pakistan

menafn.com…

(MENAFN) Iran’s Energy Minister, Majid Namjou, said that Iran would raise its electricity exports to Pakistan by 1,000 megawatts (MW) by the coming 3 years, reported Tehran Times. Namjou added …

Here is the original post:
Iran to boost power exports to Pakistan by 1,000MW

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

{ 0 comments }

Huffington Post…

Forget album sales and glitzy awards. Kanye West’s new goal is nothing short of changing the entire world. The mad scientist tastemaker of hip hop went on an epic Twitter rant on Wednesday night, discussing his new clothing line, his musical plans and, most significantly, his new company, which he says will “pick up where Steve Jobs left off.” Called Donda, after his late mother, West revealed that its goal will be to “make products and experiences that people want and can afford,” “to help simplify and aesthetically improve everything we see hear, touch, taste and feel,” and ” dream of, create , advertise and produce products driven equally by emotional want and utilitarian need.. To marry our wants and needs.” It will be comprised, West tweeted, of over 22 divisions staffed by “architects, graphic designers, directors musicians, producers, AnRs, writers, publicist, social media experts, app guys, managers, car designers, clothing designers, DJs, video game designers, publishers, tech guys, lawyers, bankers, nutritionists, doctors, scientists and teachers.” Specifically, West wrote that one of Donda’s “projects to be released this year [is] called 2016 OLYMPIC’s … It’s a semi sic-fi since 2016 is only 4 years away,” which presumably means that it will be a movie. West also disclosed that he was in talks to become the creative director of the “Jetsons” movie, and wants to design the MTV Awards, which probably means the VMAs. In addition, West wrote that he wants to help reshape the American school system, which he says was “designed to turn people into factory workers.” That includes starting a summer school with director Spike Jonze. “There are so many broken systems from the economy to school systems jail systems… we need experts for this,” he later said , promising that his creativity and ability to bring experts together would be of service in the effort to solve intractable problems.

Read the original here:
Kanye’s Epic Twitter Rant: Wants To Be New Steve Jobs, Change The World

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

{ 0 comments }

Pakistan’s banks’ credit risk remains high

December 26, 2011

(MENAFN) Pakistan’s central bank said that credit risk of the country’s banks remained very high, and they would face a drop in credit quality, reported Gulf News. The State Bank of Pakistan …

Read the full article →

U.S. Income Inequality Higher Than Roman Empire’s Levels: Study

December 19, 2011

Many tout the U.S. as the Roman empire of the modern world. But as it turns out, that comparison may not be all good. Income inequality in America is at levels even higher than those in ancient Rome , according to a recent study from two historians, Walter Schiedel and Steven Friesen, cited by Per Square Mile. After analyzing papyri ledgers, biblical passages and other previous scholarly estimates, the researchers found that the top one percent of earners in Ancient Rome controlled 16 percent of the society’s wealth. By comparison, the top one percent of American earners control 40 percent of the country’s wealth , according to Vanity Fair . (h/t ThinkProgress) The findings add to the growing chorus of studies and criticisms indicating that the wealth gap is hitting truly remarkable levels. The top one percent saw their incomes rise by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the bottom fifth of earners only saw their incomes grow by 20 percent during that same period. In addition, the total net worth of the bottom 60 percent of Americans is less than that of the Forbes 400 richest Americans . Perhaps even more shocking, the six heirs to the retail giant Walmart had the same net worth in 2007 as the bottom 30 percent of Americans . And the phenomenon isn’t just limited to the U.S. — income inequality is on the rise in most of the world’s major economies , according to the Organisation of Economic Development and Cooperation. The high levels of income inequality may help explain why both Rome and America wield so much power. Large wealth gaps actually helped early societies spread , according to an October study. That’s because unequal societies crowded out more egalitarian populations, the study found. Still, the income gap may hurt the U.S. in other ways. A September report from the International Monetary Fund found that greater income equality positively correlates with stronger economic growth . Not only that, but it’s also unpopular; nearly three-quarters of the respondents to an October pol l from The Hill said they think income inequality is a problem for the United States. In addition, it’s been one of the main rallying cries of Occupy Wall Street .

Read the full article →

The ‘World’s Worst Ecological Oil Catastrophe’

December 18, 2011

USINSK, Russia (AP) — On the bright yellow tundra outside this oil town near the Arctic Circle, a pitch-black pool of crude stretches toward the horizon. The source: a decommissioned well whose rusty screws ooze with oil, viscous like jam. This is the face of Russia’s oil country, a sprawling, inhospitable zone that experts say represents the world’s worst ecological oil catastrophe. Environmentalists estimate at least 1 percent of Russia’s annual oil production, or 5 million tons, is spilled every year. That is equivalent to one Deepwater Horizon-scale leak about every two months. Crumbling infrastructure and a harsh climate combine to spell disaster in the world’s largest oil producer, responsible for 13 percent of global output. Oil, stubbornly seeping through rusty pipelines and old wells, contaminates soil, kills all plants that grow on it and destroys habitats for mammals and birds. Half a million tons every year get into rivers that flow into the Arctic Ocean, the government says, upsetting the delicate environmental balance in those waters. It’s part of a legacy of environmental tragedy that has plagued Russia and the countries of its former Soviet empire for decades, from the nuclear horrors of Chernobyl in Ukraine to lethal chemical waste in the Russian city of Dzerzhinsk and paper mill pollution seeping into Siberia’s Lake Baikal, which holds one-fifth of the world’s supply of fresh water. Oil spills in Russia are less dramatic than disasters in the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea, more the result of a drip-drip of leaked crude than a sudden explosion. But they’re more numerous than in any other oil-producing nation including insurgency-hit Nigeria, and combined they spill far more than anywhere else in the world, scientists say. “Oil and oil products get spilled literally every day,” said Dr. Grigory Barenboim, senior researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Water Problems. No hard figures on the scope of oil spills in Russia are available, but Greenpeace estimates that at least 5 million tons leak every year in a country producing about 500 million tons a year. Dr. Irina Ivshina, of the government-financed Institute of the Environment and Genetics of Microorganisms, supports the 5 million ton estimate, as does the World Wildlife Fund. The figure is derived from two sources: Russian state-funded research that shows 10-15 percent of Russian oil leakage enters rivers; and a 2010 report commissioned by the Natural Resources Ministry that shows nearly 500,000 tons slips into northern Russian rivers every year and flow into the Arctic. The estimate is considered conservative: The Russian Economic Development Ministry in a report last year estimated spills at up to 20 million tons per year. That astonishing number, for which the ministry offered no elaboration, appears to be based partly on the fact most small leaks in Russia go unreported. Under Russian law, leaks of less than 8 tons are classified only as “incidents” and carry no penalties. Russian oil spills also elude detection because most happen in the vast swaths of unpopulated tundra and conifer forestin the north, caused either by ruptured pipes or leakage from decommissioned wells. Weather conditions in most oil provinces are brutal, with temperatures routinely dropping below minus 40 degrees Celsius (minus 40 Fahrenheit) in winter. That makes pipelines brittle and prone to rupture unless they are regularly replaced and their condition monitored. Asked by The Associated Press to comment, the Natural Resources Ministry and the Energy Ministry said they have no data on oil spills and referred to the other ministry for further inquiries. Even counting only the 500,000 tons officially reported to be leaking into northern rivers every year, Russia is by far the worst oil polluter in the world. —Nigeria, which produces one-fifth as much oil as Russia, logged 110,000 tons spilled in 2009, much of that due to rebel attacks on pipelines. —The U.S., the world’s third-largest oil producer, logged 341 pipeline ruptures in 2010 — compared to Russia’s 18,000 — with 17,600 tons of oil leaking as a result, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Spills have averaged 14,900 tons a year between 2001 and 2010. —Canada, which produces oil in weather conditions as harsh as Russia’s, does not see anything near Russia’s scale of disaster. Eleven pipeline accidents were reported to Canada’s Transport Safety Board last year, while media reports of leaks, ranging from sizable spills to a tiny leak in a farmer’s backyard, come to a total of 7,700 tons a year. —In Norway, Russia’s northwestern oil neighbor, spills amounted to some 3,000 tons a year in the past few years, said Hanne Marie Oeren, head of the oil and gas section at Norway’s Climate and Pollution Agency. Now that Russian companies are moving to the Arctic to tap vast but hard-to-get oil and gas riches, scientists voice concerns that Russia’s outdated technologies and shoddy safety record make for a potential environmental calamity there. Gazpromneft, an oil subsidiary of the gas giant Gazprom, is preparing to drill for oil in the Arctic’s Pechora Sea, even as environmentalists complain that the drilling platform is outdated and the company is not ready to deal with potential accidents. Government scientists acknowledge that Russia does not currently have the required technology to develop Arctic fields but say it will be years before the country actually starts drilling. “We must start the work now, do the exploration and develop the technology so that we would be able to … start pumping oil from the Arctic in the middle of this century,” Alexei Kontorovich, chairman of the council on geology, oil and gas fields at the Russian Academy of Sciences, told a recent news conference. The same academy’s Barenboim said, however, that Russian technology is developing too slowly to make it a safe bet for Arctic exploration. “Over the past years, environmental risks have increased more sharply compared to how far our technologies, funds, equipment and skills to deal with them have advanced,” he said. In 1994, the republic of Komi, where Usinsk lies 60 kilometers (40 miles) south of the Arctic Circle, became the scene of Russia’s largest oil spill when an estimated 100,000 tons splashed from an aging pipeline. It killed plants and animals, and polluted up to 40 kilometers (25 miles) of two local rivers, killing thousands of fish. In villages most affected, respiratory diseases rose by some 28 percent in the year following the leak. Seen from a helicopter, the oil production area is dotted with pitch-black ponds. Fresh leaks are easy to find once you step into the tundra north of Usinsk. To spot a leak, find a dying tree. Fir trees with drooping gray, dry branches look as though scorched by a wildfire. They are growing insoil polluted by oil. Usinsk spokeswoman Tatyana Khimichuk said the city administration had no powers to influence oil company operations. “Everything that happens at the oil fields is Lukoil’s responsibility,” she said, referring to Russia’s second largest oil company, which owns a network of pipelines in the region. Komi’s environmental protection officials also blamed oil companies. The local prosecutor’s office said in a report this year that the main problem is “that companies that extract hydrocarbons focus on making profits rather than how to use the resources rationally.” Valery Bratenkov works as a foreman at oil fields outside Usinsk. After hours, he is with a local environmental group. Bratenkov used to point out to his Lukoil bosses that oil spills routinely happen under their noses and asked them to repair the pipelines. “They were offended and said that costs too much money,” he said. Activists like Bratenkov find it hard if not impossible to hold authorities to account in the area since some 90 percent of the local population comprises oil workers and their families who have moved from other regions of Russia, and depend on the industry for their livelihood. Representatives of Lukoil denied claims that they try to conceal spills and leaks, and said that no more than 2.7 tons leaked last year from its production areas in Komi. Ivan Blokov, campaign director at Greenpeace Russia, who studies oil spills, said the situation in Komi is replicated across Russia’s oil-producing regions, which stretch from the Black Sea in the southwest to the Chinese border in Russia’s Far East. “It is happening everywhere,” Blokov said. “It’s typical of any oil field in Russia. The system is old and it is not being replaced in time by any oil company in the country.” What also worries scientists and environmentalists is that oil spills are not confined to abandoned or aging fields. Alarmingly, accidents happen at brand new pipelines, said Barenboim. At least 400 tons leaked from a new pipeline in two separate accidents in Russia’s Far East last year, according to media reports and oil companies. Transneft’s pipeline that brings Russian oil from Eastern Siberia to China was put into operation just months before the two spills happened. The oil industry in Komi has been sapping nature for decades, killing or forcing out reindeer and fish. Locals like the 63-year-old Bratenkov are afraid that when big oil leaves, there will be only poisoned terrain left in its wake. “Fishing, hunting — it’s all gone,” Bratenkov said. ___ Bjoern H. Amland contributed to this report from Oslo, Norway. ___ Nataliya Vasilyeva can be reached at http://twitter.com/natvasilyevaap Environmentalists estimate at least 1 percent of Russia’s annual oil production, or 5 million tons, is spilled every year. That is equivalent to one Deepwater Horizon-scale leak about every two months. Crumbling infrastructure and a harsh climate combine to spell disaster in the world’s largest oil producer, responsible for 13 percent of global output. Oil, stubbornly seeping through rusty pipelines and old wells, contaminates soil, kills all plants that grow on it and destroys habitats for mammals and birds. Half a million tons every year get into rivers that flow into the Arctic Ocean, the government says, upsetting the delicate environmental balance in those waters. It’s part of a legacy of environmental tragedy that has plagued Russia and the countries of its former Soviet empire for decades, from the nuclear horrors of Chernobyl in Ukraine to lethal chemical waste in the Russian city of Dzerzhinsk and paper mill pollution seeping into Siberia’s Lake Baikal, which holds one-fifth of the world’s supply of fresh water. Oil spills in Russia are less dramatic than disasters in the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea, more the result of a drip-drip of leaked crude than a sudden explosion. But they’re more numerous than in any other oil-producing nation including insurgency-hit Nigeria, and combined they spill far more than anywhere else in the world, scientists say. “Oil and oil products get spilled literally every day,” said Dr. Grigory Barenboim, senior researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Water Problems. No hard figures on the scope of oil spills in Russia are available, but Greenpeace estimates that at least 5 million tons leak every year in a country producing about 500 million tons a year. Dr. Irina Ivshina, of the government-financed Institute of the Environment and Genetics of Microorganisms, supports the 5 million ton estimate, as does the World Wildlife Fund. The figure is derived from two sources: Russian state-funded research that shows 10-15 percent of Russian oil leakage enters rivers; and a 2010 report commissioned by the Natural Resources Ministry that shows nearly 500,000 tons slips into northern Russian rivers every year and flow into the Arctic. The estimate is considered conservative: The Russian Economic Development Ministry in a report last year estimated spills at up to 20 million tons per year. That astonishing number, for which the ministry offered no elaboration, appears to be based partly on the fact most small leaks in Russia go unreported. Under Russian law, leaks of less than 8 tons are classified only as “incidents” and carry no penalties. Russian oil spills also elude detection because most happen in the vast swaths of unpopulated tundra and conifer forestin the north, caused either by ruptured pipes or leakage from decommissioned wells. Weather conditions in most oil provinces are brutal, with temperatures routinely dropping below minus 40 degrees Celsius (minus 40 Fahrenheit) in winter. That makes pipelines brittle and prone to rupture unless they are regularly replaced and their condition monitored. Asked by The Associated Press to comment, the Natural Resources Ministry and the Energy Ministry said they have no data on oil spills and referred to the other ministry for further inquiries. Even counting only the 500,000 tons officially reported to be leaking into northern rivers every year, Russia is by far the worst oil polluter in the world. _Nigeria, which produces one-fifth as much oil as Russia, logged 110,000 tons spilled in 2009, much of that due to rebel attacks on pipelines. _The U.S., the world’s third-largest oil producer, logged 341 pipeline ruptures in 2010 – compared to Russia’s 18,000 – with 17,600 tons of oil leaking as a result, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Spills have averaged 14,900 tons a year between 2001 and 2010. _Canada, which produces oil in weather conditions as harsh as Russia’s, does not see anything near Russia’s scale of disaster. Eleven pipeline accidents were reported to Canada’s Transport Safety Board last year, while media reports of leaks, ranging from sizable spills to a tiny leak in a farmer’s backyard, come to a total of 7,700 tons a year. _In Norway, Russia’s northwestern oil neighbor, spills amounted to some 3,000 tons a year in the past few years, said Hanne Marie Oeren, head of the oil and gas section at Norway’s Climate and Pollution Agency. Now that Russian companies are moving to the Arctic to tap vast but hard-to-get oil and gas riches, scientists voice concerns that Russia’s outdated technologies and shoddy safety record make for a potential environmental calamity there. Gazpromneft, an oil subsidiary of the gas giant Gazprom, is preparing to drill for oil in the Arctic’s Pechora Sea, even as environmentalists complain that the drilling platform is outdated and the company is not ready to deal with potential accidents. Government scientists acknowledge that Russia does not currently have the required technology to develop Arctic fields but say it will be years before the country actually starts drilling. “We must start the work now, do the exploration and develop the technology so that we would be able to … start pumping oil from the Arctic in the middle of this century,” Alexei Kontorovich, chairman of the council on geology, oil and gas fields at the Russian Academy of Sciences, told a recent news conference. The same academy’s Barenboim said, however, that Russian technology is developing too slowly to make it a safe bet for Arctic exploration. “Over the past years, environmental risks have increased more sharply compared to how far our technologies, funds, equipment and skills to deal with them have advanced,” he said. In 1994, the republic of Komi, where Usinsk lies 60 kilometers (40 miles) south of the Arctic Circle, became the scene of Russia’s largest oil spill when an estimated 100,000 tons splashed from an aging pipeline. It killed plants and animals, and polluted up to 40 kilometers (25 miles) of two local rivers, killing thousands of fish. In villages most affected, respiratory diseases rose by some 28 percent in the year following the leak. Seen from a helicopter, the oil production area is dotted with pitch-black ponds. Fresh leaks are easy to find once you step into the tundra north of Usinsk. To spot a leak, find a dying tree. Fir trees with drooping gray, dry branches look as though scorched by a wildfire. They are growing insoil polluted by oil. Usinsk spokeswoman Tatyana Khimichuk said the city administration had no powers to influence oil company operations. “Everything that happens at the oil fields is Lukoil’s responsibility,” she said, referring to Russia’s second largest oil company, which owns a network of pipelines in the region. Komi’s environmental protection officials also blamed oil companies. The local prosecutor’s office said in a report this year that the main problem is “that companies that extract hydrocarbons focus on making profits rather than how to use the resources rationally.” Valery Bratenkov works as a foreman at oil fields outside Usinsk. After hours, he is with a local environmental group. Bratenkov used to point out to his Lukoil bosses that oil spills routinely happen under their noses and asked them to repair the pipelines. “They were offended and said that costs too much money,” he said. Activists like Bratenkov find it hard if not impossible to hold authorities to account in the area since some 90 percent of the local population comprises oil workers and their families who have moved from other regions of Russia, and depend on the industry for their livelihood. Representatives of Lukoil denied claims that they try to conceal spills and leaks, and said that no more than 2.7 tons leaked last year from its production areas in Komi. Ivan Blokov, campaign director at Greenpeace Russia, who studies oil spills, said the situation in Komi is replicated across Russia’s oil-producing regions, which stretch from the Black Sea in the southwest to the Chinese border in Russia’s Far East. “It is happening everywhere,” Blokov said. “It’s typical of any oil field in Russia. The system is old and it is not being replaced in time by any oil company in the country.” What also worries scientists and environmentalists is that oil spills are not confined to abandoned or aging fields. Alarmingly, accidents happen at brand new pipelines, said Barenboim. At least 400 tons leaked from a new pipeline in two separate accidents in Russia’s Far East last year, according to media reports and oil companies. Transneft’s pipeline that brings Russian oil from Eastern Siberia to China was put into operation just months before the two spills happened. The oil industry in Komi has been sapping nature for decades, killing or forcing out reindeer and fish. Locals like the 63-year-old Bratenkov are afraid that when big oil leaves, there will be only poisoned terrain left in its wake. “Fishing, hunting – it’s all gone,” Bratenkov said. ___ Bjoern H. Amland contributed to this report from Oslo, Norway. ___

