organization. As a result, often we aren’t even hiring the right skills today to build a competent social media presence. We’re also looking to measure social media in a way we measure other marketing initiatives, channels, advertising campaigns and media, but social media is neither a channel, marketing, media or simply an initiative. Do you need a social media ‘ ‘…. Sentiment analysis, optimization, key influencer engagement, advocacy generation, brand monitoring and attributes, social media outreach, trending, buzz, listening post… Sounds extremely complicated. It needn’t be. The fact is, the reason all of these social media disciplines are popping up is because social media is taking us in new directions in respect to interactions both within the organization and with our customers. I find, however, that in many camps social media is considered a marketing function. Social Media Marketing is a term adopted by many to suggest that social media should become a part of an integrated marketing communications plan. But that falls short. Let me ask you this? Would you consider a teller in a bank, or a customer service representative sitting in a call center a marketer? Hmmm, well yes and no. They are involved in selling and/or marketing products, and they represent the brand. But this is a competency in it’s own right, and staff in the branch and call center are not managed by the marketing department. So how does someone tasked with responding to real-time Twitter or Facebook inquiries fit into marketing? They don’t. Campaigns don’t generally fit in social media either unless you can generate a viral campaign that adapts to social media. Having said that I was impressed by the “Buzz Marketing” initiative that IKEA produced at the end of last year. The fact is, just as when the Internet arrived in 1994 and the “Dot Com Bubble” started building momentum in 1999, we made a bunch of assumptions about how the ‘channel’ worked, and many of those proved to be wrong. Such as the assumption that you could be pure-play online ala Pets.com and people would use your site just because it was www cool . The truth is, you absolutely need to be involved in social media, but don’t expect that by hiring a few staff to put a Facebook page up and respond to Tweets in real-time will be the end of this discussion. We’re only just starting to understand the full impact of social media in business terms. How it is changing? I like Alex Schultze’s quote about the bursting of the social media bubble in his recent blog post : I’d say YES – the social media bubble is about to burst. People are recognizing already that the endless hours of watching the incoming streams from Twitter and Facebook or all the status updates on LinkedIn are hours wasted. All the paid tweets and people or agencies, who have been hired to tweet are not going to contribute to the bottom line. And the fan pages people build to get “fans, followers, connections” are just hopes that it will do something for the business – but it won’t. Alex Schultze – Xeesm The points are all valid, and yet, just like the dot com boom, when there is a ‘normalizing’ of core social media activities, that is when we’ll really start to use social media constructively and real returns will result. Firstly, we’ll understand how customers discuss or rate our products or services in a social context and what are the inflection points. Secondly, the mobile device will become even more critical as we start to recognize tribal behavior beyond the app, and see social media in the sphere of location and context. Lastly, we’ll see organizations starting to understand that the real-time nature of social media is something to be respected and responded too. It will start to shape more responsive organizations. In that way, perhaps the most important understanding about social media is that it is a leading strategy indicator, not a lagging ROI generator. “Show me the money!” The ironic thing is that you might already be getting ROI from Social Media, or losing revenue because of not having it and not even know it… When you engage communities digitally, it does directly result in positive brand sentiment, and it will help you learn about the needs of your customers, effect bottom line revenues, etc. However, can you point to a Facebook page, a quick turn around to a customer service problem on Twitter, and show the actual increases in bottom line revenue or net earnings? Probably not. So the problem is not ROI from social media, but how we measure organizational performance in respect to revenue. The traditional metrics are just not robust or granular enough to give us a perspective on this. Largely because we have such big disconnects between ‘revenue generation’ and customer journeys. Metrics generally assume that if revenue is generated in one channel, it is because the products rocks, that channel rocks, or because the marketing that lead customers to that channel rocks! That’s too simplistic a view of the world these days. I enjoyed the following slideshare presentation from Olivier Blanchard which satirizes the question of ROI in Social Media. Olivier Blanchard Basics Of Social Media Roi The key thing is that Social Media is definitely impacting a bunch of areas of business today, but it doesn’t fit cleanly into our accounting, balance-scorecarded, CPM driven world. The sweet-spot is to learn from social media, build that learning back into the business and adapt from the interactions that it drives. To do this, we need to think beyond ROI, but we most definitely need to be there, listening and engaging customers.

Read the full article →

Ecast Hires DOOH Media Veteran Chris Goumas for SVP, Marketing and Media Solutions

November 8, 2010

New Position to Play Key Role in Defining Company’s Place-Based Media Market Strategy

Read the full article →

The 10 Economic Commandments Of The Tea Party: 24/7 Wall Street

November 6, 2010

By 24/7 Wall Street : In the latter days of Rome, the economy was crumbling, the emperor … would placate the mob with bread and circus — food and entertainment to placate them since the economy was in shambles and dwindling around them,” Kentucky Senator-elect Rand Paul. It was only a few years ago that most Americans thought tea parties were old-fashioned get-togethers, featuring warm caffeinated beverages and bite-sized sandwiches. Of course, that’s no longer the case after this week’s election results. The Tea Party is a philosophy as much as a political movement. In fact, there is no single Tea Party or even a recognized leader, though several people including Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) could claim the title. It’s not necessarily pro-Republican either. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) was driven from office for not being conservative enough. Former Tea Party darling Christine O’Donnell defeated Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) in the Republican primary. For months, the Tea Party has waged an ideological war against the Obama administration over its handling of the economy. The battle has become personal at times. Tea Party favorite Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) became infamous for shouting “you lie” in the middle of President Obama’s State of the Union address. He later apologized. Others shouted down members of Congress at town hall meetings discussing Health Care Reform. Activists wearing colonial costumes and waving “Don’t Tread on Me” flags showed up at rallies across the country. One of the movement’s biggest tests may be the debt ceiling. Rand Paul has not ruled out filibustering any efforts to raise the limit on how much money the government can borrow, on which a decision is expected to be made early next year. If Congress fails to pass the legislation, the U.S. won’t be able to make good on its commitments such as bonds. Of course, the Tea Party doesn’t want to be held responsible for the financial catastrophe that experts say would occur if the debt ceiling is not raised. The question is what sort of concessions the movement will want to make and whether the movement’s supporters will keep their faith when political ideology meets economic reality. The ideas espoused by the Tea Party about limited small government and lower taxes were once heard mostly at think tanks and campaign rallies. Many voters, though, probably know little about the movement’s ideas beyond the soundbites reported in the media. 24/7 Wall St. decided to take a closer look at the Tea Party. We reviewed the position papers, public statements and websites of self-described Tea Party candidates. We then determined the party’s 10 key economic ideas which may help shape government policy for years to come. Check out the 10 economic commandments of the Tea Party and v isit 24/7 Wall Street for more information:

Read the full article →

Jeff Skilling, Former Enron CEO, Seeks A New Trial In Houston Appeal

November 1, 2010

HOUSTON (AP, By Ramit Plushnick) — The ex-CEO of disgraced energy giant Enron asked a federal appeals court on Monday to grant him a new trial based on a Supreme Court ruling his attorney said puts his conviction for conspiracy and securities fraud in question. Skilling’s attorney Daniel Petrocelli presented his argument to a three-judge panel scheduled by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June that an anti-fraud law was improperly used to help convict Skilling in 2006 for his role in Enron’s calamitous downfall demanded a new trial, Petrocelli said. The jury received bad instructions, he said, that could have tainted their decision-making process. The prosecution, however, countered that the instructions given to the jury were “harmless” because the evidence against Skilling was overwhelming. The 19 convictions for conspiracy, securities fraud, insider trading and lying to auditors should stand, prosecutor Doug Wilson said. The arguments focused around a short addendum to the federal mail and wire fraud statue that makes it illegal to scheme to deprive investors of “the intangible right to honest services.” The Supreme Court ruled in June that prosecutors can use this only in cases where evidence shows the defendant accepted bribes or kickbacks. Skilling’s misconduct entailed no exchange of money, and so, Petrocelli argues that under the new interpretation of the law Skilling did not conspire to commit honest-services fraud. “This error permeated the case against Mr. Skilling,” Petrocelli told the court. “We think it was deeply harmful.” Wilson said the honest services argument was barely mentioned in both the defense and the prosecutions closing arguments. The clause, he said, played a “minor, incidental role” in the jury’s decision because evidence that Skilling “deceived the investing public” and “manipulated Enron’s earnings” was so overwhelming the jury could have only convicted him. Skilling was sentenced to more than 24 years at a minimum security prison outside Denver. His wife and other members of his family attended Monday’s court hearing, but they declined to speak to the media.