Read the full article →

Dr. Sasha Galbraith: Bayer CropScience’s Sandra Peterson: Successful Woman CEO Navigates in a Man’s World

December 13, 2011

In today’s era of business uncertainty, coupled with women’s increasingly difficult ascent to the top of major corporations, one woman is successfully climbing the ladder two (or three) rungs at a time (often with a sidestep in between). I recently spoke with Sandra E. Peterson, CEO of Bayer CropScience — a $10 billion business that’s part of the German industrial giant Bayer AG. Sandra Peterson, 52 and a New York City native, has an impressive resume showcasing her wealth of experience running product lines, businesses and entire divisions for the likes of Whirlpool, Nabisco, Merck-Medco and, finally, Bayer. In several cases she has taken on the challenge of turning around a business and making it profitable. Peterson says her road to the top was never a straight line, and she’s always taken on risky roles. In fact, she thinks that women need to take more risks in order to get ahead. “Most women I know who have been successful in business, it’s because they’ve been willing to take on the risky challenge that other people would say, ‘Oh, I’m not sure I want to do that.’ If you look at my career, I’ve taken on a lot of risky roles. They were risky to some people, but to me it was, ‘Wow, this is this great opportunity and it’s allowing me to learn new things and take on a bigger role and a bigger organization.’ But some people would view that as, ‘Are you crazy? What do you know about diabetes, or what do you know about washing machines or the food industry or automobiles or the agricultural industry?’” But Sandra has aligned purpose with passion — choosing jobs that fit with her interests. In particular, she looks for positions that: • offer an opportunity to think about the customer and the market differently, • are global in nature; • present innovation and technology challenges, particularly in science policy, • can benefit from her goals of broadening diversity based on gender, geography and generation; and • are turnaround situations with potential for future growth and innovation in the business. Variety and New Challenges Sandra has worked in six different industries, and each of the high-profile senior executive jobs she’s held over the past 20 years has presented welcomed challenges. Many women — and men — would prefer not to start afresh with a new company and organization over and over again. I asked her how she approached these situations. “When I walk into a new organization and I don’t know the industry or the people, which has always been the case, I do a few things. One is I think about the business from the outside in. I spend a fair amount of time early on with customers [to] understand what the market wants and needs versus what we want to sell them. Those are two very different things, right? And so I spend time outside directly interacting with customers, but then interacting with the people on the front lines like the sales and marketing people.” She also tells everyone to expect her to ask a lot of questions. Sandra meets with people at various levels in the organization to get a sense of what is working well and what needs improvement. “One of the things I’ve learned is people are smart and they understand what should be done. They understand what the challenges are, but they’re not always able to have their voices heard.” Based on the input she gets, Sandra then gives key people more prominent leadership roles, which she finds unleashes a torrent of positive energy throughout the organization. This is the first post in a series about Sandra Peterson, CEO of Bayer CropScience. In the next post, I’ll examine Sandra’s leadership philosophy and approach for mentoring middle management in her organization. This post first appeared on Forbes.com .

Read the full article →

Tom Fox: Getting Federal Employees and Managers on the Same Page

December 13, 2011

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), listed No. 1 in this year’s Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings, had been rated 25th out of 30 large agencies six years ago. After initiating a set of management reforms geared toward improving employee culture and morale, the FDIC has seen their scores skyrocket — a good reminder to federal leaders that doing the hard work can improve employee job satisfaction, commitment and ultimately performance. To help federal leaders turn their agencies around, the Best Places to Work analysis produced by my organization, the Partnership for Public Service, includes staff/manager alignment data that provides insights into how the employees and the leaders each perceive the work environment. Have you ever thought, “My colleagues just don’t seem to get it?” You’re not alone. Whether you are a leader or an employee, research across sectors shows that managers often respond to workplace surveys more positively than staff. If the gap between managers’ and employees’ views of an agency is too large, however, mission and performance may suffer. Based on a set of 50 questions selected from the Federal Employee Viewpoint survey, we can assess the degree of alignment — or disconnect — between an agency’s staff and managers. Because we can also benchmark the findings against government-wide results, agency leaders can determine whether they are above, at or below the norm. To find out your agency’s staff/manager alignment score, you can go here to download your agency’s Best Places to Work report. Based on your agency’s results, you may want to consider pursuing steps to make a greater connection with employees, and get everyone on the same page. · Mind the gap. This may sound like a self-help program, but the first thing to do is admit to your employees that there’s a problem. Your employees already know there’s an issue. They’re the ones who completed the survey. Telling them that you recognize the problem demonstrates that you’re taking their feedback seriously, and it’s the first step toward bringing about some positive change. · Identify the root causes. Next, you’ll need to understand the source of the problems. Organize separate focus groups for senior leaders, managers and staff to allow each group to honestly and anonymously share their opinions. The agency’s senior leaders can then compare notes, identify opportunities to improve and develop a plan of action. · Just do it (and measure the results). Any plan to foster better synergy between managers and staff should be shared with employees and put in motion. Make sure you provide periodic updates, and don’t wait until the next survey to measure your progress. Successful agencies administer shorter, targeted pulse surveys focused on specific issues to ensure that their plans are on track. If agencies are receiving negative feedback, they have an opportunity to improve their plans before the next Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey is administered. This post first appeared in the Washington Post. If you have other ideas to help managers and employees get on the same page or if you have helped your agency improve its results in this regard, please share your thoughts by adding a comment below, or by sending an email to me .

Read the full article →

Chuck E. Cheese Fined For Multiple Child Labor Law Violations

December 13, 2011

Chuck E. Cheese, that famed birthday party venue “where a kid can be a kid,” has allegedly been forcing some children to grow up a bit too fast. The U.S. Department of Labor fined nine San Francisco-area Chuck E. Cheese’s restaurants a total of $28,000 for allowing 16 young workers to operate on-site trash compactors in violation of the law, according to the Los Angeles Times . The eateries also allowed two minors to run a dough-mixing machine illegally. The Fair Labor Standards Act sets the minimum wage for most non-agricultural work at age 14, but it does prohibit youth from working in manufacturing, mining or performing other “hazardous jobs.” But it appears the restaurants have learned their lesson. Officials at CEC Entertainment Inc., the Irving, Texas-based owner of Chuck E. Cheese’s, are now telling teen workers not to operate the equipment and have put stickers on the machines warning minors not to use them, according to the San Francisco Chronicle . Brenda Holloway, a spokeswoman for the company, told the Chronicle that there were some regulations that the CEC hadn’t been aware of previously. “As soon as we were made aware of that, we did correct the deficiencies and paid our fines,” Holloway told the Chronicle . “We’re walking the straight and narrow now.” The Labor Department has collected more than $650,000 in back pay and penalties from 271 south Florida restaurants for labor law violations including breaking child labor provisions, according to a press release. A Connecticut family fought back in 2010 when the Labor Department accused them of violating child labor laws by allowing their children to work in the family pizzeria, according to ABC News. The Chuck E. Cheese news comes as child labor regulations have been thrust back into the national spotlight thanks to Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Gingrich, a former House Speaker, has proposed putting poor children to work as janitors in their schools to help them learn a proper “work habit.” This isn’t the first scandal at Chuck E. Cheese this year. A photo surfaced in July of what appeared to be a mascot pointing his middle finger at a camera while next to a child. In 2010, a Chuck E. Cheese manager was accused by female employees of sexist and derogatory comments.

Read the full article →

Carol Muske-Dukes: Don’t Bank on Banks — Except for One!

December 5, 2011

I visited Zuccotti Park while in NYC a month or so ago while it was still Occupied and alive with a jumpy confidence. It was late in the evening and I’d come down from the West Village with an old friend, head of an arts organization in the city. As we talked to the protestors, we checked out the “floor plan”: food distribution, sleeping quarters, communications tent and “general assembly”, plus the impromptu library with its carefully-ordered categories of Poetry, Fiction, Nonfiction (all these donated volumes were later tossed into garbage by police when they eventually “cleaned” the park). As we walked among sleeping bags, listening to the onstage exhortations reinforced with the famous hand gestures, backed by strumming guitars, we found ourselves afloat in a nostalgic spirit of solidarity with this impassioned “village” of dissenters — we felt like Boomer time-travelers, beamed up from a long ago counter-culture revolution — a war that was never really won or lost. The People’s Park demonstration in Berkeley in 1970 came back to me: the frightened faces of the nervous National Guardsmen as we placed flowers in the barrels of their raised rifles. My friend recalled a more shocking image from her student days in Santa Barbara. She’d witnessed the famous burning of the Bank of America’s Isla Vista branch. She also recalled the “scenic check” that those who lit up the BofA designed as a grim little private joke. Instead of pastoral backgrounds — sunsets over the ocean or towering redwoods — they came up with a check that cheerily depicted the bank aglow: no one inside, just the cash in the vault — a little fiduciary coastal bonfire. Don’t get me wrong — nostalgia’s easy and self-indulgent. Answering questions from those who condemn the “Occupations” takes a wee modicum of reflection — and I’m by no means advocating the torching of banks. But so many critics of the Occupy Wall St. movement have ridiculed the protestors for their seeming disunity of purpose that that image of the “burning bank” check, seared in memory, helps re-affirm that the fundamentals of the counter-culture protests of the 70′s and those of 2011 are analogous. (And “Phase 2″ of Occupy will be focusing almost exclusively on banks — sit-ins in lobbies of banks, foreclosure speak-outs.) It was the bankrolling of wars and resultant “class warfare” that drove the “old” protest movement: “Establishment” hypocrisy and use of police brutality in the attempt to suppress those intent on exercising their right to peaceful lawful assembly. The shocking results of unscrupulous profiteering: foreclosure, homelessness, joblessness were not as widespread and starkly evident then, but the recollection of “war-bucksing” or imperialism and global greed, (labeled “conspiracy theories” or lockstep ideology back then) — look like spot-on prophecy of the rise of a conscienceless corporate oligarchy, of deregulation and its cancers. Looks like the crystal ball that foretold an inevitable future. At a Zuccotti Park shopping “bin” — I chose a yellow button emblazoned with the peace symbol and the slogan, “Brought Back by Popular Demand”. The OWS protestors in NYC pitched their tents near the ongoing symbol of American greed, the big casino of the stock exchange, but there were “drop ins” at the big banks up and downtown with signs and chants and street theatre — and, yes, more to come: more bank lobby and CEO office occupations. Their message: we’re the 99% in cities across the world — presence is platform. Protests on university campuses also stand against banks and fiscal inequity, albeit less overtly. In “parks” and on campus, police violence is back — simply because, as before, dissenters all over the world are following the money — where it’s going and to whom. And those who control the money being followed also control and promote police crackdowns on dissent. Students often are the core/matrix of the dissent — they are the pawns in the banks’ loan programs. Re recent graduates — check out the facts: only 55% of college graduates now find steady employment. Students pick up their diplomas and with that diploma a strangling balance sheet of debt — the banks are merciless in pursuing graduates to collect the thousands and thousands owed. Few level with students about the appalling state of “their” job market (this was never supposed to be the duty of educators — yet how to ignore that elephant now?). Schools do not invest in graduates’ futures — but the banks swoop in to recoup at graduation what they readily loaned in the “first year” — with interest and penalties. Those who cannot pay back the loans suffer ruined credit ratings at a young age — those bad scores follow them the rest of their lives. We Boomers went on to jobs in the “Establishment” or the “System” — the System has now failed. The flag of entrepreneurship can be raised — but beware that tilting deck on the big ship of commerce. If we’re all going down, folks, only a few of us have life rafts. Eric Schneiderman of New York and Beau Biden of Delaware — with the backing of MoveOn members, Occupy protesters, and other grassroots heroes — have used their power under state laws to demand a real bank investigation. But the banks will do anything to stop them, and these progressive attorneys general are being pressured to back down. So how do the 99% — the disenfranchised, essentially leaderless — Take Back the Night of the predatory Fed and its fiduciary vampires” on the horizon? At this moment (early December, 2011) it looks as if there is a glimmer of “recovery” on the horizon, but whether this glimmer will light a fire is hard to know. So what if we find a way, under state law, to build our own bank, state by state — based on a model that is in existence right now? If “It’s the banks, stupid!” — then why not fight fire with fire? I’d like to float a life-raft, a creative entrepreneur life-raft of a bank — the Bank of North Dakota — or, as it could be called: The Bank of the New Deal. Others have shone the spotlight on B of ND recently and senators and state officials have made pilgrimages to Bismark, the state capitol, to glimpse the miracle — but most Americans still don’t know about this amazing anomaly in our midst, in the middle of our country. My mother and father came from North Dakota. After they married, they moved to St. Paul, Minnesota, where I was born and grew up. My parents were young in the Great Depression and that time of great deprivation and loss “stuck”. My father became a staunch Republican and my mother a lifelong Democrat (she’s now 95). They were two young citizens who grew up on once-rich Dakota farms and property, saw their parents lose all or most of what they had — then were stirred by FDR’s New Deal and the subsequent recovery. My father’s reaction to “public works projects”, to the Keynesian “priming of the pump” was a counter-belief in fiscal responsibility, hard-won conservative principles, separation of church and state — those once-honored traditions of a hi-jacked GOP, a forgotten GOP. My mother, on the other hand, like my father, a child of 2nd generation immigrants, believed that capitalism could be the “good provider” to workers who worked hard — that all might benefit from the plenty of corporate initiative. Thus social good and compassionate politics were a measure of society’s civilization. My parents disagreed with each other about just about everything — but they were both clear about the populism that had swept the Great Plains from the turn of the century onward — how it had defined their differing ideas of Justice. Republicans of that era had a conscience. They cared about their fellow citizens. They held on tighter to the purse-strings, but history proves that they shared in social concerns. Which brings me to Michele Bachmann, since she purports to represent the present-day conservative movement in Minnesota. As a neocon, her expressed horror at government “radicalism” would itself have shocked the “old” Republican party of the Plains, which embraced very different principles, among them individual rights, not those dictated by fundamentalism. My Dad built a very successful business — and he provided the opportunity for individuals to work — as well as a family legacy. Michele Bachmann’s “family farm” takes in large government subsidies to run itself — my father would not have approved of that. He would have called it “socialism” or “eating out of the public trough.” (Ditto in regard to her husband’s unlicensed “clinic” — which accepts government handouts). Each time Bachmann uses the word “socialism” to excoriate the president and other politicians — she avoids acknowledging a big-time shadow falling across her skewed “page” in the history book of these traditions. Bachmann is heir to a “socialist” legacy, as my parents were and I am — the history of populist activism in the Midwest. The Democratic Party in Minnesota is called the Democrat Farm Labor Party — the DFL — and its roots are in that “radical” prairie soil. The Bank of North Dakota is the fruit of that activism — the Bank of N.D. (New Deal in North Dakota)! Some quick facts about the Bank of N.D. : It is the only state-owned bank in America. It was created almost a century ago in 1919 — as the populist movement swept the northern plains. Farmers and union leagues and individuals took a stand against East Coast market-makers who were deciding who got credit as well as controlling the marketplace. The bank, once it was established, stood on its own, complicit with justice — i.e. state-owned mills would buy grain direct from the farmer, etc.) The progressive movement imposed regulations on railroads, banks and insurance companies. In 1938, citizens of North Dakota and Minnesota supported the New Deal (even Republicans.) Listen up, Michele; they were all “radical” — like the citizens of Occupy right now! The Bank of North Dakota created its own credit — which created state economic sovereignty, sort of like its own state “Fed”. It deposits all state tax collection and fees, then takes these funds and “plows” them back into the fund of the state of North Dakota — its needs and well-being. The bank invests in areas like student loans — what used to be called “the public good”. Talk about nostalgia: remember The Public Good? North Dakota’s economy is booming. There are more jobs than can be filled by the state’s population so out-of-state seekers are pouring into the state. It doesn’t hurt that natural oil resources were found under N.D.’s soil — but the state was thriving long before that. The resident population of North Dakota is 600,000 — and those 600K are enjoying the largest surplus ever generated by a state. Has the Bank been called “socialist”? Non-stop. It’s been called “socialist” by the usual suspects — especially the giant vampire banks that would exsanguinate the population of this country — for their own profit. Do these behemoths turn back profits, like the Bank of N.D., into the future and well-being of its citizens? Sure, right. Hold on to your coat check ticket, ok? But why shouldn’t what the Bank of N.D. has so successfully realized over many years and in a wise tradition — work for other states? I say that it will! I would encourage the Occupy movement to adopt a new plank in the platform — a new bank. De-bank and re-bank! Let’s find the “radical” economists and entrepreneurs who can help make the success story of the state bank available to us all. I’m not an economist. I’m not a businessperson. I’m a citizen. But I’d like a new checkbook — how about you?

Read the full article →

Occupy L.A. May Branch Out To Occupy Beverly Hills, Skid Row

November 28, 2011

WASHINGTON — After a tense all-nighter with the Los Angeles Police Department, Occupy L.A. activists and their tents outside City Hall have been given a temporary reprieve. The police re-opened the streets around City Hall to traffic Monday morning and essentially left Occupy L.A. alone. Four activists had been arrested — hardly the anticipated outcome from either side. Late Friday, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa declared 12:01 a.m. Monday as the deadline by which Occupy L.A. had to vacate City Hall Park. In a letter to the activists, he wrote: “The Occupy movement is now at a crossroads.” Villaraigosa did not give an explicit explanation as to why he wanted the park cleared of the occupation’s 500 tents, food service and library. Peter Sanders, the mayor’s senior press secretary, said in an email Monday afternoon that the mayor “respects Occupy L.A.’s right to exercise their freedom of speech but that going forward, tents will not be allowed in City Hall Park and the laws regarding city parks will be enforced.” If the mayor thought his threat Friday would send Occupy L.A. members scattering to off-site locations, he was wrong. Sunday night’s general assembly was packed . When a moderator asked how many people were attending the assembly meeting for the first time, many hands shot up. But Occupy L.A.’s continuing general assemblies might be short lived. Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck told reporters at a Monday morning press conference that the eviction will happen. “We will enforce the law on our own time schedule,” Beck said. Rumors had already begun that the eviction could come Monday at noon. The Occupy L.A. activists have been just as adamant about holding their ground. “We’re not going away,” PJ Davenport assured The Huffington Post. “We knew that the eviction order was coming down,” Davenport said. “But you can’t help but feel cheated yet again by your local government when they tell you that your time is up and you need to move elsewhere.” Yet some within Occupy L.A. are already considering such a move, Davenport conceded. Los Angeles is a sprawling city with 9.8 million residents and a nearly endless stretch of distinct neighborhoods, enclaves and cultures. Post-eviction, activists aren’t thinking about shrinking. They’re thinking about franchising. Instead of one space, how about 50 spaces? Instead of Occupy L.A., how about Occupy Beverly Hills and an Occupy Skid Row? “You will see tents across the metro area,” Davenport suggested. “If they’re not allowed at City Hall, you will see them around City Hall.” “None of us are interested in working out of an office,” Occupy L.A. activist Joan Donovan insisted. “We want real change. We hope that we show that by occupying, we are extremely serious.” Donovan said the idea of diversifying into several spaces may grow out of necessity — and a way to empower the leaders who grew up through the City Hall space. “We don’t know if we are going to get space this big again,” she explained. “The tactic would be to let all the people who became leaders here to begin the process somewhere else … It would be awesome if there was an Occupy Beverly Hills. It would be the perfect opportunity to talk to tourists about how to better spend their money, how to be better citizens. The idea is to get people to think.” There’s serious talk, Donovan said, of an occupation starting up in Los Feliz. And others are talking about Occupying Rodeo Drive. The greater Los Angeles area already boasts an Occupy Long Beach , an Occupy Venice and an Occupy Pasadena , among other spots. “There are people talking about doing a more permanent occupation of Skid Row,” said Jeremy Rothe-Kushel, an Occupy L.A. activist. “The other possibilities are fully on the table. I think there’s going to be a negotiation about centralization vs. decentralization.”