Read the full article →

Video: Carlos Slim `Very Happy’ With New York Times Investment

October 29, 2010

Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) — Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim discusses the $250 million loan he made to The New York Times and the outlook for the media company. Slim, ranked the world’s richest man by Forbes magazine, controls Telefonos de Mexico SAB, the nation’s largest landline phone company. He was attending the George Washington University Global Forum in New York. Slim speaks with Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television’s “Bottom Line With Mark Crumpton.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Alan W. Silberberg: Eat or Be Eaten. Gov 2.0′s Social Darwinism

October 29, 2010

So here it is. We are there. Where are we? Gov 2.0 as Social Darwinism. Eat or be eaten. Kill or be killed. Recently the U.S. Federal Government has gotten into the “platform” business . A move I called for , and therefore congratulate the GSA on. At the same time as people like Vivek Wadhwa are finding a “Goldmine of Opportunities in Gov 2.0″ there are significant forces at work to try to stop some of those very entrepreneurs from succeeding. The very contests that are of such popularity right now actually harm the entrepreneur. Why you ask? Because instead of creating market opportunities — they become giant idea vacuum cleaners. This does not make a market for a product (usually). It does turn a commercial product into something else, something more vague, less tangible. Luke Fretwell recently wrote about this. Instead of creating new government contracts to more closely resemble the rapid change of technology advancement, instead the Government(s) is asking to get great ideas for a lot less then otherwise. This is not always bad. But it means the entrepreneur in the Gov 2.0 space needs to be able to play several games at once. The technology innovation and leadership game. The market penetration and traction game. The government contracting game; made even more difficult with Google logos emblazoned on government web properties, Facebook like buttons on other government properties and Microsoft using it’s decades of leverage. Then, there is the survival game. Not only are the entrepreneurs in the Gov 2.0 space fighting all the above simultaneously but they are also fighting Government-funded competition . Both from Governments here in the United States and from those abroad . Just because you have never heard of the term “Sovereign Wealth Fund” does not mean they have not heard of Gov 2.0. The last big move from Sovereign Wealth funds was in 2009 into Cleantech. Gov 2.0 is on the radar screen. So your competition just got stronger. I have been writing about this for months. I say this as an entrepreneur, involved in multiple projects in technology, Gov 2.0 and with an eye towards helping my fellow entrepreneurs. Recently I wrote about “Social Media and Gov 2.0 as a contact sport .” Some of us already have our armor on and are prepared for what is to come. Others, are still falling into a unique trap, of the “OpenGov” and “Gov 2.0″ communities. The very call for openness and transparency also reveals critical information to business competitors and to the Government itself. Recently there has been lots of talk about other Government funded projects. As I indicated in this piece I wrote about ” Monopolies and Gov 2.0 ” — I have been approached often in the last year by representatives of the U.S. Federal Government asking for free advice. True also of local and state level officials. I am sure that I am not the only Gov 2.0 analyst or entrepreneur to be approached. Nor will I be the last. In fact it is good that the Government(s) are asking. Great in fact. But how does this work when the entrepreneur is almost competing with themselves now? My advice: get your armor on, and keep it on. Otherwise, you will be stripped bare.

Read the full article →

Jack Myers: Backlash Against Innovation in Media and Advertising Industry

October 27, 2010

As unlikely as it may seem, a controversy seems to be brewing about the need for – and role of – innovation in the media and advertising business. Not only is innovation overwhelming executives and their teams, but it is causing too many companies to take their eyes – and budgets – off the basic fundamentals required for day-to-day business management and client services. Attend almost any industry event, conference, convention or corporate meeting and a common theme is innovation and the organizational changes required to embrace innovation. Yet companies continue to struggle with integrating innovation into their day-to-day business realities. The Online Business Dictionary definition of innovation may explain this paradox. Innovation in business is the “Process by which an idea or invention is translated into a good or service for which people will pay. To be called an innovation, an idea must be replicable at an economical cost and must satisfy a specific need. In business, innovation results often from the application of a technical idea to decrease the gap between the needs or expectations of the customers and the performance of a firm’s products.” Are you having the same “a ha” moment I had when I read this? In most of our leading media and advertising companies, not to mention the marketers they serve, innovation is perceived as a cost rather than a revenue opportunity. Innovative tools and services are often not replicable on a meaningful scale without synchronous sapping of resources from traditional businesses, and innovative business opportunities are rarely more economical to implement than existing businesses. Innovation in advertising and media can also all-too-often be ideas in search of a need. Hundreds of millions – probably billions – have been invested by institutional and venture investors in technology-based innovation with the belief and expectation that advertiser dollars would easily cover the investment and deliver 10 to 20 time multiples. But to a significant extent, media advances over the past decade have added huge amounts of advertising inventory enabling advertisers to reach audiences with increased cost efficiency without delivering measurable and sustainable business enhancements. Agencies, marketers and media sellers must invest heavily in resources and infrastructure to evaluate and consider the thousands of tech-based new entrants in the media business, without meaningully and measurably “decreasing the gap between the needs or expectations of the customers and the performance of a firm’s products.” Based on research I’ve conducted among agency, media and marketer executives, the average company in our industry invests 65% to 85% of its spending in basic business maintenance and organizational overhead, including general administrative costs, sales, marketing and communications, Fifteen to 25% of spending is typically invested in competitive positioning focused on market share growth, including new business development, incentives, advertising, research and product enhancement. The average company spends less than 5% on business expansion models that require the introduction of new ideas, goods, services, practices and personnel – the traditional definition of innovation. No established well developed company can afford to spend much more than that. Yet ask the majority of senior managers in our business what their primary focus is for servicing existing clients, developing new business and for assuring their company’s future, and the answer invariably will include innovation. The actual financial commitment may be less that 5% but the investment in strategic intent, business development presentation content, public relations messaging and meeting time is far more. The goal of innovation is positive change. Innovation leading to increased productivity is the fundamental source of increasing wealth in an economy. A backlash against innovation should not be misconstrued as a reversion to the tried and true gospel of traditional media. Rather it is an appropriate demand that innovation be backed by solid economic models that validate the need for the products and services being developed, define the revenue model and profitability, prove the scalability, and demonstrates how the clients’ economic best interests are being served. To comment, visit www.jackmyersthinktank.com . JackMyersThinkTank and MediaBizBloggers are free and underwritten as an industry service by corporate subscribers to Jack Myers Media Business Report . For subscription information, visit www.myersreport.com . Visit the archives of JackMyersThinkTank and MediaBizBloggers . Jack Myers can be contacted directly at jm@jackmyers.com . This post originally appeared at JackMyers.com

Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: The difficulties of judging income inequality