Read the full article →

Scott Brown Follows In Elizabeth Warren’s Footsteps

November 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) endorsed President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Monday, according to The Boston Globe . His backing of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray will likely have little to no effect on Cordray’s prospects for actually securing the nomination. A total of 44 other Senate Republicans, more than enough to filibuster a vote on Cordray’s appointment, have already vowed not to approve any CFPB director unless the agency’s capabilities are limited by new laws. Cordray was the law enforcement official most aggressively pursuing action against banks on foreclosure fraud until he was ousted by a Republican challenger in late 2010. Elizabeth Warren, the consumer advocate who conceived of the CFPB and who is now challenging Brown for his Senate seat, hired Cordray to head enforcement activity at the bureau shortly thereafter. Obama nominated him to head the agency after passing over Warren, whose public criticism of big banks and the Wall Street bailout had agitated congressional Republicans and Democratic campaign donors from the financial industry. Meanwhile, Warren has given Cordray her full support for CFPB director, and Republican groups have continued their efforts to tie Warren to the Occupy Wall Street movement and portray that association in a negative light. Warren has not stopped criticizing big banks, although she insists that everyone involved in the protests must “obey the law.” Brown, whose top career campaign donors include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Barclays and the hedge fund Paulson & Co., was one of just three Republicans to vote in favor of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. He withheld his vote, however, until he had secured highly targeted legislative favors for hometown banking giant State Street.

Read the full article →

WATCH: Donald Trump On Gaddafi’s Death: ‘Big Deal’

October 20, 2011

Hearing the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s death on Thursday, many American leaders released statements on what the end of the Libyan dictator’s run meant for the world. “The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted,” said President Barack Obama. “I think people across the world recognize that the world is a better place without Muammar Gaddafi,” said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But businessman Donald Trump? He needed only two words: “Big deal.” After hearing of the death , Trump, the business magnate perhaps best known for his role on the NBC reality show The Apprentice , took to his webcam for an installment of “From The Desk Of Donald Trump” to discuss the political ramification ( h/t Mogulite ). Trump, who’s recently been labeled the “GOP kingmaker” by the Boston Globe , quickly launches into a criticism of the Obama administration’s decision-making during the Libyan uprising, specifically that the president should have bartered with the rebels for oil pending their victory in exchange for U.S. military support. The Obama administration did officially endorse the primary rebel group, the Transitional National Council, in July , and later pledged U.S. allegiance to the multinational coalition in aid of the uprising. “The rebels would have given us everything if we had some leader who knew how to negotiate,” Trump said in the video. “The rebels were being routed four months ago, absolutely routed by Gaddafi and his men. If four months ago we would have said, ‘We want 50 percent of the oil,’ they would have said, ‘Absolutely, we have a deal. Help us, help us. Please, you have a deal.’” That Trump takes issue with Obama is well documented. In the spring, he demanded that President Obama release his birth certificate . He’s also more recently criticized President for going too easy on the Occupy Wall Street protesters . But “the Donald” has his fair share of history with Gaddafi as well. As Mogulite points out, Trump once bragged to FOX News’ Fox and Friends that he “screwed” the Libyan dictator by renting him a plot of land at a hugely exorbitant rate. “Then I didn’t let him use the land,” Trump added. WATCH “From The Desk Of Donald Trump: Gadhafi”

Read the full article →

Paul Krugman: Listening To GOP ‘Like Falling Down A Rabbit Hole’

October 14, 2011

Reading the transcript of Tuesday’s Republican debate on the economy is, for anyone who has actually been following economic events these past few years, like falling down a rabbit hole. Suddenly, you find yourself in a fantasy world where nothing looks or behaves the way it does in real life.

Read the full article →

US military trainers may return to Pakistan under new deal

August 28, 2011

(MENAFN – Gulf Times) Pakistan and the US are negotiating a fresh arrangement for allowing American military trainers back into the country, a development that may break a months-old deadlock in the …

Read the full article →

Jared Bernstein: Big Ideas and the Concentration of Wealth

August 15, 2011

There’s a piece in Sunday’s New York Times about the death of ideas: where are the big thinkers today — paradigm shifters like Keynes, Einstein, Friedan? The author — Neal Gabler — has a point. The big thinkers in my field are basically arguing over Keynes vs. Hayek… not that there’s anything wrong with that. Since the Great Depression, Keynesian economics has never been so important… nor so poorly understood. But if the point is that we’re stuck in old boxes, I think he’s right. But, at least in the realm of political economy, I think he misdiagnoses the cause. Gabler stresses information overload. There’s so many bytes of info at are fingertips that we no longer think in ways that foment and nurture ideas… we just know stuff. That may be true in some fields but in my field, I think the concentration of wealth and its handmaiden — power — are implicated. Let me explain by way of example. The financial crash of the 2000s revealed a confluence of many powerful and socially disruptive forces: levels of income inequality not seen since the dawn of the Great Depression, stagnant middle-class living standards amidst strong productivity growth, solid evidence that deregulated markets were driving a damaging bubble and bust cycle, deep repudiation of supply-side economics, and most importantly, even deeper repudiation of the dominant, Greenspanian paradigm that markets will self-correct. We may not, in my lifetime, witness another historical moment where these destructive forces are so clearly revealed. What’s more, there were economic thinkers arguing for a new paradigm (I hesitate to list them because I know I’ll leave someone out, but Stiglitz comes to mind as particularly visionary in those days; George Soros had a great little book , Jamie Galbraith, Dean Baker, Krugman come to mind — my book All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy took a stab as well) And yet, at least from where I sit today, we let the moment pass. Far from a debate over a new paradigm, our national political economy discussion is bereft of ideas, leaving us mired in recession as we self-inflict one economic wound after another. Forget new ideas — we can’t seem to correctly apply the old ones! Why did we squander the opportunity? Not because there’s so much information on the web. It is, at least in part, because the concentration of wealth and power blocked the new ideas from a fair hearing. Deregulated markets, “rational market” theories, eroded labor standards, the retreat of unions, regressive taxation, financial engineering, global arbitrage, low rates of job growth, growth that eluded the middle-class and the poor… all have contributed to almost unprecedented levels of wealth concentration. Such dynamics are self-reinforcing. The narrow slice of winners, enriched beyond imagination by these forces, use their wealth to insulate themselves from new ideas that threaten their position by purchasing not just political power but even “ideas,” through bogus think tanks and media operations. They and their representatives ensured that when history provided a unique, crystallized moment of clarity as to their fundamentally corrupt paradigm, too few would see it clearly and when those who did sounded the alarm, no one would listen. And now we’re arguing about debt ceilings, budget cuts, and super-committees, not to mention whether evolution and climate change are real or conspiratorial notions of the left. I know this is a dark vision of reality but before you get too deeply bummed out by it, let me say that I’m by no means alone in this analysis of the problem, and I’ve begun to see some hints that more and more of us are getting the picture. And that has the potential to create a welcoming climate for new ideas that challenge this paradigm, ideas that have been sorely missing for too long. This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein’s On The Economy blog.

Read the full article →

Marty Zwilling: What Entrepreneurs Can Learn From Reality TV

August 14, 2011

I’m not much of a television person, but my family loves one of the popular “reality” shows, called So You Think You Can Dance , so I’m sort of forced to watch it every week on Fox. Over time, I’ve concluded that even startup entrepreneurs can learn a few things from this one. Of course, you must ignore the pomp and circumstance of the TV staging. I’m on the selection committee of our local angels group, so I know that every CEO approaching our group for funding goes through ten minutes of creative “dancing,” to give us a basis for selecting startups that are most qualified and “ready” to proceed to the next level. If selected, they go through it again in the real meeting of 20-40 investors. It’s tough and not fun for either side. The business “dance” obviously has different particulars than TV dancing, but there is serious business and artistry involved in both cases. Here are some observations I can offer to startup founders looking for funding, analogous to the aspiring dancers on the show, hoping to move to the next level: Judges evaluate the person first. Investors want to look the CEO in the eye, and be convinced that he or she can lead the company to success — it’s more important than the creative idea. On the TV show, I’m sure you all see contenders that have lost before they start, just because they lack the enthusiasm, presence, and confidence of a winner. You only get a few minutes to make the case. In fact, your case is usually won or lost in the first couple of minutes. In business, as on the show, wins can turn to a loss if you bungle or skip relevant basics in the short time allotted. Everyone wants a longer time or second chance to win you back, but it would rarely ever change anything. Skip the bravado, but don’t be immobilized with fear. I subscribe to a quote from another TV show too old to mention, where the hero said “He who is not afraid — he’s a fool.” Let your adrenaline help you deliver an outstanding performance, but trying to wow investors with jokes or stories of unending success will not move you up a level. Play to the audience in front of you, and adapt your message. If the panel is looking for value and return for the investor, skip the technology pitch, or customer sales pitch. Some entrepreneurs give the same talk, no matter what the audience. If you have only one dance, don’t be surprised if it wears thin quickly with the judges. Dress appropriately and professionally. Under-dressed may impress on TV, but it’s better to be over-dressed in the business world. Business casual is the standard for investor presentations. Remember that most investors are from a generation where faded and torn jeans were on the wrong side of success in business. Practice, practice, practice. Even if you are an experienced dancer, you practice your craft with renewed determination before a big show. Business entrepreneurs need to do the same thing, maybe in “presidential debate” style with their team for critics, until they master the timing and can handle every unanticipated slip or challenge. Even though I’m certainly no expert on dancing (I’ve taken Beginning Ballroom Dancing three times now), most of the reviews I have seen call the TV show realistic, with the panel of judges giving reasonable critical and technical feedback. That’s a welcome relief from Donald Trump’s pompous calls on Celebrity Apprentice Depending on one’s perspective, this is either the perfect time or an awful one to start a business. So, if you plan to face a business version of the dancing challenge soon, watch the show and check the recommendations above. Show some energy and enthusiasm, and don’t let the technical steps required overshadow your creativity. Break a leg!

Read the full article →

John Arensmeyer: Failure to Raise the Debt Ceiling is Bad for Business

July 30, 2011

Headlines have dubbed it “unthinkable,” and businesses small and large have urged lawmakers for months to agree soon to ensure the country doesn’t default on its debt. But next week’s August 2 deadline to raise the federal debt ceiling looms, and a recent deal that could have resolved the issue fell through because some lawmakers couldn’t abide elimination of special tax breaks used mostly by the most affluent. It’s alarming that lawmakers have taken the debate so close to the wire, considering the havoc a default would wreak on small businesses and the economy as a whole. With each passing day that politicians fail to make a deal, economic uncertainty grows, shaking the environment for small and large businesses alike. Unfortunately, the clock is still ticking and that last minute is fast approaching. There are myriad reasons why we must not default on the debt: skyrocketing interest rates, an across-the-board credit freeze–essentially total financial collapse. While much of the debate has focused on big businesses and Wall Street in particular, which have plenty on the line, small businesses will suffer even more from a default. Small businesses don’t have the means to weather an economic crisis in which many big businesses can thrive, as the aftermath of the recession has made abundantly clear. Many small businesses that already are scraping by in our sluggish economy are financed with variable-interest-rate loans – unlike the largest businesses, which can sell their own fixed-rate long-term bonds in the market. If the nation defaults and interest rates spike, those small businesses will be the first in the line of fire. While there were signs of progress last week talks fell through over the weekend. This is incredibly discouraging, considering lawmakers have a mere five days to reach agreement. Some of the proposals reduce the deficit through significant cuts and revenue-raising measures. Now that there is more than raising the debt ceiling on the table, lawmakers must realize the long reach of their decisions as they negotiate a deal. The choices they make now may have a large impact on our fragile economy’s fledging recovery. Key decisions must be pragmatic and carefully considered. If a deal doesn’t spread the burden fairly and evenly, the consequences could be almost as bad as missing the deadline and defaulting on our debt. Compromises that extend the debt limit for the long-term must be as balanced as possible. A final deal must include a mechanism that allows for revenue-raising measures to be included down the road. A plan offered by a bipartisan group of senators known as the “Gang of Six” provides a good framework to do this. They close inefficient corporate tax loopholes to raise revenue. That approach eases the burden on firms that now pay relatively more, especially small businesses. By doing this, business tax rates could be lowered to allow now-heavily taxed firms, including small businesses, to keep more of their profits in their pockets, helping them to expand, grow and thrive. Other measures being considered, such as curbing waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and reforming the physician payment system, known as the “doc fix,” will also help stabilize the deficit without harming small businesses or depressing consumer spending–a key concern for entrepreneurs. Small business revenues, especially, were greatly reduced during the recession and have barely recovered. It’s crucial that any budget cuts included in a final compromise not slow small businesses’ sales. Doing so would stifle job growth and halt our economic recovery. Watching sound proposals fail because of today’s hyper-politicized environment in Washington is beyond frustrating. Some lawmakers are using small business as cover to protect tax breaks for the most affluent by claiming small business owners are included this group. In fact, the vast majority of entrepreneurs and even many highly taxed large businesses will not be affected if these breaks expire. Lawmakers are simply putting special interests above the success of our nation’s job creators. This situation must change. In the waning days before the August 2 deadline, lawmakers must put the nation’s economic solvency before partisan politics and remember the needs of the economy, dynamic businesses, and consumers as they negotiate. Many business owners simply won’t survive if they don’t. John Arensmeyer is the founder and CEO of Small Business Majority (SBM). SBM is a national nonpartisan organization, founded and run by small business owners, that brings the voices of America’s 28 million small businesses to the public policy table. Charles Kolb is the president of the Committee for Economic Development (CED). CED is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of more than 200 business leaders and university presidents. CED promotes policies to produce increased productivity and living standards, greater and more equal opportunity for every citizen, and an improved quality of life for all.

Read the full article →

Commercial Plane Crashes In Guyana, No Deaths Reported

July 30, 2011

GEORGETOWN, Guyana — A Caribbean Airlines jet coming from New York crashed and broke in two while landing in Guyana with 163 people aboard on Saturday, causing several injuries but no deaths, said President Bharrat Jagdeo. The Boeing 737-800 apparently overshot the 7,400-foot (2,200-meter) runway at Cheddi Jagan International Airport in rainy weather and barreled through a chain-link fence. It barely missed a 200-foot (60-meter) ravine that could have resulted in dozens of fatalities, he said. “We are very, very grateful that more people were not injured,” he said as authorities temporarily closed the airport, leaving hundreds of passengers stranded and delaying dozens of flights. The cause of the crash was not immediately clear. Authorities struggled at first to remove passengers without adequate field lights and other emergency equipment. About 100 people received medical attention, with four hospitalized for serious injuries, said Devant Maharaj, transportation minister in Trinidad, where Caribbean Airlines is based. He said the company is sending a team to Guyana to help investigate the crash. No further details were available. Maharaj spoke at a press conference in Trinidad and took no questions, saying the investigation is ongoing. Among the injured was Geeta Ramsingh, 41, of Philadelphia, who said passengers had just started to applaud the touchdown “when it turned to screams,” she said, pointing to bruises on her knees. She said she hopped onto the wing and then onto the dirt road outside the runway fence. “I am upset that no one came to rescue us in the dark, but a taxi driver appeared from nowhere and charged me $20 to take me to the terminal. I had to pay, but in times of emergencies, you don’t charge people for a ride,” she said, sitting on a chair in the arrival area surrounded by relatives. She was returning to her native country for only the second time in 30 years. Adis Cambridge, 42, of Guyana, said she felt the thump of a hard landing but did not think much of it until seconds later. “I realized that everything was on top of me, people and bags. I was the second to last person to get off that plane in the dark,” she said, surrounded by her two young children who had come to the airport to meet her after a brief holiday in the U.S. “I hit my head on the roof. It was so scary,” she said as she described hopping onto the wing and then jumping down to the dirt road below as crews with flashlights and beams from fire engines searched for passengers. Some passengers asked authorities for their luggage but were told it was not a priority at the time. The plane had left New York and made a stop in Trinidad before landing in Guyana. The airline said it was carrying 157 passengers and six crewmembers. Jagdeo said he has asked the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board to help investigate the crash. The airport’s main terminal reopened late Saturday morning to only a couple of small planes, including a LIAT airline bound for Barbados, said Orin Walton, a local representative for the Antigua-based carrier. The crash of Flight BW523 is the worst in recent history in Guyana, and only one of the few serious incidents involving the Trinidad-based airline. It is the single largest carrier in the region, operating at least five daily flights. ______ Associated Press Writer Tony Fraser in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Don Tapscott: Business Models for Five Industries in Crisis

July 12, 2011

In our 2006 book Wikinomics , Anthony D. Williams and I looked at dozens of companies that have used the Internet to transform their business models and achieve tremendous success. However, in the five years since the book’s publication, we’ve noticed something striking: the rate of business model innovation has not accelerated. Yes, some individual companies have achieved competitive advantage by exploiting the web and networked business models. But overall the gains have been modest. We’re beginning to understand the reason. Increasingly it’s becoming difficult or even impossible for companies to achieve breakthrough success without changing their entire industry’s modus operandi. From the many examples, let’s look at five: 1. Pharmaceuticals Can’t Fix What Ails Them One by One Pharmaceutical companies are about to drop off what’s called “the patent cliff”. They will lose 25-40 percent of their revenue in the next two years as the patents for many blockbuster drugs expire. There is little individual companies can do to recover from this crisis and instead need an industry wide solution. The global biomedical community is generating about 25 new medicines per year, but only a handful of these are “pioneer drugs” rather than “follow-on drugs”-variants, formulations or combinations of existing therapies. Despite increased research spending the impact on the number of new medicines approved is negligible. Pioneer drugs address societal needs but also their discovery will allow pharmaceutical companies to grow because consumers are willing to pay for such innovation. It is in everyone’s interest that those involved in the quest for pioneer drugs share rather than hoard information. Unfortunately, the current structure of drug research encourages the industry to protect its ideas and material with intellectual property rights or restrictive collaboration agreements. The public sector too has been encouraged to secure intellectual property on early-stage discoveries. Nor is the clinical trial process as open as it could be. The outcomes of these trials, particularly if they fail, are not published until several years after the termination of the projects, if at all. A corollary is that the pharmaceutical industry is downsizing research and focusing on less risky activities. Instead, the industry should share some of its clinical trial data, such as results from failed trials or from control groups. “This will not undermine the competitive advantage of companies,” says former Merck executive Stephen Friend, now a champion of the open source biology movement: “It will enable it, by changing the basis on which companies compete and setting a platform for a sustainable industry.” 2. Rethinking the Music Recording Industry Used properly, the Internet could deepen the bond between musicians and their fans. Instead, the music recording industry has become the poster child of failed digital opportunities. Instead of clinging to late-20th-century distribution technologies, like the digital disk and the downloaded file, the music business should move into the 21st century with a revamped business model that converts music from a product to a service. All music labels and performers should put their music into a commons in the cloud. Instead of purchasing tunes, listeners would pay a small fee-say $4 per month-for access to all the songs in the world. Recordings would be streamed to them via the Internet to any appliance of their choosing — such as their laptop, mobile device, car, or home stereo. Artists would be compensated based on how many times their music had been streamed. The system would immediately eliminate “illegal downloading” because the problem of copyright protection would vanish. There are companies like Spotify that are attempting to provide such a service, but the record labels have resisted putting all their music in an exchange whereby they and artists get compensated each time a song is streamed. With a restructured music industry, companies would have an incentive to nurture new artists. Tapscott’s discussion of Banking, Sustainable Manufacturing and Transforming Healthcare is continued at Wall Street Journal’s The Source . Don Tapscott is the author of14 books, including (with Anthony D.Williams) MacroWikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World. He is an Adjunct Professor at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto. Twitter: @dtapscott. Join Tapscott for a live Q and A at 11 am ET Tuesday.