October 26, 2010

Last week’s Bloomberg Businessweek opens with a piece by Drake Bennett on how Americans perceive growing income inequalities. The answer, surprising to Businessweek, is that Americans “broadly” favor “the need for a more equal distribution of wealth,” but that they consistently overestimate how equitable American society is — and by rather striking numbers. “On average, those surveyed estimated that the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans own 59 percent of the nation’s wealth; in reality the top quintile owns around 84%. The respondent further estimated that the poorest 20 percent own 3.7 percent, when in reality they own 0.1 percent.” A survey of economists also found they got it wrong too, though by less, which establishes some realism to the cries for economic literacy as the solution for our woes. “In part,” concludes the magazine, “this work fits into a proud tradition of social science research demonstrating the basic ignorance of the average American.” One might add that this fits into another tradition as well: the media eagerly publicizing social scientists pointing out the ignorance of Americans. Indeed, toward the end of the piece, the magazine quotes George Mason University professor Bryan Caplan on the paradoxical claim that it’s good that Americans don’t realize how unequal things are, because “they tend not to understand the ways that wealth inequality is good.” Businessweek fails to tell us that Caplan is the author of the provocative “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies,” which focuses on the economic illiteracy of the citizenry. So what does all this really mean? Well, it’s not terribly surprising. You can still be economically or financially expert and still be unable to judge the degree of inequality around you. It’s not some symptom of creeping Yahoo-dom. It’s a big country. Wealth is relative and more importantly often invisible. Wealth in Oklahoma or Iowa certainly differs from wealth in Westchester County or Palm Beach. Much of wealth is abstract: You can see the mansion or the shack, the Bentley or the Civic. But you can’t see financial assets in a bank (and you can’t see the debt either). The display of wealth may have more to do with social norms than real, tangible financial assets; conspicuous consumption waxes and wanes. Some of these issues arose recently in the tempest that ensued after University of Chicago law professor Todd Henderson complained about how hard it was to live on $250,000 a year. The difficulties of knowing exactly your relation with the Smith family next door, and with Smiths all across the country, grows even tougher when you try to compare different eras: this age of high inequality versus the so-called golden ages of the ’50s and ’60s. This inherent difficulty of judging inequality speaks to the fallacies of economic doctrines like rational expectations: If you can’t decide where you fit in a complex, shifting economy, how can you generate much more than rough-and-ready expectations about the future of anything, including what you’ll need in retirement? There are several explanations flying around about American attitudes toward income inequality. There’s the notion that Americans have traditionally been “bought off,” both (in a crass way) by the promise of ample credit and consumer goods, which takes the sting from inequality, and (less crass, more patriotic) by the promise of freedom and opportunity. Americans, in this theory, have traditionally not chosen the path of class warfare or socialism (or communism) because at some level they believe they too can be rich (and if they’re not, they can still buy that iPhone). Businessweek seems confused by the fact that Americans underestimate inequality but say they favor broad equality. That may stem from the fact that most people do not see any contradiction between equality and opportunity, which only co-exists happily in a high-growth economy. This core belief appears to be more at home in the U.S. than, say, Europe. Historically, the U.S. had a large continent to fill, ample natural resources and the always-shimmering possibility of reinvention. Today, while physical frontiers are no longer quite as open as they were once, we have another frontier: affluence and its sibling, celebrity. Of course, you can have a highly affluent — relatively affluent — economy and still be highly unequal. (The markets also share some of the virtues of the frontier: You’re on your own, it’s risky, no one cares what you’ve been in the past, and potentially it’s very profitable.) While the U.S. suffers from patches of terrible poverty, both in the cities and in the countryside, not to say historically high unemployment and a national real estate disaster, the presence of once-unheard-of credit (yes, even now) masks impoverishment. You can still buy stuff. Other policies reduce visible poverty as well. The homeless are kept off the streets. There are no wandering armies of train-hopping hobos, no veterans marching on Washington, no apple sellers or widespread famines or epidemics that are apparent for all to see. There is, albeit tattered and frayed, a safety net — and Europe, of course, has a much more extensive welfare system. The visible scandal of inequality, which was apparent in the U.S. during the Great Depression, and in Europe after the war, barely exists, particularly if you choose not to look. (There are exceptions, mostly involving natural disasters: Katrina-devastated New Orleans, for instance, which revealed underlying poverty and despair. But think about Las Vegas, which was hammered by the housing downturn. Blocks of empty houses is a lot different than neighborhoods literally under water, then left to rot away.) Again, this is not to say there’s not poverty and a terrific squeeze on middle-class and lower-class incomes, which is destructive. It’s just that affluence and credit disguise the pain — and allow the extension of hope and the retention of something resembling your former lifestyle (foreclosure delays help too). Implicit in Businessweek’s discussion of inequality is the notion that if people knew the full extent of the problem, they would seek policies to return to the more equal society they seem to want. That might be a stretch. The golden age of the ’50s did arrive in part because of the class warfare of the ’30s. But it was mostly driven by the pent-up demand and high growth of the postwar industrial economy, which no one planned; indeed, most economists anticipated a return to depression or recession when the GIs came home. The key to the ’50s was growth, which then allowed other policies to shape a broad middle class. Our situation is very different. We’ve made any number of policy changes to fuel growth, from deregulation to bailouts. Policies to create greater equality tend to dampen growth, as Businessweek says. While Americans may have all kinds of confused ideas about income inequality, they do seem to know growth, or the lack of growth, when they see it. Robert Teitelman is editor in chief of The Deal.

Read the full article →

BP Sells 4 Gulf Of Mexico Fields To Marubeni To Pay For Oil Spill

October 25, 2010

LONDON — BP Chief Executive Bob Dudley accused some politicians and the media on Monday of being too hasty to pin all the blame on his company for the devastating Gulf of Mexico spill – and emphasized the need for deep-water drilling. In his first major public speech since taking the top job, Dudley also said BP would not pull out of the United States – and that the U.S. needs a company with BP’s resources to meet its vast energy needs. Dudley delivered a speech whose mood hovered between firm and penitent, seeking to make clear that BP was learning every lesson possible from the disaster. He stressed that he also has met with experts from other hazardous industries, including the nuclear and chemical industries, as part of the company’s focus on improving safety. “We were certainly not perfect in our response, but we have tried to do the right thing,” Dudley added. Before becoming the first American to lead the British oil company on Oct. 1, Dudley was in charge of BP’s spill response efforts in the Gulf. U.S. lawmakers have widely blamed BP for the disaster. On Monday, Dudley said many parties, including the media and rival oil companies, were guilty of “a great rush to judgment” before all the facts were known. “I watched graphic projections of oil swirling around the Gulf, around Florida, across and around Bermuda to England – these appeared authoritative and inevitable. The public fear was everywhere,” he said. The company’s own investigation shared the blame with rig owner Transocean Ltd. and contractor Halliburton Co. The U.S. government could fine BP up to $21 billion for the spill, on top of a $20 billion disaster fund that the company has committed itself to. A bill that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives would prevent companies like BP that have a poor safety record from getting new offshore permits. A Senate bill that was eventually tabled didn’t contain a similar provision. Speaking at an annual conference of Britain’s leading business lobby group, Dudley stressed BP’s commitment to the United States despite the ongoing political and public fallout and talked up the company’s ability to withstand the expected financial hit from the spill. Earlier Monday, BP announced it has sold its stake in four mature oil and gas fields in the Gulf of Mexico to Marubeni Oil and Gas for $650 million (euro466 million). The fields were part of a recent acquisition of Gulf assets from Devon Energy and were considered nonessential. BP is hoping to raise $30 billion from selling assets and already has raked in almost $9 billion from the sale of properties in Egypt, Canada, the U.S. and Colombia. Dudley argued that deepwater drilling is necessary despite the dangers. He cited predictions that the world could be consuming 40 percent more energy than today by 2030. Deepwater drilling is projected to grow to account for 9 percent of total oil supplies in 2020, from 7 percent currently. He said BP is “one of only a handful of companies with the financial and technological strengths to undertake development projects in these difficult geographies and it can be done safely.” BP continues to make plans for further drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico. Rig owner Pride International Inc. said BP has leased two of its deepwater rigs. One of those rigs is already in the Gulf and another is on its way. Pride spokeswoman Kate Perez said it’s unclear what projects are in store for those rigs – they still could be moved out of the Gulf. BP relies on the Gulf for about 10 percent of its total oil and gas production. President Barack Obama recently lifted a moratorium on new deepwater drilling in the Gulf, imposed after the April 20 explosion that kicked off the worst oil spill in U.S. history. Obama is due to announce further recommendations under a presidential commission in the coming months. Dudley, who took over from gaffe-prone former CEO Tony Hayward early this month, also sought again to reassure business leaders that the company has the financial strength to shoulder the anticipated heavy costs of the Gulf spill. Dudley said he has spent much of his time since becoming CEO traveling the world to visit BP’s partners. “Our underlying operational and financial performance is sound,” he said, stressing the company’s wide geographical reach. Analysts responded with optimism. “That’s what the company needs, it needs a determined champion not an apologist,” said Nick McGregor, an analyst at Redmayne-Bentley Stockbrokers. “He’s going to want to go forward and leave the apologies … His job is to acknowledge the past, not continuously apologize for it.” Dudley dismissed suggestions that the United States might turn its back on the company, or that BP could voluntarily leave the United States. “I am confident that neither of these propositions is true,” he said. “Contrary to what is sometimes said, BP is not widely seen over there as ‘British Petroleum’: we’re part of the American community.”

Read the full article →

Eric Ehrmann: October Surprises Bring Drama to Brazil’s Presidential Race

October 23, 2010

Campinas, Brazil In a democracy that developed technology to protect the integrity of the popular vote and the social contract linked to it globalists aligned with the business-to-business values of the elitist World Economic Forum have added a sense of drama to Brazilian politics by seeking to influence the outcome of the October 31st presidential election. Similar efforts to work around social contract democracy are also an issue in the United States where president Barack Obama recently commented on foreign influence in the run up to next month’s mid-term elections. Brazil is a long way from London but The Economist has endorsed US-style neoconservative Jose Serra of the Brazilian Party of Social Democracy over Workers Party candidate Dilma Rousseff, arguing that Serra, who learned his “Chicago school” economics in Chile during the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet, would make a better president, and that president Lula’s Workers Party is monolithic and corrupt. This from a publication that failed to fully investigate the activities of Jack and Mark Thatcher during the government of Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher because doing so would have been bad for business. An item in The New York Review of Books has called into question Brazil’s obligatory voting system that gives blacks and indigenous people an opportunity to have an equal voice with the nation’s wealthy political class. And in Washington the once militant French socialist Dominique Strauss-Kahn, now preaching the gospel of free markets as managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), has editorialized that Brazil faces a gloomy economic scenario if the government fails to open the banking system and privatize state companies… never mind that France hasn’t done too badly running an economy in which half the nation’s major banking institutions have been government owned since the days of president Georges Pompidou. In spite of its uneven income distribution, Brazil’s economy has been outperforming the United States and all the Euro zone nations, which is why it is attracting investment from so many globalist companies and speculators. Brazilian economist Paul Singer has pointed out that Brazil was less affected by the 2007-08 crisis and impending economic collapse precisely because around half the banking sector is government operated. As a result, Singer suggests, management from this perspective is focused on avoiding market turbulence and high risk speculation that led to the free market collapse of institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and even Lehman Brothers. Skewed media coverage of the Brazil election also carries a made in USA tag. CNN and Fox continue to demonize Dilma as an anti-business ex-urban guerrilla while ignoring the fact that Alfredo Sirkys, Green Party leader and handler of failed Green presidential candidate Marina Silva, is a former revolutionary who kidnapped more diplomats than anybody in Latin America outside the FARC. Although the Greens are supporting Serra in spite of his lackluster environmental record Sirkys has already entered Marina as a candidate in the 2014 presidential election. Marina has also become a propaganda asset for evangelical groups with globalist agendas. A member of the US-headquarted Assemblies of God church whose high profile influencers include retired US Army general Stanley McChrystal, she is no stranger to Washington. She visited with leading anti-abortion activists on Capitol Hill prior to kicking off her presidential campaign in Brazil. And because she uses her “green” issues as a cover for her broader faith-based agenda she continues to get equal time and prime time coverage from the media as if she was still a candidate. Just twelve hours after last Sunday’s presidential debate she was amping up her anti-abortion views — which view a woman’s right to choose as a crime worse than homosexuality — on a morning women’s talk show broadcast by the same network that hosted the debate. There’s yet another disquieting dimension to the “Marina factor” that could create moral consternation in the world’s largest Catholic country. As the standard bearer of the Green Party Marina’s anti-abortion views are supported by international elements of the US-based Verbo Baptist Church who are active in Brazil. Verbo’s top anti-abortion spokesperson in Latin America is former Guatemalan strongman and free market advocate Efrain Rios Montt. According to Nobel Laureate Rigoberta Menchu, Rios-Montt supervised a mini-Holocaust in Guatemala that took the right to life away from more than 60,000 Mayans, mostly Catholics. In a mature republic like France, socialist presidential hopefuls Martine Aubry, Segolene Royal and conservative finance minister Christine Lagarde can focus on reconciling social contract issues and economic restructuring because citizens have put a woman’s right to choose into perspective among the core values that project French national identity. In Brazil, however, US-based religious organizations supporting Marina’s anti-abortion crusade have made the issue denying women the right to choose another manifestation of the psychopathology of underdevelopment that keeps the role of most women — even the sexy samba dancing cariocas — reduced to that of second class citizens. Most evangelical Christian bookstores sell books that promote the concept of the man as lider (leader) of a Christian family unit, reinforcing the concept of the submissive alpha female and turning a blind eye to equal rights for women. Over 19 million citizens supported Marina in the first round, and polling now indicates that Dilma, not Serra, is starting to pick up a majority of those Marina votes. Polls indicate that even female evangelical voters see Dilma as a leader who can battle to improve the status of all women in Brazil’s male dominated society. In spite of Serra crying foul, all three major polling organizations predict that Dilma will become Brazil’s first woman president on October 31st. The only other big October surprise could come in the form of a cybersecurity issue that impacts the integrity of Brazil’s vote tabulating system much as a system problem caused large sections of the national power grid to shut down last November. Globalists are interfering in the internal politics of Brazil because the stakes are high. Brazil’s economic model, which features a strong government infrastructure to regulate the disruptive effects that free markets can have on social institutions, is a post-Bretton Woods system hybrid that features strategic alliances with France and China that countervail turbulent free market influences that have been the hallmark of more than 80 years of having the US as its major trade partner. And this, like its policy of using ethanol to offset costly oil imports, causes discomfort among the clubby, ensconced world economic order. Average consumer credit card interest rates in Brazil run 44 percent annually and foreign banks want a bigger share of that lucrative action. Serra’s backers want to privatize Petrobras, the huge national energy firm, a move that could turn the giant into the Enron of South America. And software companies like Microsoft, SAP and Oracle want government and business in Brazil’s economically disadvantaged Northeast to buy more of their high end products instead of shareware and Linux-based systems while tending to work around Brazil’s affirmative action policies that seek to provide high wage jobs that blacks and indigenous people need to be included in national life. One big wild card remains, notably the 28 million voters who the Federal Electoral Court says abstained, voted blank, or had their ballots nullified. Pollsters have a difficult time tracking the motives of this type of prospective voter, especially in a nation where voting is obligatory and respondents are known to lie to protect the privacy of their choice. Still, IBOPE and Datafolha , two of the large political polling firms, claim to have factored in the intentions of these voters and in this demolition derby — which Lula says has been the dirtiest campaign he’s seen since Brazil returned to democracy — predict that the winner will be the name at the top of the #13 ticket, Dilma.