Read the full article →

10 Artistic Jobs With Bright Futures

July 9, 2011

With the country in the middle of a jobs crisis, finding any former of employment is tough, let alone jobs in the arts. It turns out, however, that the future of America’s creative-types might be far less bleak than it seems at present moment, according to a report by the National Endowment for the Arts , using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics . Over the next seven years, job growth in the arts will exceed job growth as a whole, the report states. In fact, according to the report, artistic careers for painters, architects and photographers are expected to increase by 11 percent by 2018, compared to the projected 10 percent total increase in the American labor force. Due to long-term structural changes, there will be approximately 2,196,100 people working in artist occupations in 2018 compared to 1,977,800 in 2008, the most recent year with data available, according to the report. Certain arts industries are expected to see especially significant jobs growth. Jobs associated with museums, such as curators, archivists and technicians, are expected to rise 20 percent, or “much faster than average employment growth.” According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the public’s continued interest in arts, sciences, and history, when coupled with growing amounts of content and material to manage, will create demand for such jobs. Still, finding a viable career as an artist remains a challenging pursuit. As pointed out by The Atlantic , people with educations in the humanities are among the lowest earners, and the expected job growth may be in part due to the fact that artists will often work for less — the median annual wages of archivists in May 2008 was $45,020, for example. Likewise, expect competition to remain high in nearly all artistic fields, with landscape architects, librarians and floral designers the only exceptions. Radio and TV announcers will have an especially hard time, as competition is expected to remain high, while jobs in those industries are projected to decrease. Below are the ten art jobs expecting the the largest increase in job growth by 2018:

Read the full article →

WATCH: Man Reportedly Jailed For Cashing Legitimate Check

July 7, 2011

Last June, 28-year-old Ikenna Njoku of Auburn, Washington was reportedly imprisoned for four days after trying to cash a Chase check the bank itself had issued to him. Mr. Njoku, who at the time claims he had become a new homeowner, qualified for the first-time home buyer rebate on his tax return, for a total of $8,463.21 after overdraft fees, reports King 5 Seattle . When Chase mailed him the check, he says that he sought to cash it as quickly as possible. But when he arrived at the Chase bank, the banker allegedly thought the check, and his claim that he owned a home, were fraudulent. “I was embarrassed,” Njoku told King 5. “She asked me what I did for a living. Asked me where I got the check from, looked me up and down — like ‘you just bought a house in Auburn, really?’ She didn’t believe that.” According to Mr. Njoku, he left the bank and was told by customer service that he should come back the next morning. When he did, the bank had phoned the police, who subsequently arrested him for forgery. Njoku remained in jail for four days. When the bank realized it had made a mistake, they left a voicemail message with the detective handling the case, but unfortunately for Mr. Njoku, it was the detective’s day off. No further attempts were made by the bank to correct the error, the local police department confirmed to King 5. The check that had landed him in prison was reportedly seized as evidence and he lost his job for failing to show up while in prison. “They [Chase] haven’t even sent me a letter or apologized,” he said. “It’s been a year we’ve been trying to contact these guys.” He has since hired an attorney. Mr. Njoku is not the first individual who has been imprisoned for what has arguably been a bank’s mistake. In June of this year, KCAL 9 reported that Laguna Beach resident Stephen McDow had been arrested for spending $60,000 of a $110,000 tax refund that Citibank had mistakenly deposited in his account. Watch full King 5 report here:

Read the full article →

ICANN Opens Domain Naming: Is the ‘Dot Com’ Boom Over?

June 21, 2011

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers announced on Monday one of the most significant changes to Internet naming since “dot com” was first uttered. ICANN will dramatically increase the number of domain name endings — known in the industry as “generic top-level domains,” they currently include .com, .net and .gov — opening up the relatively limited set currently available to website owners. According to the organization , addresses will be able to end in almost any word in any language. Companies, places and individuals will be given the opportunity to register their names, and category domains — such as .cars, .sports and .news — will be up for registration come January 2012. Given the mere 22 possible endings available now, the decision has potentially far-ranging implications as to how corporations, non-profits and individuals choose to exist online. As part of a 305 page Applicant Guidebook , ICANN stipulates that companies registering certain brand names will be subject to thorough vetting to determine that they can legally hold a brand name domain. “The issue is about having control over your internet presence as much as possible,” said Jeff Ernst, a principal analyst at Forrester Research. Ernst explained that as it stands right now, many companies “have put their brand presence secondary to .com” — the most popular domain ending. With the new domains, “companies can better control their brand.” Consumers, meanwhile, will be able to differentiate between official brand sites and imposters. “When you go to .Gucci, consumers will know it’s not the knockoff,” said Ernst. The thorniest question surrounds category names and who controls the rights to them. Ernst says that “preference will be given to those groups that want to run an open community” and foresees industry associations and larger groups making collective bids, but with “strict guidelines as to who can participate.” Jeremiah Johnston, the chief operating officer for domain name registration company Sedo , cautioned that “these are words,” — not trademarked names — and warned that concerns will inevitably arise as to “who is the true custodian of them.” “This is a question of fair use rules — it’s going to be interesting,” he added. Anthony Falzone , a lecturer in Law affiliated with the Stanford Center on Internet and Society, said he thought the category domains “will strike off a huge bidding war.” But he also questioned how effective — or necessary — they would be in the long run. “In the early days of the internet, there was that first gold rush for domain names, because domain was quite important to finding things. Search capability was essential,” Falzone explained. But these days, he posited, users are just as likely to use search engines like Google to find an individual or company, making domain names less important. Others in the industry said the traditional domain name endings show little sign of going away. Kurt Gastroch, senior vice president of product at Network Solutions , a domain name registry and web hosting service, said that “the landscape has been dominated by .com extension since the existence of the commercial internet. And it still makes up half of the registrations.” Gastroch says that certain “behavioral conditioning” needed to take place to push users (and companies) to embrace the new domain name endings. But he also noted the success of certain country domain names that have been licensed for broader, unrelated uses. The domain .co was originally meant for Columbia, but has since been appropriated as an alternative to .com, while .tv was initially meant to represent the country of Tuvalu but has since become popular given its implication of broadcast media. “These GTLDs have multiple meanings and interpretations and are marketed in different ways,” explained Gastroch. Johnston said that the .co representatives, “went to trademark and branding conventions, and made sure everybody knew it was an alternative to .com.” He added that the .co team recognized that it was essential for “consumers to have a relationship to the extension and to assume what kind of content it represents. Marketing is key.” In the end, the net effect of ICANN’s domain name expansion is anyone’s guess. “We’re still in the infancy of the internet,” said Gastroch. “These things can change in ways we can imagine and ways we cannot.”

Read the full article →

Matthew Dakotah: Women In Power: Silicon Valley Visionary is Changing the World One Greentech Startup at a Time

June 21, 2011

A special series profiling trailblazers in energy innovation and champions of the environment. See previous stories here . “How does this story go? It was second grade. Our school got all of these wonderful Apple IIs and we got exposed to some super basic computer programming,” Trae Vassallo remembers. “That was the seminal moment for me where I was like, ‘I get this. I feel empowered.’” And so started the remarkable journey of a girl from rural Minnesota who would eventually become a partner developing the greentech practice at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB), the storied Silicon Valley venture capital firm behind some of the world’s most transformational companies–Google, Amazon, Netscape, and Genentech among them. Trae realized that she he had an aptitude for things “that are logically based, like programming and math.” And her focus on athletics was important “because you learn teamwork and how to be competitive and gracious in winning and losing.” Being a woman competing in subjects that are traditionally the domain of men was a “non-issue.” In fact, Vassallo says it didn’t even occur to her until she studied mechanical engineering as a graduate student at Stanford. “I remember being in a class where there were literally seven women in a class of 70 men,” she recalls. “But it was more of a challenge than anything–a chance for me to do my best and show that it could be done.” But there was a mentor that played a pivotal role in Trae receiving her Master’s in Mechanical Engineering with honors from Stanford: the only woman faculty member in the department. “I was fortunate enough to have Dr. Sheri Sheppard as my advisor, it was one of the best things that happened to me,” Vassallo says. “I was going to graduate [with a Bachelor's] and find a job, and Sheri said, ‘I would love for you to TA my class and I think you should consider getting a Master’s degree.’” Trae credits that moment with putting her on the path towards her first job at IDEO–a global design firm where she developed several products including the Palm V–and all of the opportunities that have led to where she is today. After helping to launch the Palm V, Trae realized that as much as she loved the experience, she was on the wrong side of the equation: consultant as opposed to entrepreneur. “That caused me to want to go back to business school, ” she says. And so she returned to Stanford, eyes squarely set on an MBA. “My second year of business school [KPCB partner] John Doerr came and spoke in a class I was taking and so I made sure to meet this person who I very much admired,” Trae remembers. A meeting with Doerr followed and Vassallo swiftly became a co-founder of mobile device management company, Good Technology . Three years later she was an investing partner at KPCB. It was 2002. “We had historically always done Internet technology and life science, but we kept seeing entrepreneurs come in with business plans around renewables or conservation. Energy was a bigger and bigger theme,” Trae explains. “So about the same time I came to KP, we started thinking hard about whether to expand the business to a third leg of the stool.” And beyond the bottom line, there was a “larger mission.” Trae is unflinching in her belief that energy innovation is “important from a global perspective and for what we need to do to improve life for people on this planet.” Fast forward to 2011, and Vassallo has played an integral role in fostering several of the most promising–but still fragile–greentech companies of the early 21st century. One of those start-ups is OPOWER , which recently landed at number five on The Wall Street Journal’s second annual Top 10 Clean-Tech Companies list. OPOWER helps consumers increase efficiency and save money through a multi-channel engagement platform driven by smart meter data that provides individualized reports on their home energy use. “Right now, your utility bill is almost as bad as your taxes,” says Trae. “I keep imagining saying 20 years from now, ‘I can’t believe we ever lived in a time where we had no transparency into how we used our energy.’ We sort of need that app store for the home.” Topping The Wall Street Journal list is another company Trae has helped to build. With recycling rewards programs in 29 states and now the UK, Recyclebank has been growing rapidly under CEO Jonathan Hsu. And it seems to be having a measureable impact. According to Vassallo, recycling rates have increased by as much as 100 percent in cities where the programs have been introduced. But even for an energy wunderkind, success can be elusive. In 2009, KPCB-backed AltaRock Energy –a Seattle-based startup developing engineered geothermal systems (EGS) that could one day provide a virtually unlimited supply of 24/7 carbon-free power sourced from deep underground–had to abandon its first demonstration project at the The Geysers in Northern California because on-site wells lacked the necessary structural integrity to test the new technology. Trae says geothermal is “not without its issues in that there is a significant amount of capital that needs to be invested and continued R&D.” Even so, AltaRock is aiming to try again at a new site in Oregon at the end of this year. “[EGS] is one of the best baseload renewables that we have out there, but we have a lot more work to do,” Vassallo says. In the interim, she is “excited about how you improve the existing geothermal wells we have today.” Other endeavors are moving forward with considerable speed–literally. Fisker Automotive , the premium plug-in hybrid start-up led by renowned auto designer Henrik Fisker, will deliver its first model, the Karma, to eager buyers in California this fall. Vassallo was an early believer in Henrik’s vision–to make sustainable cars that do not require consumers to sacrifice performance or style–and a primary force behind KPCB’s unusual decision to back the company in 2007. “The automotive business is not really a venture capital kind of investment. It’s not something where you invest less than 10 million dollars,” explains Trae’s mentor and KPCB Managing Partner, Ray Lane . “You have to have the guts to stay in it to invest 50 million dollars and that’s a risk we’re not used to. Trae worked very hard for the first couple of years where we had to make some tough decisions.” But why start with a $95,900 luxury car that so few people can afford rather than a mass-market version that would have a much greater environmental benefit? “We are investing in a company that we want to be profitable from day one. So they are coming out the door with what I always call it, their 7 Series,” Vassallo responds. “But this is the same team that understands how to build a 5 series and a 3 Series and we’re going to do exactly that.” Fisker clearly appreciates Trae’s style. “There is nothing timid about her. We bounce things back and forth without always necessarily agreeing and she’s a person who can handle that,” he says. “She understands the disruptive technology paired with the desirability of what we are doing.” So what’s next for Vassallo? “She’s just made an investment in a lighting company that I think will have a great impact,” says Lane. “We’re looking for Googles and looking for Netscapes and looking for Genentechs all of the time, and I think Trae is one of those people who will find one.” At a Glance Hometown: Fairmont, Minnesota Education: Bachelor’s and Master’s in Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University. MBA, Stanford Graduate School of Business Professional Highlights: Design Engineer at IDEO Product Development. Co-founder of Good Technology. Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Advice for Young Women: “Go out and network voraciously and find those points of inspiration.”

Read the full article →

PHOTOS: 10 Careers Derailed By A Tweet

June 16, 2011

These days, you have to be extra careful what you say on social networks. A single message could jeopardize your career in an instant. Many have been fired over Twitter and canned over Facebook , but only a select few make the high-profile list below, sending hugely controversial tweets that put their careers in disarray. Of course the latest major Twitter debacle has involved Anthony Weiner . But AOL Jobs reports he’s far from the first to misfire a tweet and face an unstable career as a result. [Weiner's] congressional sabbatical may very well culminate in his departure from Congress. This is America, and at 46 years old, Weiner still has a future as something. But as the most famous Twitter casualty to date, his experience reinforces the lesson that all tweets might as well be seen by your boss. In his case, that’s the American people, and public opinion. Here are 10 notable cases in which a career was severely damaged by a tweet. (Of course, Twitter can be used the opposite way too .) Each of these mishaps could have been avoided had the tweet deliverer simply avoided hitting “send” on such a public forum – Twitter .

Read the full article →

Turkish, Israeli Nationals Trafficked Organs, E.U. Claims

June 13, 2011

PRISTINA, Kosovo — A European Union prosecutor in Kosovo has indicted a Turkish and an Israeli national for involvement in an international network that falsely promised poor people money for their kidneys and then transplanted the organs into rich buyers, the bloc’s rule of law mission said Monday. Turkish citizen Yusuf Sonmez, and Israel’s Moshe Harel were charged last week for “trafficking in persons, organized crime and unlawful exercise of medical activity,” the mission, known as EULEX, said in a statement. Sonmez and Harel are considered at large by EU authorities and Interpol has issued a warrant for their arrest. The indictments are part of a larger investigation into allegations that an organized criminal group conducted operations in a clinic outside of the capital Pristina where the victims’ organs were transplanted into the buyers. EU prosecutor Jonathan Ratel – who brought the charges in 2010 – said victims were promised up to $20,000 (euro14,000) for their kidneys, but were never paid, while recipients were required to pay between euro80,000 and euro100,000 euros ($115,000-$143,000). The victims came from Moldova, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey, and lived in “extreme poverty or acute financial distress,” EULEX said. Kosovo law forbids the removal and transplant of organs. The case was brought to the attention of authorities in 2008 when Kosovo police acted upon information from a Turkish national who said his kidney had been stolen. Since then seven Kosovars, including doctors and a senior official in the Health Ministry, have been charged and are standing trial. Sonmez and Harel were indicted separately after EU investigators located Harel in Israel and an EU prosecutor interviewed Sonmez in Turkey earlier this year. Harel was detained in 2008, but later allowed to leave Kosovo upon the promise of return pending legal proceedings.

Read the full article →

Lunch With This Man: $2.63 MILLION

June 11, 2011

(Reuters) – A steak lunch at Smith & Wollensky in Manhattan starts at $36.50. The same lunch, eaten in the company of legendary investor Warren Buffett, costs approximately $2.63 million. That was the final result of the annual online charity auction for lunch with the “Oracle of Omaha,” which ended late Friday night. A total of two bidders entered eight bids in the eBay (EBAY.O) auction, which started last Sunday. The final bid was actually for just under $2.35 million, but the anonymous winner added to that after the auction to surpass last year’s winning bid by $111, organizers said. Interest was much lower than in 2010, when nine bidders made a total of 77 bids for the luncheon. The proceeds benefit GLIDE, a San Francisco charity that Buffett was introduced to by his late first wife, Susan. Buffett, 80, is the chief executive of the insurance-to-ice-cream conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway (BRKa.N) and one of the world’s richest men. His fondness for red meat is also well known; during Berkshire’s annual shareholder meeting in Omaha he urges investors to visit his favorite steakhouses for a T-bone steak or two. (Reporting by Ben Berkowitz; Editing by Paul Simao) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Michael Moynihan: End OPEC Now!