Read the full article →

Julia Moulden: Over 50 and at the Top of Your Game? Here’s What’s Next

October 23, 2010

You’ve passed the half-century mark, and a question has been rattling around in your brain: “What’s next?” Recently, you answered it with a single word: “work.” And now you’re beginning to see that you can be part of something unprecedented, that the work you do later in life can be the most satisfying of your entire career. You can, as I describe it, “ripen.” Cool. But now a new question pops up. “What work, exactly?” Loyal readers will know that I’m writing a book called “RIPE: Rich, Rewarding Work After 50.” As I listened to ripe pioneers, I began to see a pattern emerging and plotted a matrix: along one side, the reasons people begin this journey, along the other, the possible paths forward. Where might you be on this matrix? For instance, you might have been successful in your chosen field and are now ready to try something new. You want to break new ground or implement innovative ideas, maybe realize a lifelong dream or assist in the birth of a compelling new vision. Arianna Huffington is a terrific example of this kind of ripening. At 56, she launched the Huffington Post. As a new media model, it would welcome voices not normally heard in the mainstream press: “curated news and instant intelligent opinion for an engaged community,” as she says. HuffPost quickly became one of the most widely read and talked-about new media brands. Many boomers will answer the question, “What work, exactly?” with, “Start a business.” Some of us will do it because it’s something we’ve always wanted to do, others because we can’t find work and need to create it. But hanging out a shingle is suddenly on the upswing, especially among people over 50. Just ask the folks at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation , the world’s largest foundation dedicated to entrepreneurship. Their research shows that the average age of first-time entrepreneurs is now between 55 and 64. “The United States is on the cusp of an entrepreneurship boom — not in spite of an aging population, but because of it.” The Kauffman Foundation is referring to people like Lee Weinstein . Lee and I met when he approached me last year to introduce one of his clients, Icebreaker , an innovative sportswear company from New Zealand. I had no idea he was a ripe pioneer until we started chatting. Turns out he’d spent 15 years working for Nike and knew that it was time to get out and do something new. A two-year process of introspection led to him reinvent his work; he now runs a PR agency with his wife, who also worked at Nike. Not only are they doing well, with just the right number of clients (including Nike), but they have a more balanced life, with time to enjoy the pleasures of not working, too. Which sounds pretty ripe to me. Given the number of emails I’ve received — and the comments on the first few columns about RIPE — I know that you’re all over this idea. We’re eager to hear your stories, so please share how you plan to spend the years between 50 and 100-plus, or feel free to contact me directly via my website. And since we’re on the subject of valuing people of a certain age, are you wondering why this extraordinary group of people who called themselves The Elders aren’t getting press coverage? As I write, The Elders have been in the Middle East for a few weeks, making a unique contribution to the peace process. I know this because I get their media releases. But I haven’t seen anything about their mission in the mainstream media. What’s up with that? Julia Moulden is an author, speaker, and columnist. Read Julia Moulden’s HuffPost archive, including the first columns about RIPE .

Read the full article →

Todd Kashdan: Three Clues That CEOs or Politicans Are Lying to You

October 19, 2010

Living with your grandmother is a recipe for miscommunication. On a random Tuesday, when I was 15, a plan was being hatched to meet up with a few friends at the local 7-11 convenience store to eat a few hot dogs. Unbeknownst to me, my grandma was outside my room listening in on the phone conversation. To her defense, it would be hard for anyone to make sense of the whispers and jargon on my end. “Marc, do you think we can afford the stuff?” “Do we know if anyone else is going to be there?” “If this doesn’t go down well, I’m going to have to sneak through the garage when I get home.” Upon leaving my bedroom, there was my grandmother blocking my path with arms folded across her chest. The first words out of her mouth were, “Todd, I need to talk to you. Look at me. Are you on drugs?” Essentially, this is what Selma deduced: 7-11 was for derelicts because skateboarders congregated there. Unless it was an illegal transaction, why would I refer to the planned purchase as “stuff?” My eyes were always bloodshot and this is a clear marker of drug use (as opposed to the hard contact lens that I never removed). Now let’s be clear, Gene Hackman was in no danger of losing his job on the narcotics bureau in “The French Connection.” Selma breathed heavily, walked with lead feet, and possessed a grandmotherly smell that will forever be endearing to me (but problematic in covert operations). But this incident raises the question of whether Selma could tell if I was lying…. I was reminded of these regular, bizarre interactions with my grandmother this morning. New research emerged at Stanford University on how to tell whether CEO’s are lying. When Kenneth Lay shared news about the earning reports of Enron, did his selection of words offer insight into hidden lies and deceit? What about the phrasings of BP executives as they shared plans to financially compensate everyone who suffered from the oil spill? While each of us has careful control over the story we want to tell, our true motives and feelings can “leak out” in our word use. Two researchers analyzed 29,663 conference calls by business executives from 2003 to 2007. Of particular interest were the narratives carefully sculpted by CEO’s to tell the media and public about company performance and plans. These Stanford researchers found a few interesting findings. First, be wary of words that distance the speaker from personal ownership of what they are saying. Instead of first-person pronouns, the speeches of lying CEO’s overflowed with plural words such as “we,” “us,” “team,” and “group.” You might be saying to yourself, that doesn’t sound problematic, perhaps they are grateful of everyone in their organization. Remember, it only takes one or two references to make the point that you didn’t attain success on your own. It is the lack of self-references that is linked with deception. If a person knows they are going to deceive you, the last thing they want to do is emphasize that they are the person to contact if things go wrong. Most speakers are consciously unaware of their avoidance of self-references. Second, be wary of over-the-top glowing positive statements. The expression of positive emotions has a tipping point. Be skeptical when a CEO uses an excessive number of flowery terms to describe the future prospects of the company. Notice the intense positive emotional terms in speeches by Kenneth Lay, words such as fantastic, amazing, wonderful, and superb. If a CEO sounds like a hypomanic mother touting the artistic mastery of their two-year old doodler, there is reason to be afraid, very afraid. Third, be wary of absolute certainty. This might be the most valuable take-home finding. Not surprisingly, we feel less anxious when leaders appear confident without any ambivalence about their decisions. The only problem is that few decisions are clear cut and none of us know what the future holds in terms of the economic and political climate. I only worry about people who claim they know what is going to happen. I worry about people that lack anxiety. CEO’s that use an overabundance of words reflecting absolute confidence and a lack of words reflecting hesitation are more likely to be lying. A speaker’s linguistic style offers a portal into their motives. This research has powerful implications for understanding how little we know about other people, especially when we don’t have the same access to the information. I suspect that the findings would be the same if we focused on grandstanding politicians, media pundits, journalists, scientists, real estate agents, teachers, and anyone trying to sell you something, anything. Seriously, look at the three findings above and tell me that doesn’t describe the last person trying to sell you a car. There’s nothing wrong with an assumption that people are inherently good while giving them the benefit of the doubt. All I ask is that you go beyond the surface content of what people talk about. Mindfully attend to how they speak and you might uncover something interesting, something terrifying, something that prevents you from being suckered. And if you don’t want to be mindful, you now have three tips for how to lie better. Go ahead, feign a story about how great of an athlete you were in high school or how incredible you are at seducing strangers in bars. Perhaps you’ll be lucky and your audience won’t read this post and call you out. For more about the research in this article, check out : Larcker, D.F., & Zakolyukina, A.A. (2010). Detecting Deceptive Discussions in Conference Calls. Dr. Todd B. Kashdan is a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at George Mason University. He is the author of ” Curious? Discover the Missing Ingredient to a Fulfilling Life ” For more about his speaking engagements, books, and research, go to www.toddkashdan.com or Research Laboratory.