June 8, 2011

The OPEC cartel that meets in Vienna today has thrived in its 50-year history. First ignored, then despised for using the “oil weapon” on the West, and ultimately granted a strange legitimacy due to age, it has assumed all the trappings of an international organization. This week’s meeting of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ‘s Iran, Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya and Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela to fix quotas, for example, will take place not in Gaddafi’s tent but in a sumptuous building on the Helferstorferstrase in Vienna. Press is likely to report not on why oil prices are set by a cartel of the world’s worst leaders but rather on whether oil quotas are modestly adjusted to cover wells out of order since the Libyan revolt Unfortunately, the cartel’s victims have not fared as well. OPEC has over the last century engineered a massive transfer of wealth from the rest of the world to its rulers. At key junctures, it has used the “oil weapon” to destabilize the global economy as with the 1970s oil shocks, the 1980s debt crisis triggered by soaring oil bills and the 2008 financial collapse (when it cut quotas with prices over $100). Less well known is the role of oil price spikes in stoking misery and instability in developing countries. The final victims have been the people of the oil states themselves who have not shared in the wealth enjoyed by a few while seeing democracy pushed indefinitely into the future. Adam Smith famously observed “Seldom do businessmen of the same trade get together but that it results in some detriment to the general public.” Based on a long history of economic study, today cartels are illegal in virtually all developed countries. The question with OPEC, therefore, is not why it is bad but why has it survived. During the first Gulf war in 1991, the US and its allies saved Saudi Arabia, liberated Kuwait and dictated peace terms to Iraq. Yet after the war, all three countries continued as prominent OPEC members. In 2002 we invaded Iraq again, this time overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But rather than insisting that Iraq leave OPEC, the United States actually became a de facto OPEC member through the provisional Iraq authority. The superficial answer to this question of why OPEC has persisted is it has successfully claimed sovereign immunity. Unlike a private cartel — hundreds of which have been prosecuted by the Justice Department since 1990, OPEC is comprised of governments that happen to set quotas for oil. But this argument is weak. The 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act contains an exception to immunity in the case of governments engaging in commercial activities. The real reason that OPEC has survived is a lack of US resolve to break it up. In 2007 and 2008, the House and Senate passed legislation that would have forced the Justice Department to go after OPEC. However, a veto threat from President Bush prevented final passage of the legislation. There is an equally strong case for trade action against OPEC, made compelling by Senator Frank Lautenberg. The WTO unequivocally prohibits quota-based cartels except in the rare case of conserving resources or national security and of the 12 OPEC members, five are WTO members and 3, observers. Yet to date, the US Trade Representative has not filed an action. These tools alone might suffice to end OPEC. But the ratcheting up of US engagement in the region recently creates a new opportunity to break the cartel. The Middle East — the geographic center of OPEC — is clearly undergoing fundamental change. Not only, of course, did the US midwife democracy in Iraq, we remain the guarantor of security of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, and are now also supporting the rebels in Libya. The expanded US and EU role in the region provides an opportunity to make a simple case to all parties. US and more broadly EU support must be contingent on a timeline for withdrawal from OPEC. In short, the conditions exist to end OPEC. We only need resolve. Here is a plan forward. By July 4th, Congress should pass legislation revising the FSIA to strip OPEC of any hint of sovereign immunity. The US Trade Representative should immediately begin studying action against the OPEC countries in the WTO. The Obama Administration should make it clear to parties we aid in the Middle East they need to plan to transition out of OPEC. We can end OPEC but only if we act. Time is of the essence due to the tenuous state of the global recovery.

Read the full article →

India, Pakistan discuss troops cut at Siachen

May 31, 2011

India, Pakistan discuss troops cut at Siachen

Read the full article →

WATCH: College Grads Move Home, Face Uncertain Futures

May 24, 2011

LANSDALE, Pa. — One midnight in April, Sabrina Malik pulls her red Chevy Blazer into her mother’s asphalt driveway, removes the keys from the ignition, and stops to take a deep breath. Alone in the darkness, a sense of defeat courses through her body — disappointment about her past and uncertainty about what lies ahead. This, she thinks to herself, is surely what failure feels like. Six years ago, Malik fled this town for Syracuse University. Since graduating in 2009 with a bachelor’s degree in art history, she has yet to find a decent job. She hadn’t planned on moving back home and, at the age of 23, never expected to return to her mother’s house for an extended and open-ended period of time. “At times, it really feels very personal, it really feels like I’ve failed,” says Malik, standing in the kitchen of her mother’s two-story stone house and recalling the eight weeks since she returned home. She’s wearing khaki shorts and white socks that come up to her ankles. Glasses frame her brown eyes and wavy chestnut hair grazes her shoulders. “Your dream is a very personal thing and when you can’t do it, it feels like you’re being told that you’re not talented enough and that you haven’t worked hard enough.” After graduating from college, Malik moved to Boston. There, she worked as a nanny, sold books, and waited tables — a series of dead-end jobs that didn’t pay more than the minimum wage, didn’t require a college degree, and weren’t remotely related to what she wanted to do for the rest of her life. Two months ago, she ran out of money and drove home from Boston to Lansdale, a middle-class suburb north of Philadelphia, her car brimming with the contents of post-college life: canned food, twinkle lights, potted plants. A dozen of her paintings, stacked to the ceiling, kept hitting the back of her head. When a gas station attendant in New Jersey asked why she was moving and where she was headed, Malik didn’t know quite how to respond. She’s hardly alone. Malik is part of a generation of 20-somethings that’s experiencing what it’s like to graduate from college, move back in with your parents, and then get stuck there. Though estimates vary, a recent study by Twentysomething Inc., a consulting firm specializing in marketing to young adults, predicted that of the 2 million graduates in the class of 2011, 85 percent will return home because they can’t secure jobs that might give them more choices and more control over their lives . To be sure, having a college degree still matters. Nationwide, while the unemployment rate hovers around 9 percent, the jobless rate for college graduates 25 years and older is 4.5 percent. By contrast, 20 to 24-year-olds who only have a high school diploma are contending with an unemployment rate of nearly 20 percent. While college graduates typically navigate periods of economic decline far better than those lacking such credentials, the past few years have still taken an especially brutal toll on them. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the jobless rate for younger workers with a college degree has more than doubled since the recession began four years ago — from 3.5 percent in April of 2007 to 6.4 percent in April of this year. For college graduates under the age of 25, finding stable work is a particular challenge. According to Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University, about half, or 3.2 million, are “underutilized”  — meaning they’re unemployed, working part-time, or working a job outside of the college labor market, such as bartending or waiting tables. Added to the lack of jobs is an increased amount of debt. Student loan debt recently outpaced credit card debt in terms of total amounts owed by borrowers. By year’s end, it is on track to surpass a trillion dollars, according to Mark Kantrowitz, an expert on student financial aid who runs the websites FinAid.org and Fastweb.com. According to the Institute for College Access and Success, an independent, nonprofit organization that works to make higher education more affordable, the average graduate finishes school with $24,000 of debt — though many struggle to repay far more. Like Malik, many 20-somethings are experiencing early adulthood as one long pause in their lives, affecting not only conventional coming-of-age milestones such as becoming financially independent, but more deeply personal things as well — like their hopes and their dreams.  THE AMERICAN DREAM Recently, after sending out dozens of resumes and cover letters, all of which went unanswered, Malik’s spirits plummeted. Even rejection feels better than no response at all, she thought to herself. In her second-floor bedroom, where handmade quilts cover the bed and charcoal drawings line the walls, she tries as best she can to avoid her mother’s notice. Mostly, she just doesn’t want her to worry. But Marilyn Malik is close to her daughter and is an expert at reading Sabrina’s shifting moods. “Sabrina gets down on herself and I worry,” says Marilyn, sitting in her home office in the basement, where she works as a nursing supervisor for a health insurance company. While she says that her daughter is welcome to live in the house for as long as she needs, she hopes that Sabrina might find a job sooner rather than later. And Marilyn is adjusting to the fact that her daughter’s path may not mirror the one she took 30 years ago, when, as a college-educated young woman, she first ventured out into the world.  Marilyn, 53, grew up in a small town in the Poconos. Her father worked as an electrician; her mother worked as a nurse. Marilyn studied nursing in college and she and her parents split the $4,000 annual tuition. She worked as a waitress to earn her share. A few years after college, Marilyn married Ajmal Malik, a Pakistani immigrant. He attended college at the University of Lahore in Pakistan and earned two master’s degrees after moving to the U.S. The couple made their home in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., where they raised Sabrina and her older brother Omar, who’s now 25. In those early years, Ajmal, an accountant, worked his way up the ladder while Marilyn picked up night shifts at the nearby hospital. She describes their standard of living as lower-middle-class — borrowing money to purchase their first starter home and relying on quick, cheap dinners of soup and biscuits to get by. Ajmal died of cancer when his children were nine and 11, leaving Marilyn to support an entire household on her income alone. “You grieve for yourself, and you grieve for your kids,” explains Marilyn, who started working full-time after Ajmal died and has yet to let up. Sending both kids to college was always the plan. The majority of the payout from her deceased husband’s life insurance went towards a college savings account, which ultimately wasn’t enough to cover the high costs associated with sending two kids to out-of-state schools. Marilyn paid about $100,000 for Sabrina to attend Syracuse University in upstate N.Y. and took out another $20,000 in loans to cover the rest. Sabrina and Omar, who attended the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, will have to shoulder their own graduate school costs, however. “She’d probably say no to doing things if she knew how much everything cost,” says Marilyn, who pays down the $20,000 in Sabrina’s student loans while also saving up for her own retirement. Sabrina is struggling to pay off about $2,000 in credit card debt and her remaining student debts weigh on her relationship with her mother. Marilyn hates owing money and tries to put an extra $100 or $200 towards paying down the student loans whenever she can. Marilyn and Sabrina find it hard to talk about Sabrina’s student loans and generally avoid the subject. Sabrina wishes she could do more to help her mother pay the debt and had planned on having a job after graduating that would allow her to do that — yet another part of her future that hasn’t exactly gone as planned. While living in Boston, she made barely enough to cover her own rent and utilities, let alone scrape together enough extra to help her mother with the monthly loan repayments. Sabrina also wonders whether paying so much for college has made her mother’s own life more insecure. “I know she’s further away from her own retirement because she sent us to such expensive schools” says Malik, whose plans for graduate education are indefinitely on hold until she can save up some money. Right now, even $80 application fees for graduate school seem like a lot.  Although Marilyn remarried a few years ago, her first husband’s absence is deeply felt — especially now, when their daughter is struggling. “I wonder if he had been around, whether my kids would have been better placed, whether they would have received better advice,” says Marilyn, who plans to work for at least another decade. She long ago decided that sending her kids to college was more important to her than saving for the day when she could retire. By this point in her life, Marilyn imagined that her daughter would have already embarked upon a well-paying career and be living on her own. She also wonders what it means for the next generation of 20-somethings, and whether they’ll have access to better opportunities than their parents’ generation. “My generation had it better than what my parents had and you’d think it would continue progressing that same way,” she says. “Historically, each generation gets better as it goes along — they’re more affluent, they have more education, they reach more goals. This generation, you would hope that would happen, too, but it doesn’t seem to be going that way.” DREAMS ARE CHEAP Half a century ago, 77 percent of women and 65 percent of men had attained traditional markers of maturity by their 30th birthday: They had left home, finished school, gotten a job, married, and started a family. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2000, less than half of 30-year-old women and just one-third of 30-year-old men had attained similar markers of adulthood. A lot, but not all, of the shift has to do with work — or, more specifically, a lack of work, say analysts and others . They argue that the current recession has pushed 20-somethings farther and faster in a direction they were already headed. Sending your kid to college once was a way of ensuring their sure-footed success. But with 20-somethings mired in debt and confronting a dearth of decent-paying jobs, many are returning to the nest. “I can assure you that few people in my generation are living high off the hog in their parents’ house,” says Matthew Segal, the 25-year-old founder of Our Time , a national membership organization for young people under 30. He says he resents the popular characterization of 20-somethings as lazy and unmoored. “Trust me, they’re not getting too comfortable sleeping in their childhood bedroom or eating out of their parents’ fridge. They’re moving home because they don’t have jobs and they have a lot of debt.” Except for designated downtime, when she’s either making art or weaving on her loom, Malik spends much of her time avoiding thinking about what became of the goals her parents helped her to set. Her mother always encouraged her to think and dream big. Yet since graduating from college, she’s found herself doing the exact opposite. Her dream for the future used to encompass a well-appointed and comfortable life — a farmhouse, two artist studios, a husband, and several children. “But it’s not worth dreaming so big anymore,” says Malik. “My plans now are far less extravagant. I guess I’m learning to dream on a much smaller scale.” Specifically, she doesn’t think she’ll be able to afford a home as nice as her mother’s. Nor, she predicts, will she be able to send her own children to schools as fancy as those that she attended. “The hope that things are going to get better is really all we have,” she explains. “I mean, on top of being the generation that’s struggling, we don’t want to be the generation that’s cynical, too.” Some scholars attribute such hard-wired optimism to the way that the parents of 20-somethings raised them. Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais co-author books about millennials (typically defined as the generation born between 1982 and 2003). “Millennials were raised the way Bill Cosby told parents to raise their kids — set rules, show encouragement, don’t use physical discipline, build up a child’s self-esteem,” explains Winograd. “If you tell someone from zero to 13 that they’re always doing a nice job and that they’re really special and wonderful, they’ll wind up believing they are.” Self-confidence breeds optimism, according to Winograd and Hais, even when times are tough. “The millennials don’t have a sense that everything is wonderful, because obviously it isn’t, but they believe as a country that things will get better and their lives will also get better,” says Hais. “In part, it’s because they’re young and they actually have time to accomplish this. But it’s also because generations like the millennials feel they’ve accomplished good things in the past and that they will again in the future because their parents told them so.” Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a psychology professor at Clark University, is also struck by the optimism of the young adults that he studies. “I think the main reason for their optimism is that dreams are cheap in emerging adulthood. That is, their dreams haven’t yet been tested in the fires of real, adult life. And who knows, maybe they really will find their dream job?” In general, young people are taking longer to assume more traditional adult responsibilities and young lives are unfolding in a less predictable sequence , Arnett says. He views the twenties as a new and distinct life stage and classifies it as “emerging adulthood.” According to Arnett, this stage generally starts around the age of 18 and continues until an individual is in his or her mid-to-late twenties. While the category itself is fluid, “emerging adulthood” refers to a time during which young people are relatively free of obligations. But many 20-somethings, like Malik, are increasingly delaying adult responsibilities because they can’t secure a job stable enough to allow them to take the steps necessary to establish an independent life. As such, even youthful optimism has its limits . Despite a general proclivity toward positive thinking, analysts say current circumstances are weighing down this generation of 20-somethings. “The mood for young people definitely isn’t as optimistic as it’s been in the past,” says Carl Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University. Last week, he and his colleagues released a study titled “Unfulfilled Expectations: Recent College Graduates Struggle in a Troubled Economy.” It polled young people who graduated from college between 2006 and 2010. “You expect people to be optimistic when they’re young about their ability to get ahead,” Van Horn says. “It’s pretty clear that this group of college students are feeling very much like their opportunities have been stunted.” A FALSE PROMISE? Since moving home, the highlight of Malik’s weekend involves walking to the edge of her mother’s driveway on Sunday morning and retrieving the hand-delivered copy of The New York Times . She’s on a $15 weekly budget and getting the paper delivered is a rare indulgence. Last Sunday, Malik accompanied her extended family to a pancake breakfast to support the local firehouse in the nearby town of Sellersville, Pa. Without traffic, it’s about a 20-minute drive from Lansdale. As her family and some of her mother’s friends waited for a table, Malik carved out a tiny space where she sat and read the paper in silence. She wasn’t up for answering the questions that usually follow — about what she was up to, or how the job search was going. She mostly just needed a break from the constant inquisition. “I spend a lot of my time trying as best I can to appease everyone and show them that I’m in good spirits and putting forth all this extra effort,” says Malik. “Every once in a while, I just need to be by myself. They know what I’m going through.” Even the relentless optimism of millennials is straining under the depth and length of the current recession. A poll released in April by AP-Viacom indicated that among Americans between the ages of 18 to 24, there was skepticism about the notion that life would improve with each passing generation. Four in 10 of those surveyed predicted difficulty in raising a family and affording the lifestyle they felt they deserved. Like homebuyers who took on outsized mortgages they couldn’t afford, either out of ignorance or because banks cajoled them, in order to realize the American Dream of home ownership, many students and their parents have taken on crushing piles of educational debt in order to realize another part of the American Dream: a college education. Andrew Sum, a 64-year-old economist at Northeastern University who’s studied the college labor market for the past 30 years, thinks the current economic slump is giving both recent graduates and their parents a rude awakening. Sum grew up in Gary, Ind. with a father who worked as a welder. While he says that he and his four siblings were able to achieve a better life than their parents, for the first time in recent American history, the majority of the young people he studies are not. “Every generation ought to try and leave behind a better world for the next generation,” says Sum. “And until recently, it’s generally been true that the next generation exceeded the living standard of the current one. But over the last decade, that’s no longer the case.” One of Sum’s pet theories is the “age twist effect.” He says that over the decade from 2000 to 2010, the younger someone was, the more likely they were to get fired or be otherwise left without a job. Historically, and in every decade since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began compiling such data, it’s been the exact opposite. Sum’s findings conclude that 7 million more young people under the age of 30 would be working today if the labor market behaved as it did only a decade ago. Sum and his colleagues predict that underutilization and underemployment will leave an indelible mark on this generation. In the near term, Sum finds college graduates moving home, and staying there. And while college degrees matter, they only matter if young people are able to then convert them into a job — hence, generating the considerable college premium. “If you can manage to do that, you can do well,” says Sum. “But if you end up outside, you’ll only do marginally better than someone who has a high school diploma and those losses stay with you for a lifetime.” For Malik, both in terms of her current and future income, the longer she’s out of work, the more dire the consequences will be. Being unemployed is always worse than working, but it’s ultimately the type of job she gets that will affect her future stability. For instance, should Malik secure yet another job outside the college labor market — working again as a nanny or as a clerk in a retail shop — the chances that she’ll regain a more permanent economic toehold will grow ever more unlikely. The impact that the job she lands will have on her future wages is likely to be staggering. For the public at large, Sum finds there’s a 73 percent gap in the annual earnings of college graduates that have a college labor market job versus those that work in a job that doesn’t require a degree — say, the difference between working as a paralegal and a receptionist in a law firm. Bachelor’s degree holders between the ages of 22 to 64 that have a college labor market job make an average salary of $52,873. Those working outside the college labor market earn $30,503 — or a difference in salary of more than $22,000 a year.  But many 20-somethings, like Malik, are also struggling with what is likely a case of bad economic timing. Graduates of 2009 were hit especially hard. A study conducted by the  John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers indicates that 50 percent of 2009 graduates are either unemployed or working in jobs that don’t require a college degree. Lisa B. Khan, who studies economics at Yale’s School of Management, recently conducted a study that looked at the long-term impact of graduating into a weak economy. Khan examined young people that graduated from college during the peak of the recession that occurred in the 1980s. In their first three years on the job market, Khan found they made about 30 percent less than classmates with more advantageous economic timing. And their subsequent salaries, even a dozen years later, were between eight and ten percent lower. This means that it might take Malik, who graduated two years ago during the beginning of a particularly brutal recession, up to a decade to recover the wages she might have earned had she sidestepped the downturn altogether. Paul Oyer, an economist at Stanford University, concedes that young people who start work when times are tough not only get behind, but generally have a tough time catching up. But Oyer also thinks that luck plays a role in the making of any successful career, good economic times or bad. What does concern him is that some historical trends seem to be withering in the current economy. Although wealth in America has increased from generation to generation, Oyer isn’t convinced that the current generation of 20-somethings will enjoy the rewards of a similar phenomenon. He attributes the shift to globalization and the number of available jobs. Because of these factors, he doesn’t think it makes much sense for young people to pile on educational debt to attend elite schools when they have less expensive alternatives — unless, of course, their parents are willing to go on the hook for it. Parents exert a powerful shaping force on their children’s decisions to go to college, as well as which college to attend. In addition, they are often caught up in the emotional rush that a college education entails, further complicating an issue that has already become a financial minefield for the middle class. “All along, I was going to make it work,” explains Marilyn. “If I had to take out loans, I was going to do that.” Once Sabrina and Omar were admitted into the colleges of their dreams, Marilyn saw it as her personal responsibility to make sure they could attend — even when it meant taking out additional loans in order to finance it. And while Marilyn says she doesn’t regret her investment, she assumed that a $120,000 degree would at least translate into a decent-paying job for her daughter. “One thing that terrifies parents more than budget deficits or a weak economy is job security for their kids. They’re afraid they won’t be able to pass along their middle class status to the next generation,” says Anthony P. Carnevale, who directs Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. “In raising a child in America, the fear of failing is just enormous. Sending your kid to college used to pretty much guarantee their future success. It no longer necessarily works that way.” And, of course, what if this generation simply doesn’t value the same things their parents’ generation did? John Della Volpe, who directs polling at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics, spends much of the year gauging the thoughts of young people. His company SocialSphere recently conducted a study of 5,000 millennials between the ages of 16 and 24. It asked them to think about the next five to seven years of their lives and to rank the importance of what they hoped to achieve. His findings indicate that many young people aren’t focused on becoming famous or making piles of money. On the contrary, their hopes for the future revolve around making a contribution to society and staying in close touch with family and friends. “There’s a potential for this younger generation to have an economic reset,” explains Della Volpe. “It’s now okay to stay in your hometown.” AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE When it’s your decision, returning to your hometown is one thing. Being stuck there feels like something else entirely.  Malik says her days are an exercise in resilience. She has yet to shake her loneliness and general feeling of isolation. Most weekdays, she gets up by nine o’clock and immediately forces herself to get dressed. After breakfast, she typically positions herself on one of two floral upholstered couches in the sunroom, where, with laptop in hand, she begins the daily chore of scouring websites for job openings. When not job hunting, Malik helps out around the house — taking out the trash, doing the dishes, going grocery shopping, walking the dog, or making dinner a few nights a week. In some ways, the chores remind her of being in high school. Before her mother remarried and she and her brother headed off to college, it was just the three of them helping out around the house. Growing up, when her mother made dinner or when the house needed cleaning, the two siblings alternated chores. “Now that I’m back, I do those same kinds of things and it feels like the least I can do,” explains Malik. “It doesn’t feel like a task or a chore. I’m just helping my mom out, like I’ve always done.” But now, Malik is a grown woman. Part of her yearns for her own place where she can come and go as she pleases, and where the rules are hers and hers alone. On visits to see her boyfriend, who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y. and works for a private art collector, she sees glimpses of the independent life she expected to be living by now. Until she can land her ultimate gig of working as a curator in an art gallery, or begin a long trajectory of jobs that might eventually get her there, she’s looking for something to pay the bills. She’s looked into working as a clerk in a local retail shop and selling hot water heaters. Businesses in Lansdale are inundated with swarms of recent colleges graduates looking for any job they can get. Locally, there’s the option of working for a big pharmaceutical company, Starbucks or Walgreens, but not much else. When things start to feel overwhelming, Malik finds it helpful to make lists of things to accomplish. The current two-page iteration lists everything from big to small stuff — like getting a job and someday opening an art gallery to straightening her hair and eating fewer bagels. A recent addition, which has yet to be crossed off, is that Malik aspires to be less hard on herself. Namely, that for the time being at least, it’s okay to allow herself to feel sad sometimes. “Right now, it’s a battle of trying to remain levelheaded — and I don’t know if it’s trying to stay optimistic, or become more realistic, or just learn to be okay with going through the motions,” she says. “It feels like a lot of pressure. I want to make everyone proud. I want to blow everyone out of the water with everything I’ve accomplished. And I just can’t get there.” 

Read the full article →

US, Pakistan pledge cooperation

May 17, 2011

US, Pakistan pledge cooperation

Read the full article →

What Really Caused Oil’s Record Drop?

May 9, 2011

NEW YORK (Reuters) – When oil prices fell below $120 a barrel in early New York trade last Thursday, a few big companies that are major oil consumers started buying around $117. It looked like a bargain. Brent crude had been trading above $120 for a month. But the buying proved ill-timed. Crude kept on falling. “They were down millions by the end of the day, trying to catch a falling piano,” an executive at a major New York investment bank said. Never before had crude oil plummeted so deeply during the course of a day. At one point, prices were off by nearly $13 a barrel, dipping below $110 a barrel for the first time since March. Oil’s descent followed the biggest one-day price drop in silver since 1980 on Wednesday, after hedge fund titan George Soros was reported to be selling. Exchange operators raised silver’s margin requirements, making it more costly to trade the metal and sending investors out of the market. Silver plunged by 20 percent, more by week’s end. The rout unnerved some commodity investors. Oil just doesn’t fall by 10 percent in the course of a normal day, though. In commodities markets, oil is king, and its daily contract turnover, typically around $200 billion, is usually able to absorb even large inflows or outflows of investment. The rare moves of $10 a barrel usually are set off by dramatic events — the outbreak of the first Gulf War in 1991, or the collapse in 2008 of Lehman Bros bank, which both led to recessions. Of course, there was major news last week. But the daring Pakistan raid that killed Osama Bin Laden had done little to shift the balance of oil markets on Monday. In interviews with more than two dozen fund managers, bankers and traders, no clear cause emerged for the plunge in price. Market players were unable to identify any single bank or fund orchestrating a massive sale to liquidate positions, not even an errant trade that triggered panic selling, as seen in the equities flash crash last May. Rather, the picture pieced together from interviews on Thursday and Friday is one of a richly priced commodities market — raw goods have been on a five-month winning tear over all other major investment classes — hit by a flurry of negative factors that individually could be absorbed but cumulatively triggered a maelstrom. Computerized trading kicked in when key price levels were reached, accelerating the fall. “It was a domino effect,” said Dominic Cagliotti, a New York-based oil options broker. The negative factors — prominent cheerleaders turning bearish, some weak economic data, cheap money from the U.S. Federal Reserve ending by July, a lessening of political risk — merely provide a backdrop for the waves of selling. What stands out is the way computers turned readjustment of positions in a huge and deep market into a rout. THE COMPUTERS Stunningly large jolts from so-called stop-loss trading amazed market traders. The automated sell orders were generated as oil crashed through price points that traders had programed in advance into their supercomputers. In many cases, computer algorithms sold for technical reasons, as oil dropped through levels that, once breached, could trigger ever larger waves of selling yet to come. The machine trading, based on subtly different but fundamentally similar, algorithmic models, eliminates the white-knuckles and potential human error involved in actively trading a volatile market, and increases anonymity. Instead of breeding hesitation, abrupt price drops can quickly prompt these machines to unload a bullish long position in oil, and build up a bearish short one instead. Machine-led trading is one plausible thesis for another apparent market anomaly that occurred on Thursday. Exchange data shows that the total number of open positions in the oil market — a number that would typically fall in a selloff — instead rose. Normally, panicky funds selling oil en masse would cause total “open interest” numbers to shrink, as exiting investors closed out contracts. But some machines, following the market trend, may have gone further, by dumping long positions and quickly amassing sizable short positions instead. “Computers don’t care. Momentum just increases until nobody wants to stand in front of it,” said Peter Donovan, a floor trader for Vantage on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Some big Wall Street traders watched their own systems sell into the down trend but couldn’t know for sure who had initiated the selling spree. They only knew that similar machines at other firms, from New York, to London, Geneva and Sao Paulo, would be automatically selling in much the same manner. During Thursday’s crash, such selling locked in profits that high-flying commodities traders have been accumulating for months. Some of Thursday’s rout appears to have been more a product of the wisdom of crowd computing than of widespread human panic. “We believe the magnitude of the correction appears in large part to have been exacerbated by algorithmic traders unwinding positions,” Credit Suisse analysts wrote in a report. High frequency trading and algorithmic trading accounts for about half of all the volume in oil markets. BIG NAMES TURNED BEARISH Some of the seeds for the rout were sown earlier. In April. Goldman Sachs’ bullish team of commodities analysts, led by Jeff Currie in London, issued two notes to clients in rapid succession recommending they pare back positions. In one, the bank called for a nearly $20 dollar near-term correction in Brent oil, while maintaining a bullish longer-term outlook. The closely watched money king, George Soros, who runs a macroeconomic hedge fund, had said for months that gold was pricey. Even online advisors to mom-and-pop investors such as The ETF Strategist had warned of a bubble in precious metals that could be ready to pop. On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal had reported the Soros Fund was selling commodities including silver, and four sources from other hedge funds told Reuters they believed Soros was busy selling commodities positions again on Thursday. Silver markets already had suffered four days of carnage and ended the week down nearly 30 percent. But silver is a tiny market, much more susceptible to sharp price moves. Some traders suspect that big holders were cashing out of the least liquid commodity market first, before moving onto the big one – oil. As crude crashed on Thursday, it dragged down every other major commodity. The Reuters Jefferies CRB index, which follows 19 major commodities, was on its way to a 9 percent weekly drop, the biggest since 2008. Oil’s selloff began in London, and accelerated as New York traders piled in. A routine report on U.S. weekly claims for unemployment benefits spooked investors, showing the labor market in worse shape than expected. That fed a growing pessimism about the resilience of the global economy after industrial orders slumped in Germany and the massive U.S. and European service sectors slowed. Then the European Central Bank surprised with a more dovish statement on interest rates than expected, signaling its wariness about the euro zone outlook. The dollar rose sharply. Before noon New York time, Brent crude oil prices were already trading down a jaw-dropping $8 a barrel. Fourteen hundred miles southwest of New York’s trading floors, on Texas refinery row, oil men were stunned by the drop, which played havoc with their pricing models. “It was nuts. Our risk management guys were tearing up their spreadsheets,” said a major U.S. independent refiner, who asked not to be identified. A range of factors, both economic and political, were also at play. The recent rise in raw goods has been fueled in part by the U.S. Fed pumping cash into the markets by purchasing $600 billion in bonds. This program has pushed interest rates extraordinarily low, making borrowing essentially free once adjusted for inflation. Investors have been using the super-cheap money to buy into commodity markets. But the Fed’s program is slated to end on June 30. “Funds were likely to take profits before June when the direct (Fed) bond purchases stop. All were eyeballing each other to see who would take profits first,” said a London-based oil trader. China, the world’s fastest-growing consumer of commodities, also is tightening monetary policy to tamp growth rates and control inflation, raising the prospect of a slowdown in demand for oil. The political risk premium built into oil prices also came under scrutiny last week. The unrest sweeping through the Arab world – home to over half of world oil reserves – has boosted oil this year. The only major supply disruption so far is from Libya, where war has cut off at least 1 million barrels a day. “We’ve been in a world thinking there’s more risk, more risk, more risk,” said Sarah Emerson of Energy Security Analysis Inc. “People took this week, and the news of bin Laden’s death, to simply reflect. They stopped and said, maybe there’s less risk.” GAME OVER Put all these factors together, and they amounted to a reason to sell. Traders and brokers who spoke with Reuters speculated that macro funds like Soros and others, which had been aggressively overweight commodities, were cutting the portion of their portfolio allocated to commodities. Because those positions had grown so large, even a small rebalancing would amount to billions and billions of dollars in contracts sold. After weeks of thin trading in Brent oil futures, Thursday’s trade volume hit a record. Early Thursday, investment advisory firm Roubini Global Economics had also joined the fray, telling clients for the first time in years to cut commodities in their macro portfolios. Many funds were merely taking months of handsome profits off the table. Yet Thursday’s rout certainly produced casualties. By the afternoon New York time, some of the world’s biggest money managers thought they smelled blood. Several banks and funds seemed to be selling oil in an orderly fashion, even if the price drop was extraordinary. But could a hedge fund be struggling for survival? They wondered whether any major commodities funds were on the losing end of bullish oil bets, and were getting forced by margin calls from brokers into dumping massive positions. One trader at a major bank in New York called a colleague at one of the world’s largest hedge funds. During the conversation, they exchanged notes, suspicious that one or more commodities-focused hedge funds might be facing a moment of reckoning, one of the participants said. No fund could be pinpointed. By the end of the day, the person said, they were less suspicious — a view shared by week’s end by many market participants who spoke to Reuters. No one was naming a major hedge fund in dire trouble, or a computer trading algorithm that went haywire. And unlike last May’s flash crash in equities markets — when stocks fell by a similar 9 percent margin in just minutes — Thursday’s decline came in rolling cascades, playing out over at least 12 hours. Even after Brent fell to settle around $110 by the end of the day, crude prices were still up 38 percent from a year ago. “Since prices have been advancing well beyond any reasonable measure of value, Thursday’s declines felt more like orderly corrections than chaotic panics. There was no sense that anyone was ready to jump from the window,” said oil analyst Peter Beutel of Cameron Hanover in Connecticut. CASUALTIES The day left some commodities-heavy funds nursing wounds – weekly losses of 10 to 20 percent, according to several fund managers who invest in other hedge funds. Two of the sources said that London-based BlueGold, a fund known for taking aggressively bullish directional bets on oil in the past, had sizable losses. It was not immediately clear how much the fund dropped, and BlueGold declined comment. One money manager said of BlueGold’s head trader Pierre Andurand: “He’s had tougher weeks so I don’t think it’s game over.” Fund sources also cited losses at $20 billion Winton Capital, of around 2.2 percent, on Thursday. FTC Capital, a $300 million European commodities fund, lost 4 percent in one of its larger funds, the sources said. Neither fund was available for comment. In the space of just hours, the drop in the price of crude oil had shaved nearly $1 billion off the cost of supplying the world’s daily oil needs. That could be good news for gasoline consumers. But Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General who has recently formed a government working group to investigate manipulation in oil markets, had a blunt warning for oil traders. He wants proof the savings are being passed on to end users. “This working group was created to identify whether fraud or manipulation played any role in the wholesale and retail markets as prices increased. If wholesale prices continue to decrease, fraud or manipulation must not be allowed to prevent price decreases from being passed on to consumers at the pump,” Holder said on Friday. (Reporting by Matthew Goldstein, Svea Herbst, Jennifer Ablan, Emma Farge, David Sheppard, Claire Milhench, Zaida Espana, Robert Campbell and Josh Schneyer. Writing by Josh Schneyer. Editing by Stella Dawson)

Read the full article →

Pakistan Pays U.S. Lobbyists To Deny It Helped Osama Bin Laden

May 5, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters/Tim Reid) – Pakistan’s Washington lobbyists have launched an intense campaign on Capitol Hill to counter accusations that Islamabad was complicit in giving refuge to Osama bin Laden. Alarmed by lawmakers’ demands to cut off billions of dollars of U.S. aid after bin Laden was found living in a Pakistani safe house for six years, President Asif Ali Zardari has ordered a full-court press to quell mounting accusations that it helped the al Qaeda leader avoid capture. Mark Siegel, a partner in the Washington lobbying firm of Locke Lord Strategies — which is paid $75,000 a month by the Pakistani government — told Reuters on Thursday he had spoken twice to Zardari since U.S. special forces killed bin Laden on Sunday, and “countless” times to the Pakistani ambassador in Washington. “They are certainly concerned,” Siegel said, adding that suggestions the Pakistani government knew about bin Laden’s whereabouts was nothing more than speculation. Referring to a statement by President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, that there must have been a support system for bin Laden inside Pakistan, Siegel said: “There is no proof that a support system was government-based.” There is much at stake for Pakistan as many lawmakers question how bin Laden could have lived in a large fortified compound close to a Pakistani military base for so long. Some members of Congress are now demanding that nearly $3 billion in annual aid for Pakistan, included in Obama’s 2012 budget, be blocked until the Zardari administration explains how bin Laden lived untouched just 30 miles outside Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. Pakistan has received over $20 billion in U.S. aid since the September 11, 2001, attacks. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate subcommittee that allocates foreign aid, said on Thursday he wants a complete review of U.S. aid to Pakistan. Leahy said he was certain that some Pakistani military and intelligence officials knew that bin Laden was hiding so close to Islamabad. “It’s impossible for them not to have some idea he was there,” Leahy told Vermont Public Radio. But Siegel, referring to claims by the Afghan government that Pakistan must have known bin Laden’s whereabouts, said: “Must have known doesn’t mean knew.” Siegel’s firm was retained by the Zardari government in 2008 and has earned nearly $2 million in fees since then, according to Justice Department records. Siegel said his firm is paid $900,000 a year by Pakistan. Since bin Laden’s death, Siegel says he has been on Capitol Hill every day to promote Pakistan’s position on the bin Laden killing, talking to congressmen, senators and their aides. (Editing by Xavier Briand) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

US lawmakers debate Pakistan aid, conditions

May 5, 2011

US lawmakers debate Pakistan aid, conditions

Read the full article →

Video: Moody’s Mitra Says Pakistan Still Very Important to U.S.

May 4, 2011

May 4 (Bloomberg) — Moody’s Investors Service sovereign analyst Aninda Mitra talks about the outlook for Pakistan’s debt rating following Osama bin Laden’s death in the country. U.S. lawmakers from both parties questioned the need to sacrifice American lives and devote aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan following bin Laden’s death. Mitra speaks by telephone from Hanoi with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television’s “First Up.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Obama Reelection 71 Percent Likely After Bin Laden Kill, Says Irish Bookmaker

May 3, 2011

More bad news for the fledgling Republican presidential field. Ireland’s largest bookmaker slashed the odds on President Barack Obama winning reelection from 4-7 to 2-5 thanks to his triumph in hunting down and killing Osama bin Laden. Paddy Power said the incumbent now has the shortest odds of securing a second term since he took office in January of 2009. Obama now has a 71 percent probability of winning four more years in the White House. The company recalculated its odds based on scores of bets that rolled in Monday morning after news broke that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks was no more. “Recent events in Pakistan have literally whipped punters into a frenzy with more bets placed on President Obama in the past 24-hours that in the past six months,” said company spokesman Ken Robertson. Among GOP contenders, former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney has the next best odds of winning the 2012 election, at 10-1. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is at 12-1 odds. Alaska Gov.-turned-TV star Sarah Palin, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Gen. David Petraeus — who recently accepted a new job as the next head of the CIA — each are pegged as 16-1 candidates. That is better than former Govs. Tim Pawlenty (Minn.), at 18-1, or Mike Huckabee (Ark.), a 22-1 shot. Here are the other GOP long-shots, according the Irish bookie (who may not be as familiar with the more provincial political newcomers): Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), 28-1 Rep. Ron Paul (Texas), 33-1 Former Gov. Jon Huntsman (Utah), 33-1 Ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), 33-1 Real estate mogul Donald Trump, 33-1 Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), 33-1 Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.), 50-1 Former Gov. Gary Johnson (N.M.), 50-1 Ex-New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, 66-1 Former Sen. Rick Santorum (Penn.), 66-1 Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), 66-1 Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.), 100-1 Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), 100-1 Businessman Herman Cain, 125-1 Activist Fred Karger, 150-1 At 1,000-1 odds, the longest shots were heiress Paris Hilton and Laura Bush, the wife of former President George W. Bush.