Read the full article →

Lloyd Chapman: 9th Circuit Rules SBA Does Not have to Release Agency Phone Records

October 19, 2010

On Friday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals released its ruling in a lawsuit filed by the American Small Business League (ASBL) against the Small Business Administration (SBA) regarding the agency’s phone records. The case was filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The ASBL originally requested phone records for SBA Press Office Chief Mike Stamler. The ASBL believes that Stamler and the SBA Press Office have engaged in a campaign to discourage the media from reporting on the diversion of federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms and corporate giants around the world. Through the course of litigation, the SBA has claimed that it does not have access to its own phone records. On Friday, the appellate court ruled that the agency is not required to retrieve records from a third party if the government has not specifically contracted for the storage of those records. Over the last several years, the ASBL has won a series of lawsuits against the SBA, which have shown that the SBA has lied to Congress, the public and the media about the diversion of more than $100 billion a year in federal small business contracts to corporate giants. Since 2003, more than a dozen federal investigations have uncovered billions of dollars a month in small business contracts awarded to large businesses. In Report 5-14, the SBA Office of Inspector General found the SBA itself had awarded small business contracts to large businesses. The most recent data released by the government shows large recipients of small business contracts like: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, L-3 Communications, Raytheon, British Aerospace (BAE), General Dynamics, Rolls-Royce and Dell Computer. Despite these findings, the SBA issued a press release claiming that it was a myth that large businesses received federal small business contracts. During 2010, the ASBL issued similar FOIA requests to several other federal agencies. In each case, the records were released. The SBA is the only agency that has been unwilling to provide its phone records. I am disappointed in the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling, but I am gratified that we have been able to show how desperate the SBA Press Office is to withhold potentially damaging phone records. Clearly they have something to hide. I want to promise the SBA, and its Administrator Karen Mills, that the ASBL will continue its legal campaign to expose the fact that the SBA has lied about the diversion of small business contracts to large businesses.

Read the full article →

Nathan Gardels: To Balance Global Economy, Recalibrate Democracy

October 18, 2010

As the G-20 gears up to meet next month in Seoul, it is not surprising that the United States and China are at loggerheads. The “clash of systems” between America, the borrower and consumer, and China, the saver and manufacturing exporter, has generated an imbalance in the global economy that, if not corrected, threatens the peace and prosperity that has so far been achieved through globalization. That correction cannot occur overnight and cannot be economic alone. It depends ultimately on the recalibration of democracy in both the West and East. In China’s case, further democratization would include free labor unions and expanded rights for the rapidly growing urban middle class. Less censorship and more robust forms of political accountability would aid the reorientation of its juggernaut from export-led growth toward domestic consumption. Such changes would inevitably make the well-being of the household competitive, as a political priority, with the factory. China might learn from the policies of Asia’s development pioneers — Japan, South Korea or Taiwan — where income became more evenly spread as wages rose to capture productivity increases, and a credible safety net was put in place with high and broad levels of investment in education to enable the next generation to move up the value-added ladder. All these neighbors of China managed a middle-income transition by establishing the reliable rule of law that made government accountable, through freer expression and some sense of social security. In a developing market, confident expectations about how society will work widely stimulate greater consumption. In the U.S., political reform necessarily involves a shift away form the short-term political horizons and cultural habits of consumer democracy. Unless we can find ways to integrate the long-term perspective in governance and insulate it from immediate political pressures, it will be difficult to adopt policies that lead us back to fiscal prudence, revived productive employment, replenished savings and a middle class built on rising income instead of debt. Absent such a shift, there is certain to be a backlash against globalization — aimed with populist anger at China. Corrective policies, in other words, must seek to undo the way American and Chinese inequalities have played off of each other — a low-wage, export-led economy piling up huge reserves from overconsumption by an American middle class that fills the gap in its falling status through borrowing at rates pushed low by flush liquidity from China and an accommodating U.S. Federal Reserve. Former IMF chief economist Raghuram Rajan has argued that political pressures to compensate for America’s growing inequality gap over the past 30 years through eased credit by the Federal Reserve, abetted by huge Chinese purchases of U.S. Treasury debt, were a driving dynamic behind the housing bubble. Since 1975, Rajan points out, the wages of the 90th percentile of the U.S. population (the top 10 percent) grew 65 percent more than the 10th percentile. In 1975, the top 10 percent earned about three times the bottom 90 percent. By 2005 it had risen to five times. In an economy where consumption accounts for 70 percent of GDP, the gap between the American Dream and the American Reality was bridged by debt. In short, easy credit, not savings, enabled the demoted middle class to “keep up with the Joneses.” By 2007, consumer debt in the U.S. equaled 100 percent of GDP. Rajan sensibly worries that reigniting growth by encouraging renewed purchases of houses and cars through further easy-credit policies, even if it successfully avoids deflation, will only lead us back to an unsustainable bubble. In the U.S., the proper tax and education policies (because, in an era of technological change, education is the key variable of income differentials) as well as policies that foster infrastructure investment and domestic production would diminish the rapidly rising inequality Rajan documents. Fairer wage spreads in a developed consumer economy would enable the middle class to once again thrive on earnings and savings instead of seek to maintain their diminishing status through credit. Change won’t be easy. Vested interests in China favor export production industries and the associated political stability of continued rapid job growth that goes along with a strategy that has worked for decades. Vested interests and cultural inertia in the U.S. favor a return to the high consumption which has driven growth during that same period. China, at least, has the political capacity as an authoritarian mandarinate to change course from the top if the Communist Party is confident enough to heed the feedback signals of a burgeoning middle class that is demanding a more open society. Premier Wen Jiabao has said “the people’s wishes and needs for democracy and freedom are irresistible,” that “freedom of speech is indispensable for any country,” and that “without the safeguard of political reform, the fruits of economic reform would be lost.” It seems an equally daunting challenge to convince an open society used to living off of leverage to mend its ways. But if reality is the mother of fundamental reform in China, it can be no less so in the United States. © GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK/TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES

Read the full article →

Lee Abrams, Tribune Executive Punished For Offensive Email, Quits

October 16, 2010

CHICAGO — The chief executive of Tribune Co. has informed staffers that a top executive he suspended this week after sending an inappropriate e-mail has quit. CEO Randy Michaels said in a one-paragraph memo sent Friday that chief innovation officer Lee Abrams offered his resignation and he accepted it. Michaels wrote that the resignation is effective immediately. Abrams sent staff an e-mail Wednesday that contained a link to a racy video clip. The Tribune Co. was the subject of a withering New York Times article earlier this month that portrayed the corporate culture of the Chicago-based media giant as a “frat house.” The company owns the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and other media properties and is struggling to win approval for its reorganization after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Read the full article →

Inder Sidhu: When Stars and Teams Align: A Lesson from the Miraculous Rescue of Chile’s Miners

October 14, 2010

“Chi-Chi-Chi, Le-Le-Le. Los mineros de Chile!” If these words don’t make your heart sing or your eyes water, what possibly will? More than two months in the making, the rescue of the 33 miners trapped in Chile is one of those rare moments that the entire world can enjoy simultaneously. It’s especially uplifting as the global recession drags on, and American elections devolve into mud-slinging. Thanks to achievements in Chile, there’s reason to sing. From the images of loved ones tearfully reuniting at Camp Hope to the sight of a grateful President embracing the rescuers, the saga in San Jose is an inspiration for all. It’s also a powerful lesson about the value of individual achievement and teamwork. As most professionals know, superstars and teams do not always mix easily. But when they do so successfully, they can create enough force to move a mountain–or at least tunnel through it, as in Chile. Give credit to the organizers behind the unprecedented rescue. Faced with a challenge of monumental proportions, they had the foresight to recruit individual superstars with specialized skills, and develop capable teams that could carry out an array of critical tasks. By doing both , organizers accomplished what few thought possible: They kept alive nearly three dozen men trapped 2,100 feet underground for 69 days. And they did it in one of the most remote places on earth. Remarkable in every way. Take the escape shaft. To rescue the miners, officials needed to bore directly into the chamber where the men were trapped. That meant drilling a tunnel through 2,000 feet of shifting rock at an 80-degree angle to an exact spot. In the mining world, there aren’t many people with the confidence and skill required to take on this task, especially with so many lives at stake. In need of a superstar like no other, Chilean mining officials put out a call to American Jeff Hart. They located him in Afghanistan, where he was drilling wells for American troops. Hart flew to Chile and immediately got to work. While two other drillers tried to reach the miners through different routes, Hart’s “Plan B” was the only one to break through. Though he later downplayed his accomplishment, TV commentators and mine officials were effusive with their praise. After reaching the miners on Saturday, the 40-year old father of two from Denver became a national hero. So did other superstars, including the doctors who provided medical and psychological advice, and the NASA engineer who devised the now-familiar “Fenix” rescue capsule. Of all the superstars who contributed to the rescue, perhaps none was more important than Luis Alberto Iribarren. A 54-year old Chilean shift supervisor, he was the last miner to be rescued. While underground, he took charge of the workers and helped improve morale and safety. He rationed food and provided a map of the chamber for rescuers above. During the darkest days of the ordeal, when escape seemed uncertain, he corralled his colleagues to exercise, eat and maintain their hygiene. He also encouraged them to sing with gusto, inspiring teams of construction crews and logistical experts above ground. The importance of teamwork both above and below the ground cannot be overstated. Take Hart’s contributions. Though he was the lead driller, he was supported by a cast of hundreds. South African construction giant Murray & Roberts, for example, provided a drill and six engineers. Other nations sent geologists and construction experts to aid in the cause. Then there were the Chileans themselves. They quickly organized into teams that provided everything from medial support to communications assistance to the 2,000 members of the media who converged on the mountain to cover the event. In all, government and mining officials coordinated hundreds of teams of food workers, sanitation experts, transportation providers and safety officials. Below the surface, teamwork was equally impressive. Mario Sepulveda, a 40-year old electrician, managed food distribution. Victor Segovia worked as underground reporter, chronicling every event that happened, while Jonny Barrios, the son of a diabetic mother, served as the miners’ unofficial medical expert. By leveraging the contributions of individual superstars and well-coordinated teams, Chile pulled off a magnificent rescue that will never be forgotten. With a song in its heart and a tear in its eye, a grateful world stands in awe. Inder Sidhu is the Senior Vice President of Strategy & Planning for Worldwide Operations at Cisco , and the author of Doing Both: How Cisco Captures Today’s Profits and Drives Tomorrow’s Growth . Follow Inder on Twitter at @indersidhu .