Read the full article →

Video: James Rubin Says U.S. Needs `New Approach’ to Pakistan

May 3, 2011

May 2 (Bloomberg) — James Rubin, co-executive editor of Bloomberg View and a former assistant secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, talks about the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and U.S. relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan. He speaks with Matt Miller and Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Burton `Highly Doubtful’ Pakistan Unaware of Bin Laden

May 2, 2011

May 2 (Bloomberg) — Fred Burton, the vice president of intelligence at Stratfor, discusses the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden during a U.S. raid in Pakistan yesterday. Burton speaks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television’s “Bottom Line.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Niblett Says Bin Laden Death `Huge’ Boost for Obama

May 2, 2011

May 2 (Bloomberg) — Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, discusses the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who was killed in Pakistan yesterday in a firefight with a team of U.S. operatives who raided the compound where he had been hiding. Niblett speaks with Maryam Nemazee on Bloomberg Television’s “The Pulse.”

Read the full article →

Video: Sfakianakis Says Al Qaeda Is `Still Alive And Kicking’

May 2, 2011

May 2 (Bloomberg) — John Sfakianakis, chief economist of Banque Saudi Fransi, talks about the effect of the U.S. announcement that Osama bin Laden was killed in a military operation in Pakistan and the outlook for oil prices. He speaks with Francine Lacqua on Bloomberg Television’s “On The Move.”

Read the full article →

Video: Rahim Says Bin Laden’s Death Caught Many Off Guard

May 2, 2011

May 2 (Bloomberg) — Taufiq Rahim, political analyst and director at GlobeSight, speaks about the death of Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. President Barack Obama said Bin Laden had been killed by a small team of U.S. operatives yesterday after a firefight at a house outside of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, where he had been hiding. Rahim speaks from Doha with Linzie Janis on Bloomberg Television’s “Global Connection.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: Free Trade Isn’t Helping World Poverty

March 19, 2011

The propaganda for free trade tells us that not only is it the master key to our own prosperity, but also the master key to lifting the world’s poor out of poverty. So if we don’t support free trade, we’re in for a guilt trip like the one that used to make us stick quarters into UNICEF boxes. Unfortunately, free trade just doesn’t work as a global anti-poverty strategy. The spreading Third World affluence one sees in TV commercials only means that the thin upper crust of Western-style consumers is now more widespread than ever before. But having more affluent people in the Third World is not the same as the Third World as a whole nearing the living standards of the First. This is actually not a terribly big secret, and is fairly well known to the people who promote free trade. For a start, the World Bank standard for poverty is $2 a day, so “moving people out of poverty” can merely consist in moving people from $1.99 a day to $2.01 a day. In one major study, there were only two nations in which the average beneficiary jumped from less than $1.88 to more than $2.13: Pakistan and Thailand. Every other nation was making minor jumps in between. The developing world’s gains from trade liberalization (insofar as there are any) are concentrated in a relatively small group of nations, due to the fact that only a few developing nations have economies that are actually capable of taking advantage of freer trade to any meaningful extent. Although it depends a bit on the model, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Vietnam, and Turkey generally take the lion’s share. This list sounds impressive, but it actually leaves out most Third World nations. Dirt-poor nations like Haiti aren’t even on the radar. Even nations one notch up the scale, like Bolivia, barely figure. So forget helping starving children in Africa this way. They’re not even in the game of international trade–let alone winners of it. Like it or not, this is perfectly logical, as increased access to the ruthlessly competitive global marketplace (which is all free trade provides) benefits only nations whose industries have something to sell which foreign trade barriers are currently keeping out . Their industries must both be strong enough to be globally competitive and have pent-up potential due to trade barriers abroad, a fairly rare combination. As a result, the most desperately impoverished nations, which have few or no internationally competitive industries, have basically nothing to gain from freer trade. What progress against poverty has occurred in the world in recent decades has not been due to free trade, but due to the embrace of mercantilism and industrial policy by some poor nations. (This is, of course, the same way nations like the U.S. and England became prosperous hundreds of years ago.) According to the World Bank, the entire net global decline in the number of people living in poverty since 1981 has been in mercantilist China, where free trade is spurned. Elsewhere, their numbers have grown. The story on global economic progress for poor nations in the last 30 years is roughly as follows: 1. China (one fifth of humanity) braked its population growth, made a quantum leap from agrarian Marxism to industrial mercantilism, and thrived–largely because the U.S. was so open to being the “designated driver” of its export-centered growth strategy during this period. 2. India (another fifth) sharply increased the capitalist share of its mixture of capitalism and Gandhian-Fabian socialism after 1991. It did reasonably well, but not as well as China and not well enough to reduce the absolute number of its people living in poverty, given unbraked population growth. 3. Latin America lost its way after the oil shocks of the 1970s, experienced the 1980s as an economic “lost decade,” and tried to implement the free market Washington Consensus in the 1990s. It didn’t get the promised results, so some nations responded with a pragmatic retreat from free market purism, others with a lurch to the left, the former showing results in the last five years or so. 4. The collapse of Communism left some nations (Cuba, North Korea) marooned in Marxist poverty, while others (Uzbekistan, Mongolia) discovered that the only thing worse than an intact communist economy is the wreckage of one. Much of Eastern Europe and the ex-USSR got burned by an overly abrupt transition to capitalism, then recovered at various speeds. 5. Sub-Saharan Africa spent much of this period in political chaos, with predictable economic results (except for South Africa and Botswana). Washington Consensus policies in the 1990s did not deliver, and the few recent bright spots have yet to deliver increased per capita income or lower unemployment. 6. Other poor countries followed patterns one through five to varying degrees, with corresponding outcomes. China is unquestionably the star here. But all its brutally efficient achievements in forcing up the living standards of its people from an extremely low base, it still has serious problems. Its growth miracle has been largely confined to the metropolitan areas of the country’s coastal provinces. Of the 800 million peasants left behind in agriculture, perhaps 400 million have seen their incomes stagnate or even decline. Over the last 30 years of greatly expanding free trade, most of the world’s poor nations have actually seen the gap between themselves and the rest of the world increase. As economist Dani Rodrik of Harvard summarizes the data: The income gap between these regions of the developing world and the industrial countries has been steadily rising. In 1980, 32 Sub-Saharan countries had an income per capita at purchasing power parity equal to 9.3 percent of the U.S. level, while 25 Latin American and Caribbean countries had an income equal to 26.3 percent of the U.S. average. By 2004, the numbers had dropped to 6.1 percent and 16.5 percent respectively for these two regions. This represents a drop of over 35 percent in relative per capita income. Today, because a few formerly poor nations are succeeding economically while most have been hit with economic decline, the world is splitting into a “twin peaks” income distribution, with a hollowing out of middle-income countries. A significant number of nations have gone backwards, and are now poorer than they were a generation ago. Most poor nations have high fertility, so population growth drags down their per capita income by a percentage point or two every year if economic growth does not outpace it. Contrary to impressions in the media, economic success is actually becoming more concentrated in the Western world, not less. According to one summary of the data by Syed Murshed of Erasmus University in Holland: Between 1960 and 2000 the Western share of rich countries has been increasing; to be affluent has almost become an exclusive Western prerogative–16 out of 19 non-Western nations who were rich in 1960 traversed into less affluent categories by 2000 (for example, Algeria, Angola, and Argentina). Against that, four Asian non-rich countries moved into the first group. Most non-Western rich nations in 1960 joined the second income group by 2000, and most non-Western upper-middle-income countries in 1960 had fallen into the second and third categories by 2000. Of 22 upper-middle-income nations in 1960, 20 had declined into the third and fourth income categories, among them the Democratic Republic of the Congo, also known recently as Zaire, and Ghana. Most nations in the third group in 1960 descended into the lowest income category by 2000. Only Botswana moved to the third group from the fourth category, while Egypt remains in the third category. We seem to inhabit a downwardly mobile world with a vanishing middle class ; by 2000 most countries were either rich or poor, in contrast to 1960 when most nations were in the middle-income groups. (Emphasis added.) This is no accident. Free trade tends to mean that the industrial sectors of developing nations either “make it to the big time” and become globally competitive, or else they get killed off entirely by imports, leaving nothing but agriculture and raw materials extraction, dead-end sectors which tend not to grow very fast. Free trade eliminates the protected middle ground for economies, like Mongolia or Peru, which don’t have globally competitive industrial sectors but were still better off having such sectors, albeit inefficient ones, than not having them at all. The productivity of modern industry is so much higher than peasant agriculture that it raises average income even if it is not globally competitive. Nations which open up their economies to (somewhat) free trade relatively late in their development, and continue to support domestic firms with industrial policy, are far more likely to retain medium and high technology industry, the key to their futures, than nations which embrace full-blown free trade and a laissez faire absence of industrial policy too early in their development. There are numerous documented cases in which trade liberalization simply killed off indigenous industries without supplying anything to replace them. To take some typical examples given by the International Forum on Globalization: Senegal experienced large job losses following liberalization in the late 1980s; by the early 1990s, employment cuts had eliminated one-third of all manufacturing jobs. The chemical, textile, shoe, and automobile assembly industries virtually collapsed in the Ivory Coast after tariffs were abruptly lowered by 40 percent in 1986. Similar problems have plagued liberalization attempts in Nigeria. In Sierra Leone, Zambia, Zaire, Uganda, Tanzania, and the Sudan, liberalization in the 1980s brought a tremendous surge in consumer imports and sharp cutbacks in foreign exchange available for purchases of intermediate inputs and capital goods, with devastating effects on industrial output and employment. In Ghana, liberalization caused industrial sector employment to plunge from 78,700 in 1987 to 28,000 in 1993. One unhappy corollary of this is the so-called Vanek-Reinert effect, in which the most advanced sectors of a primitive economy are the ones destroyed by a sudden transition to free trade. Once these sectors are gone, a nation can be locked in poverty indefinitely.

Read the full article →

Food Prices Push 44 Million Into Poverty: World Bank

February 15, 2011

WASHINGTON — Rising global food prices has pushed an estimated 44 million more people into extreme poverty in developing countries over the past eight months, the World Bank said Tuesday. The poverty-fighting institution said its food price index increased by 15 per cent between October, 2010, and January, 2011, and is just 3 per cent below its 2008 peak during the last food price crisis. But unlike during the 2007-2008 food crisis, higher prices have not yet affected all regions of the world. Across Asia and in some parts of Latin America and Eastern Europe countries, costlier food is pushing up inflation pressures, while good harvests of staple foods in Sub-Saharan Africa has so far spared that region from rising prices. “Higher maize, sugar, and oil prices have contributed to increase the costs of various types of food, though local maize prices have largely been stable in sub-Saharan Africa,” the World Bank said in an updated Food Price Watch report. The report came days before a meeting of the Group of 20 major economies in Paris, where higher food prices is expected to be discussed. Catastrophic storms and droughts have hurt the world’s leading agriculture-producing countries, including flooding and a massive cyclone in Australia, major winter storms in the United States, and fires last year in Russia. Crunching the numbers from 28 household surveys in poorer countries, the World Bank noted that in one-half of the samples it looked at, poverty increased by more than 0.5 percentage points due to rising food prices. In eight countries, poverty rose by more than 1 percentage point. In Tajikistan, poverty is expected to rise by more than 3.6 percentage points due to higher food prices, and in Pakistan, a 1.9 percentage point increase in poverty is mostly due to higher wheat prices, the World Bank said. The bank, speaking days before the G20 finance ministers meeting, said the international community should take steps to calm jittery commodity markets. It also urged poor nations to scale up social programs to ensure that the poor are protected from the rising prices. The Bank said rich donor countries needed to focus food aid to countries such as Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kyrgyzstan and Mongolia, which face large food price spikes. Meanwhile, countries that are large net commodity importers with low international foreign exchange reserves and limited space in their budgets may need funding to help them deal with rising food prices, the World Bank cautioned. Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Clothing Prices To Rise 10 Percent Starting In Spring

February 14, 2011

NEW YORK — The era of falling clothing prices is ending. Clothing prices have dropped for a decade as tame inflation and cheap overseas labor helped hold down costs. Retailers and clothing makers cut frills and experimented with fabric blends to cut prices during the recession. But as the world economy recovers and demand for goods rises, a surge in labor and raw materials costs is squeezing retailers and manufacturers who have run out of ways to pare costs. Cotton has more than doubled in price over the past year, hitting all-time highs. The price of other synthetic fabrics has jumped roughly 50 percent as demand for alternatives and blends has risen. Clothing prices are expected to rise about 10 percent in coming months, with the biggest increases coming in the second half of the year, said Burt Flickinger III president of Strategic Resource Group. Brooks Brothers’ wrinkle-free men’s dress shirts now cost $88, up from $79.50. Levi Strauss & Co., Wrangler jeans maker VF Corp., J.C. Penney Co., Nike and designer shoe seller Steve Madden also plan increases. More specifics on price increases are expected when clothing retailers such as J.C. Penney Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Co. report financial results this month. “All of our brands, every single brand, will take some price increases,” said Eric Wiseman, chairman and CEO of VF Corp., whose brands include The North Face, Nautica, Wrangler and Lee. Cotton accounts for half the production cost of jeans, which make up about one-third of VF’s sales, he told investors in November. Higher costs also will affect how clothes are made. Clothing makers are blending more synthetic fabrics like rayon and designing jeans with fewer beads and other embellishments. Shoppers also will have fewer color choices. Retailers are trying to figure out whether consumer demand that gave them strong holiday sales will last. The fear is higher prices will nip that budding demand. Stores that cater to low- and middle-income shoppers will have the hardest time passing along price increases. “We have been so used to deflation for years and years,” said David Bassuk, managing director in the retail practice of AlixPartners. “Customers are going to be surprised.” Janice Mignanelli of Washington Township, N.J., doesn’t want any surprises. “‘I’m not going to spend any more than $50 for a pair of jeans,” said Mignanelli, a stay-at-home mom shopping at The Garden State Plaza in Paramus, N.J., last week. “I’ll just have to cut back on the extras.” Even affluent shoppers, whose spending has rebounded, may bristle. “It does give me some pause,” said Jimmy Franco, a 47-year-old publicity executive and fan of Brooks Brothers’ shirts. “Instead of buying two, I may just get one and a pair of socks. There’s a certain amount of money that I’m prepared to spend.” Cotton prices have jumped to a 150-year-high, rising to $1.90 per pound on Friday, more than double what it was a year ago and just ahead of the $1.89 record hit during the Civil War, according to the International Cotton Advisory Committee. Cotton prices began soaring in August of 2010 after bad weather cut harvests in major producing countries including China, the U.S., Pakistan and Australia. Restrictions on exports from India, the world’s second-largest cotton exporter behind China, have also produced cotton shortages. On top of that, worldwide demand for cotton has risen as the global economy improves. Raw materials account for 25 percent to 50 percent of the cost of producing a garment. Labor ranges from 20 percent to 40 percent, depending on how complicated it is to make, Bassuk said. On the production side, many Chinese factories that shut down temporarily in the depths of the recession still haven’t returned to capacity. As they ramp up, they’re finding they have to pay workers more because of labor shortages, said John Long, retail strategist at consulting firm Kurt Salmon. Up until now, retailers have resisted passing along price increases to shoppers by shifting production to lower-cost regions like Vietnam, turning to other materials and absorbing cost increases. But they’re reaching the limit, according to Kevin Burke, president and CEO of the American Apparel & Footwear Association. Mom-and-pop stores are most vulnerable because they have less power to negotiate better prices with suppliers than, say, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. But even the world’s largest retailer is feeling the pressure. “There’s no doubt there may be some price increases that come up, but we don’t want to ever let that be the first answer … that just because cotton prices are up, that we’re automatically going to pass that on to consumers,” said Mike Duke, Wal-Mart’s CEO and president in a recent interview. Mary Hutchens, owner of Full of Beans, a 25-year-old children’s clothing store in Chevy Chase, Md., worries that price increases could be a death blow. She said she has to discount heavily to stay in business and isn’t sure she’ll be able to pass along the costs. “Everybody has changed their habits since the recession,” she said. “I’m just trying to hold on.”

Read the full article →

DP World launches terminal in Pakistan

February 10, 2011

DP World launches terminal in Pakistan

Read the full article →

Alan Schram: Are Emerging Markets Uninvestible?

February 2, 2011

When Ben Bernanke launched the now infamous Quantitative Easing, his goal was to return liquidity to global financial markets. He was successful, and got Dow 12,000 to show for it. But he also got side effects in the form of escalating food prices, which are inevitable when you print money in such vast quantities. Since last June, the price of wheat rose by 68%. Other essential foods like Corn, Soybeans and Sugar made similar moves. In most western countries this makes little difference. Yet in many parts of the world people live on $2 a day, and food is a significant portion of total expenditures. A sharp increase in the price of food tips the delicate scales from mere poverty to actual hunger. Suddenly people cannot feed their families. (check out AdventuresInCapitalism for this excellent blog post: http://adventuresincapitalism.com/post/2011/01/30/Bernanke-Two-Uprisings-And-Counting.aspx). Napoleon used to say that people fight for their interests, not their rights. Indeed, history shows you can deprive people of political freedom and civil rights for extended periods of time and get no push back. Julius Caesar turned the proud Roman Republic into a military dictatorship and the Romans never had democracy again; there are many modern examples. But when people can’t eat, they have no choice but to fight. And so we have Egypt, where minimum wage is about $7 a month, and has not risen in 27 years. The masses are now experiencing food shortages and demand immediate response. But Egypt is hardly unique. Many countries all over the world are vulnerable. Nuclear armed Pakistan spends 47% of household consumption on food, about the same percentage as Egypt, but has GDP per capita of less than $1,000 (compared to $2,000 in Egypt). And the most conspicuous, and chilling, examples are India (49.5% of household consumption spent on food, $1,000 GDP per capita) and China (39%, $3,000). So long as the world is awash in liquidity, food prices are likely to keep rising. And should food shortages worsen, people in these countries and others could revolt. This inherent instability makes emerging markets uninvestible. Americans seem to rejoice in the freedom movement currently sweeping the Arab world. But this is not good news for us. Firstly, democracy is meaningless without free press, independent judiciary and an informed public that has a tradition of tolerance and respect for the rights of minorities. None of these exist in any Arab country. And secondly, the current governments in most Arab countries (including in Egypt) are likely to be the most pro-west regimes these countries will see in our life time. Sooner or later Egypt will go to the ballot box. The city-dwelling, college educated now rioting in the streets comprise maybe one percent of the country’s population. 80 million villagers, a third of whom are illiterate, will determine the results of the elections. Democracy cannot provide the immediate solutions people want, and so Egypt will likely end up in the hands of the radical Islamists. In that way they will be no different from their neighbors. Free elections in Gaza produced a Hamas government, and Lebanese democracy got the country a dominant Hezbollah. The dream of a democratic Egypt will become a nightmare, and Egyptian liberals will have no choice but to accept their new reality. They are the minority, and even some of them have tired of their country, with its 3,000 years history, constantly placating the United States. If they resist, their fate will be similar to the socialists and liberals that threw out the Iranian Shah and were hanged when the Ayatollahs took over. Do not misconstrue the Arab people. They are traditionalists who love their religion. Liberty as understood by Americans is foreign to their culture. They simply do not accept our democracy as a gift, despite our good intentions. It is no coincidence that throughout the long history of the Middle East, democracy never took hold there. Perhaps the vast desert makes central power a necessity, required to organize the scant natural resources so that people could survive. The Ancient Egyptians had a highly developed civilization, but their language had no word for freedom. Again, this is no coincidence. So it is very possible that religious fundamentalists will soon control Egypt, and with it one of the largest and most capable military forces in the region. The kingdom of Jordan could easily topple next. The regime that will replace the current King there is unlikely to be nearly as favorable to western civilization. Saudi Arabia has an old and very unpopular king. If he is dethroned, Saudis are likely to elect a bin Laden clone as their leader. Oil rich states in the Persian Gulf are ruled by tiny families of historical accidents. Syria has a dictator from the Allawi tribe, which is only 10% of the population. Within a few years, it is not inconceivable that radical Islam will dominate all these countries, plus the West Bank, Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan, forming an Islamist axis deeply hostile to the west, heavily armed and sitting on the world’s oil supplies. The world has just become much more complex. Alan Schram is the Managing Partner of Wellcap Partners, a Los Angeles based investment firm. Email at aschram@wellcappartners.com.