Read the full article →

Martha A. Duggan: The Case for a Federal ‘Green Bank’

October 14, 2010

Conventional wisdom says that it will be exceedingly difficult for the United States Congress to pass energy legislation in its next session. For those who are waiting on signals that demonstrate our government’s willingness to incentivize investments in clean energy, this has been a depressing period. But while I understand the frustration expressed from nearly every faction of the energy sector, I am optimistic about the potential to capitalize on this seemingly-lost opportunity in the next Congress. In the past several weeks there has been a notable shift in media coverage of the politics of energy reform. What began as a message of shock and despair, has now turned to one of acceptance and genuine desire to start with a clean slate, and try once more for an improved, cleaner, and more efficient energy economy. The recent coverage of the Coalition for Green Capital (CGC), a non-profit organization based in Washington, DC, exemplifies this shift. As a member of its Board of Directors I appreciate the media coverage of the CGC’s positive efforts to produce a road map for the clean energy future of the United States. The New York Times article, ” A Climate Proposal Beyond Cap and Trade “, by David Leonhardt, describes the view of a prominent environmental economist who “should be despondent over Washington’s failure to pass a climate bill.” However, according to Leonhardt, MIT Professor Michael Greenstone, is not despondent. Rather, “he thinks the benefits of the bills that died in the Senate — which would have raised the cost of carbon emissions, through a system known as cap and trade — were sometimes exaggerated.” Leonhardt notes that after all the necessary compromises had been made the bills would not have raised the price of carbon enough to have any meaningful impact, and would also have done little to address the increasing emissions from the developing world. Leonhardt goes on to recognize Reed Hundt, CEO of the Coalition for Green Capital, and the Coalition’s efforts over the past two years to create a federal financing entity that would make clean energy cost competitive with carbon intensive energy. The New York Times is not alone in recognizing the value in creating such an entity. A recent article by HuffPost’s Dan Froomkin titled ” A Convenient Truth: Gearing up for Climate Change Could Supercharge the Job Market “, also focuses on a silver lining in the dark cloud over the clean energy sector and reinforces the need for a clean energy economy as envisioned by the Coalition for Green Capital. Froomkin writes: Could one major crisis be solved by solving another? If we’re talking about the nation’s desperately poor job market on the one hand, and the dire threat of climate change on the other, then the answer is: Quite possibly, yes. The solution to both would be an enormous investment in green technology and green jobs – creating a “clean energy economy” while reducing carbon emissions; putting millions of Americans back to work while increasing our energy independence; rebuilding our manufacturing base while saving consumers money on their energy bills; and saving the planet. It certainly sounds a heck of a lot cheerier than the alternative. These media outlets have called attention to the fact that reflecting the true cost of clean energy is, and will continue to be, unpopular — a completely logical fact given the current state of our economy. This means that the time is now for the creation of a federal clean energy financing institution (a “Green Bank”) which would lower the cost of clean energy. We do not need to take the unpopular route of making carbon-intensive energy more expensive. Instead we can make clean energy sources more affordable. The energy sector has huge potential for new investment and widespread expansion, and this potential can only be realized if this sector is provided with the proper incentives. On November 16th, the Coalition for Green Capital will be holding a public conference in Washington, DC entitled “The Future of Energy Reform.” We will lay out our Coalition’s road map for a clean energy future in the US. I encourage anyone interested to visit our website for further information: CoalitionForGreenCapital.com , or to reach out via email to sarahdavidson635@gmail.com

Read the full article →

Lloyd Chapman: Federal Judge Denies SBA Move To Drop Case on PR Contract

October 14, 2010

United States District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong has denied a motion put forth by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the agency by the American Small Business League (ASBL). The ASBL is pursuing information on potentially damaging public relations contracts awarded by the agency to APCO Worldwide Inc., a large public relations firm specializing in crisis management. The ASBL suspects the SBA has spent American tax dollars to hire consultants to help them obscure the SBA’s role in diverting billions of dollars a month in federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms and other large businesses around the world. The ASBL believes the SBA may have launched a massive campaign to cover-up the diversion of federal small business contracts to large businesses, and to discourage the media from covering the issue. In one case, the SBA paid $30,000 for a one-day meeting with APCO executives. The SBA is refusing to release the complete details of the contract. ( http://www.asbl.com/documents/APCO_SBA_Contract.pdf ) Since 2003, more than a dozen federal investigations have uncovered billions of dollars a month in federal small business contracts to corporate giants. In Report 5-15, the SBA’s own office of inspector general referred to the issue as, “One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration and the entire Federal government today” ( http://www.asbl.com/documents/05-15.pdf ) In Report 5-16 from March of 2005, the SBA IG reported that large businesses had committed fraud by misrepresenting themselves as small businesses through “false certifications,” and “improper certifications.” Another investigation from the SBA Office of Advocacy found large businesses had received federal small business contracts fraudulently through what they referred to as “vendor deception.” In recent years, the SBA has claimed the diversion of federal small business contracts to large corporations is the result of harmless “miscoding.” In May of 2007, the SBA even went as far as to claim that it was a “myth” that large corporations received federal small business contracts. ( http://www.asbl.com/documents/sbamythvfact.pdf ) I think it is very telling that the SBA has a PR contract with an international public relations firm that specializes in crisis management. The fact that they are withholding information on that contract is even more suspicious.

Read the full article →

Patricia Handschiegel: The New Power Girls: How Women in Business Are Taking It To The Next Level Despite The Economy

October 12, 2010

I suspect there have always been secret meetings and clandestine relationships among forces in business. The “Old Boy’s Club” didn’t get its name from having just one member, of course. People bond and create relationships with their colleagues, fellow CEOs, investors, etc. We get to know who is who at work. It evolves to grabbing lunches, drinks, hanging together at the holiday and industry parties. For Jenna, Sayeh, Meghan and myself, and many of the other women in the city, that’s the scene here as well. We work together, we play together. Business is talked over brunch, lunches, drinks, manicure/pedicures and shopping excursions. It’s like a New Girls Club – swap out the old guys with cigars, add in a group of fun, fearless female founders and executives who are gunning for big things in their lives and work. I’m not sure when we started more officially regularly meeting and getting together, but every few weeks or so we grab brunch, dinner or drinks, and talk about our projects. We all hang out individually all the time, but there’s nothing like getting together as a bunch. Meghan as you may know from reading NPG is a TV personality, author and expert with media brand. Jenna’s a health and fitness expert. Sayeh’s the youngest in the group, with an online boutique that she’s working to expand. And then there’s me – I’m a serial media and internet entrepreneur. I build and sell internet and media projects. I sold my first (Stylediary) in 2007, and am about to launch my next big thing. As we chatted over wine and snacks at the rooftop restaurant of the Hotel Angelino, I realized one thing: All of us were working to take our work to the next level. It got me wondering, can business owners still take their companies to the next level in what’s said to be one of the worst economies in history? And, more importantly, how? It’s something that women like the four of us, and many more beyond us, are doing today despite market conditions. One has an innovative marketing plan that works around the congestion in the media, which has made even the most seasoned publicists struggle with securing articles on clients. Another has put together a unique and unexpected approach to combat the saturation in her industry. A third is exploring financing options for future projects. Nobody’s letting the economy dictate what’s possible. As we noshed on dinner and wine, I couldn’t help but feel inspired. And as always, there’s value in collaborating. Meghan gave Sayeh two solid ideas, while I was able to share some insight into some areas of Jenna’s future plans. Sayeh had nothing but encouragement as I told about my current projects. And, Jenna reminded everybody that the number #1 sales tool was a belief in yourself and what you’re offering. One by one as we left dinner that night, all I could think was this: If life hands you lemons, don’t just make lemonade. You expand that into a lemonade empire. Partner with a lemon grower, and expand the brand across continents. That’s the way the women founders and executives I’ve met and know are approaching growing business in the down market: They aim for the sky no matter what the weather conditions may be.

Read the full article →

How Pat Toomey Was At The Forefront Of Risky Wall Street Deals

October 5, 2010

You’ve probably heard a lot about wacky, radical candidates like Carl Paladino, Christine O’Donnell, Paul LePage, Sharron Angle, and Rand Paul. But lost in all the media finger-pointing is the fact that Pat Toomey, who in any other year would be among the most conservative candidates in the country, is on a glide path to take Arlen Specter’s old Senate seat. The former congressman and Wall Street banker has led in the Pennsylvania polls for months. And despite some apparent tightening in recent weeks, polling guru Nate Silver gives Toomey a 92 percent chance of beating his Democratic opponent, Rep. Joe Sestak.

Read the full article →

Patricia Handschiegel: The New Power Girls: Meet The Power Girl Who Is Changing How Brands Market Online

October 5, 2010

Palo Alto, CA is quiet but busy on a late weekday afternoon as I join fellow Power Girl Julia Kung for a business lunch on the outdoor patio of one of the city’s cute restaurants. A half dozen or so dot the “downtown” area of the sleepy town, many of which appear to serve Italian food. As we take our seats and dig into a selection of fresh bread, we are like any other women in the city, having a late lunch. Julia’s in killer gray peep toe ankle boots and a chic, oversized top. I’m in gold Christian Louboutin heels. Our companies were doing business together at the time, but like most Power Girls, business is always peppered with friendships and camaraderie. Today’s new modern women entrepreneurs and executives aren’t just blazing it in business, they’re also cool, fun people you get along with. When it comes to marketing, Julia is the best in the business. A hybrid mix of old and new school practice, with a tech-savvy that’ll blow your social media expert out of the water, Julia’s work is garnering major attention in the business. Her work with Moxsie.com has captured major fashion industry cred like WWD and California Apparel News. In the past year, she’s been invited to speak at prestigious conferences like Internet Retailer. Most marketers today operate under false assumptions, aren’t savvy about page views and analytics, rely on tired, elaborate “call to action” campaigns because they believe that every consumer wants (or has time) to “engage,” etc. When marketing strategy came up among a group of female founders this past week, I couldn’t help but to email Julia to tap her insight. Here’s what she shared: You’re one of the best cross-platform, cross-media marketers I know, particularly on the web. What’s the secret? There is no secret at all. Since Moxsie is a small company and our target demographic is very wired and engaged on many platforms, it’s a no-brainer. Also, the twin limitations of bandwidth and budget mean that we can’t rely solely on traditional marketing and advertising, so we have to get creative and experiment. We’re always willing to be the guinea pig with new technology. I’m impressed by big brands that are able to get corporate buy-in for new media since it’s got to be harder for them to take those risks. Finally, I’d like to emphasize that it all depends on the product. Our site might have all the bells and whistles, and we might promote and cross promote on a billion platforms, but it won’t matter if the independent fashion we sell isn’t appealing. Luckily, we carry the best stuff! Moxsie’s generated tons of traffic and sales through your marketing efforts, what do you feel has been the key/critical piece to your strategy? This’ll be a surprising answer from someone who sells independent fashion, but I think our location has been very key. New York and LA are generally considered the US fashion centers, but Moxsie’s location in the Bay Area means that we have easy access to a lot of great partners. Polyvore, Kaboodle, Twitter, and TheFind are examples of companies that we’ve established great working relationships with. They like it when we test new products for them, and we like that these products help us drive sales. Also, I’ve been very lucky to hire extraordinary people for the marketing team: (Nathan Zaru and Mayka Mei- check out Mayka’s blog at themaykazine.com). They’re young, eager to learn, and great at multi tasking. Most importantly, they are well versed in new media and have specialized skill sets that encompass the whole range of marketing needs. We’re a very small team, but we’re able to accomplish so much because of this. Companies may feel overwhelmed by all the noise, wide marketplace and reach they can have. How can they remain focused? The marketing mantra is “what’s the goal?” As long as you only use tools and media to accomplish the goals you set out initially, you won’t be distracted. Moxsie created what’s essentially a new niche (indie fashion) — how important is it today for companies to differentiate, especially since there is so much of the same things online? Why would customers come to your site if you’re exactly the same as something that already exists? Moxsie carries accessibly priced independent fashion for men and women, which is already unique. We’ve also made the purchasing experience unique too! For example, you can see a live twitter feed of Moxsie mentions through the twitter-sphere when you’re browsing so you know what sorts of things other people are interested in, during check-out we allow you to choose a charity that we donate a portion of our proceeds to, every purchase from our warehouse is gift-wrapped, and people that purchase from us get special deals that aren’t available to everyone else. These are just some of the ways we make sure that the Moxsie experience is an indelible memory. What do you feel are the online marketing must-haves for companies today? Investment in social media is crucial for B2C companies, and usually very useful for B2B. The basics of marketing and also SEM + SEO are obvious necessities. Probably the most important must-have isn’t any sort of tool, but the right mindset. Marketing should be an adventure! What are some of the mistakes a lot of companies make in marketing online? Never waste an opportunity. This is when I offer anyone who’s read this far into the article a 15% off coupon code on www.moxsie.com- Just use “NEWPOWERGIRLS” in your shopping cart for 15% off. It’ll be live till the end of 2010. Thanks for reading this far people, and may I recommend our women’s shoe and boot selection ? They are to die for. I love that. How important are blogs and media today to online strategy? Are these things still relevant when companies can now reach audiences themselves more than ever? Blogs and media are extraordinarily important! Moxsie stays in touch with a large number of bloggers. We love the blogging community because it’s fun, unfettered, and allows information to be communicated so creatively. Additionally, many of these blogs are influencers not only of consumers but of other media. It all feeds off of each other. Moxsie’s also really great about advertising online — what’s behind your success in it? There is definitely no magic formula here. We’ve done plenty of testing to determine which formats and audiences work best. Since we have a limited budget, we keep our focus narrow and campaigns are always ROI driven. Is there anything companies absolutely should NOT do online? You have to try everything once, right? Can’t be scared of making mistakes. If there’s one don’t, I’d choose Google’s corporate motto of “Don’t be evil.”

Read the full article →