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: Stop the Korea Free Trade Agreement!

January 23, 2011

You would think America had learned its lesson from NAFTA, which the Labor Department has estimated cost us 525,000 jobs. But no. President Obama and the Republican leadership are united in pressing for ratification of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS-FTA). This is an agreement which the Economic Policy Institute estimates will cost us 159,000 more jobs over the next five years. Yes, you read that correctly. At a time when even the president admits that his number one economic priority is job creation, and has created an entire new commission for that purpose, they’re going ahead with it anyway. It gives the phrase “contradictions of capitalism” a whole new meaning. Make no mistake: we’re in big trouble. The US economy has entirely lost the ability to create jobs in tradable sectors, and the recent downward blip in unemployment was merely the result of more people giving up looking, which causes them to drop out of the statistics. Even the official U.S. International Trade Commission has admitted that KORUS-FTA will cause significant job losses. And not just in low-end industries. The ITC foresees the electronic equipment manufacturing industry, with average wages of $30.38 in 2008, as a major victim. The supposed logic of America swapping junk jobs for high-end jobs simply isn’t the way the economics really works out. Pace free-market mythology, there are actually well-understood reasons for this, if you dig a little into what economists already know. Was this the Obama America voted for in 2008? No. That Obama is at an undisclosed location somewhere. He campaigned against KORUS-FTA during the 2008 campaign. (It was originally negotiated, but not ratified by Congress, by Bush in 2007.) Among other things, that Obama said: I strongly support the inclusion of meaningful, enforceable labor and environmental standards in all trade agreements. As president, I will work to ensure that the U.S. again leads the world in ensuring that consumer products produced across the world are done in a manner that supports workers, not undermines them. Nice words, but none of them are reflected in KORUS-FTA, which contains no serious new provisions on these issues. This agreement is essentially a NAFTA clone. It is, in fact, the biggest trade agreement since NAFTA, and the first since Canada with an industrialized country. This agreement, like NAFTA and the dozen or so other free trade agreements America has signed since NAFTA, is fundamentally an offshoring agreement. It is about making it easier for U.S. companies to move work overseas. The provisions to protect workers and consumers are unenforceable window dressing. Don’t be fooled by the fact that some unions, like the United Auto Workers (UAW), have endorsed the agreement. This is part of a cynical ploy by the White House to split the trade union movement in order to keep the AFL-CIO neutral. The UAW’s out-of-touch leadership is so punch-drunk from the 2008 collapse of the U.S. auto industry that it has lost touch not only with what is good for the American economy as a whole, but with what is good for rank-and-file auto workers. Don’t take my word for it: in the words of Al Benchich, retired president of UAW Local 909: The UAW Administration Caucus is the one-party state that controls the UAW at the International level. Every International officer is a member of the Caucus, and they surround themselves with appointed international reps that unquestioningly do their bidding. No wonder other, more democratic and more intelligent, unions, like Leo Gerard’s United Steelworkers, are criticizing the UAW for its decision to support KORUS-FTA. Interestingly, the UAW’s past record of criticizing KORUS-FTA is more honest than anything they’re doing in a desperate bid to help keep Obama in the White House. For example, here’s what they originally said about this agreement: KORUS-FTA has inadequate protections and enforcement mechanisms to enforce either the spirit or the letter of the law. Precisely . And changes made since then are, as noted, minimal. As an example of how one-sided the treaty is, consider that it now allows — to great rejoicing — America to export 75,000 cars a year to Korea. This translates to a measly 800 jobs. Korea’s exports of cars to the U.S. in 2009, on the other hand? Try 476,833. Furthermore, even if the U.S. does get to sell more cars in Korea, American companies will mostly not be making the steel, tires, and other components that go into them, because the agreement allows cars with 65 percent foreign content to count as “American.” This is just one example of how KORUS-FTA isn’t even as good as the deal the EU just signed with Korea. (The EU got a 55 percent standard on this item.) And remember that the EU and most of its member states, of course, don’t really practice free trade anyway: they practice a covertly managed trade that has kept the EU’s trade balance within pocket change of zero over the last two decades, while America has been running deficits around the $500 billion mark. “Free trade agreement,” in American English, means “free trade agreement.” In other languages, it means “politely codified agreement for managed trade at a low tariff.” The Europeans invented this game — called mercantilism — back when international trade was conducted with sailing ships. South Korea learned it from the Japanese. Uncle Sam (and maybe John Bull and a few others) are the only naïfs who still don’t get it. Despite what the White House and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are saying, this agreement makes no sense as a strategy to reduce our horrendous trade deficit. America’s trade deficits have a long record of going up , not down, when we sign trade agreements with other nations. Paradoxically, trade agreements even seem to sabotage our own trade with foreign nations: according to an analysis by the group Public Citizen, in recent years our exports to nations we have free-trade agreements with have actually grown at less than half the pace of our exports to nations we don’t have these agreements with. So these agreements don’t hold water as trade-expanding measures. Even leaving aside trade-balance issues, this agreement is a disaster, thanks to something called “investor-state arbitration.” Like NAFTA, it compromises American sovereignty and subjects American democracy to having its own laws overruled by foreign judges as interfering with trade. Under NAFTA to date, over $326 million in damages has been paid out by governments as a result of challenges to natural resource policies, environmental protection, and health and safety measures. There about 80 Korean corporations, with about 270 facilities around the U.S., that would acquire the right to challenge our laws under KORUS-FTA. What kind of problems could this cause? The U.S. was forced in 1996 to weaken Clean Air Act rules on gasoline contaminants in response to a challenge by Venezuela and Brazil. In 1998, we were forced to weaken Endangered Species Act protections for sea turtles thanks to a challenge by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand concerning the shrimp industry. The EU today endures trade sanctions by the U.S. for not relaxing its ban on hormone-treated beef. In 1996, the WTO ruled against the EU’s Lome Convention, a preferential trading scheme for 71 former European colonies in the Third World. In 2003, the Bush administration sued the EU over its moratorium on genetically modified foods. It gets worse. KORUS-FTA also signs away our right (and Korea’s, too, not that this makes it any better) to a wide range of financial regulations of the kind that might have helped avoid the crisis of 2008. For example, it forfeits our right to limit the size of financial institutions. It forfeits our right to place firewalls between different kinds of financial activities in order to prevent volatility in one market from collapsing another. It prevents us from limiting what financial services financial institutions may offer — Enron Savings & Mortgage, here we come… It bans regulation of derivatives. It ban limits on capital flows designed to tame volatile “hot money.” Why is the U.S. flirting with making such an appalling mistake yet again? Because a) multinational corporations have bought our political system and b) because our government would rather play power politics than keep its own (declining) economic house in order. It is remarkable how stuck we are in the 1950′s, with an invincible economy at home and a Cold War abroad. As a report by the Senate Finance Committee once put it: Throughout most of the postwar era, U.S. trade policy has been the orphan of U.S. foreign policy. Too often the Executive has granted trade concessions to accomplish political objectives. Rather than conducting U.S. international economic relations on sound economic and commercial principles, the executive has set trade and monetary policy in a foreign aid context. An example has been the Executive’s unwillingness to enforce U.S. trade statutes in response to foreign unfair trade practices. Ironically, it may eventually be our own decline that solves our trade problems, by rescuing us from our own arrogance and stupidity. When we finally realize we can’t take our economy for granted, we may finally stop giving away the store in international trade. P.S. There have been huge demonstrations against KORUS-FTA in Seoul, South Korea. If you live in the Bay Area, there’ll be a protest outside Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco mansion on January 29. Click here for more details.

Read the full article →

Tea Party-Backed Lawmakers: Defense In Mix For Budget Cuts

January 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — Back home, tea partiers clamoring for the debt-ridden government to slash spending say nothing should be off limits. Tea party-backed lawmakers echo that argument, and they’re not exempting the military’s multibillion-dollar budget in a time of war. That demand is creating hard choices for the newest members of Congress, especially Republicans who owe their elections and solid House majority to the influential grass-roots movement. Cutting defense and canceling weapons could mean deep spending reductions and high marks from tea partiers as the nation wrestles with a $1.3 trillion deficit. Yet it also could jeopardize thousands of jobs when unemployment is running high. Proponents of the cuts could face criticism that they’re trying to weaken national security in a post-Sept. 11 world. House Republican leaders specifically exempted defense, homeland security and veterans’ programs from spending cuts in their party’s “Pledge to America” campaign manifesto last fall. But the House’s new majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board. The defense budget is about $700 billion annually. Few in Congress have been willing to make cuts as U.S. troops fight in Afghanistan and finish the operation in Iraq. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a recent pre-emptive move, proposed $78 billion in spending cuts and an additional $100 billion in cost-saving moves. While that amounts to $13 billion less than the Pentagon wanted to spend in the coming year, it still stands as 3 percent growth after inflation is taken into account. That’s why tea party groups say if the government is going to cut spending, the military’s budget needs to be part of the mix. “The widely held sentiment among Tea Party Patriot members is that every item in the budget, including military spending and foreign aid, must be on the table,” said Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. “It is time to get serious about preserving the country for our posterity. The mentality that certain programs are ‘off the table’ must be taken off the table.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, leaders of the group FreedomWorks, recently wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial that “defense spending should not be exempt from scrutiny.” On Gates’ proposed savings of $145 billion over five years, they said, “That’s a start.” Just about all Republicans – and plenty of Democrats, too – favor paring back spending. But when it comes to specific cuts – eliminating money for schools, parks, hospitals, highways and everything else – the decisions get difficult. Every government expenditure has its advocate and no one wants his or her program cut. Fault lines have emerged within the Republican ranks over how deep to cut and where to whittle. In the coming weeks, lawmakers will feel the pressure from constituents and colleagues. “Everything is ultimately on the table,” said Rep. Jon Runyan of New Jersey, a freshman Republican and a tea party favorite. That view could produce a rough tenure for the 6-foot-7 former football player, who just earned a coveted spot on the House Armed Services Committee, a fierce protector of military interests. The congressman’s district is home to Fort Dix, which merged with neighboring McGuire Air Force Base and Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station to make the military’s first three-branch base. Runyan expects a committee fight over Gates’ proposal to cancel a $14 billion program to develop the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle for the Marines and use that money to buy additional ships, F-18 jets and new electronic jammers. Already, several members of the panel, including the chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., have signaled they will challenge Gates’ move. Runyan says he will decide after he’s heard arguments from both sides. No matter how much defense spending is trimmed, none of the cuts is likely to reduce the money that’s available to the military to spend on the war fronts. “We want to make sure men and women put in harm’s way have the resources they need,” said Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who recently traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan with several of his GOP colleagues, including a number of other freshmen. “That doesn’t mean the entire defense budget has to be taken off the table,” he added. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, said he didn’t think “anything ought to be off-limits for the effort to reduce spending.” He told “Fox News Sunday” that “I don’t think we ought to start out with the notion that a whole lot of areas in the budget are exempt from reducing spending, which is what we really need to do and do it quickly.” Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, has proposed cutting total government spending by $153 billion, including deep reductions in defense and elimination of several weapons programs. Brady called it a “down payment” on getting the country’s finances in order. In an unusual political pairing, liberal Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian and former Republican presidential candidate, have joined forces in pushing for substantial reductions in the defense budget, including closing some of the 600-plus military bases overseas. “I’ll work with anybody,” Frank said of the effort, which could attract other liberal Democrats who have tried for years to reduce post-Cold War military spending and tea party-backed Republicans. The schism within the GOP is philosophical as well as generational. Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, 48, a tea party favorite, says all spending should come under scrutiny, from food stamps to foreign aid to money for wars. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., 74, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, worries about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party. For all the talk, one tea party group is willing to give lawmakers some leeway, provided that they adhere to the movement’s values. Sal Russo, chief strategist of the Tea Party Express, said the defense budget should be part of the calculation and his organization expects lawmakers to “responsibly bring spending down.” He added that his group will give them “flexibility to do their job.” Tea party-backed Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said lawmakers “at the end of the day, will take a look at all the fat in the budget.” But he said it was premature with two wars to say how Congress will make the cuts. Scott has two brothers in the military – one in the Air Force, the other in the Army. ___ Online: Pledge to America: http://pledge.gop.gov Tea Party Patriots: http://www.teapartypatriots.org Tea Party Express: http://www.teapartyexpress.org FreedomWorks: http://www.freedomworks.org

Read the full article →

Iran, Pakistan work on bilateral trade increase

January 15, 2011

Iran, Pakistan work on bilateral trade increase

Read the full article →

Energy shortage cuts Pakistan’s industrial output

January 10, 2011

Energy shortage cuts Pakistan’s industrial output

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: PMC: Past, Present, and Future

December 31, 2010

Hmm, celebrate my birthday today or write the final PMC post for 2010? Hey, I’m a multitasking man; no reason I can’t do both. It’s been precisely a year and eight days since I first started writing on private military and security contracting issues for the Huffington Post. I started on Dec. 23, 2009, with this piece ” Contractors ‘R U.S. ” Since then I wrote, including this one, 224 posts, or 61 percent of the time. Thanks to Huffington Post management for letting me do so much. Of course, the fact that I’ve not yet been able to find fulltime work after returning to the United States in late 2009 has given me time to write. I’d like to find one though, so in case there is an employer out there looking for someone please feel free to contact me. The beginning sentence in my first post was “Welcome to the wonderful, and frequently wacky, world of military and foreign policy outsourcing and privatization.” A one year anniversary seems sufficient reason to muse a bit about that world. Guess what; it’s still wacky but there are a few signs that at least the public debate about it is becoming a bit more rational. Of course, that may not be saying much, given how low the bar has been set in the past when it comes to public discussion of the issue, but one takes what one can get. Thanks to work by groups ranging from the Commission on Wartime Contracting, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, various NGOs, some outstanding reporters, some very good bloggers, and even a relatively few farsighted officials within the PMSC industry itself critical and key issues like oversight and accountability are moving, albeit slowly, from rhetoric to reality. Note: that is not to say everything is fine and dandy in the PMSC world. Of course, it is not. But the trend is positive, even if the upward slope is an exceedingly gentle incline, instead of a sharp angle. What is important to think about in the future regarding private contractors? Note that I did not write private military or private security contractors. That is not an oversight, pardon the pun. The use of private contractors to do things formerly done by people in government is vastly more widespread than commonly thought and goes far beyond those carrying guns or serving food in a dining facility and delivering supplies to troops under a LOGCAP contract, to name the two main divisions in what the government persists in politely calling “contingency operations.” Note to the younger generation: this is what, back in the 20th century, we used to call war. Just looking at the so-called national security realm contractors are widespread in the intelligence community, they are critical to the Department of Homeland Security, they do the majority of the work for the U.S. Agency for International Development. They are heavily involved in what will be the growing field of cyber defense and, if it comes to that, outright cyber war Just looking at some of the industry literature I have lying around, in 2010 contractors were supporting counter-narcotics work in Afghanistan, Mexico; and Nigeria (SOS International Ltd.), helping farmers in Pakistan and providing HIV/AIDS prevention in Ethiopia (International Relief and Development), proving Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and mine clearance services (EODT and Pax Mondial), and provide training for Basic and Advanced Law of War that is required by the Pentagon for all contractors accompanying U.S. armed forces overseas. Speaking of literature, during the year I have frequently referred to and quoted from academic scholarship. If nothing else, the law journal articles I cited were at least good for helping you go to sleep. So for the last academic reference in 2010 let me refer you to an article published earlier this month. It is “Sovereignty and Privatizing the Military: An Institutional Explanation” by Ulrich Peterson, published in Contemporary Security Policy journal. He looks at some of the standard explanations for the rise of privatized military companies both in the United States and elsewhere and finds them insufficient. But he does find some uniquely American history to explain whey privatization finds such fertile ground in the United States. One consequence of the idea of shared sovereignty is that the federal state does not possess the exclusive right of maintaining the most powerful means by which oppression could be exercised: the armed forces. Although control over the use of force abroad is located at the federal level, it is not the exclusive right of the federal government to own means of violence. … It shares this privilege with the constituent states and even the citizens. The most important point is that in this crucial area of statehood, the idea of ‘sharing’ has already been introduced. Adding another actor therefore did not amount to a violation of a paradigm. This significantly lowered the barrier for the participation of market actors. The interaction of the principles of shared sovereignty and the minimal state led to extensive privatization in the armed forces. Second, although the state is of course supposed to defend its citizens, defensive force is not its sole prerogative. The right to own weapons and to use them in self-defence, some argue even against the state, is deeply rooted in American history. This notion of everybody’s right to self-defence paved the way for privatizing defensive services such as the protection of senior civilian officials, site security, and convoy security. Thus, the domestic structure and the international changes resonated well with each other and therefore facilitated extensive privatization. It’s an interesting argument and one that, on the face of it, makes sense. If you follow the logic of it far enough it means that the largest private security force in the United States would be the membership of the National Rifle Association. Perhaps it will be wooed by the International Stability Operations Association as its next member. At the end of my first post I wrote, “Before going any further let’s acknowledge that that vast majority of contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere are decent, honorable men and women, doing their best to do difficult jobs in dangerous and hazardous environments.” That is still true. Let’s hope that in the future those men and women have people in their management who are as good as they are. And to all of you who read these posts I wish you a very a very merry and serene 2011.

Read the full article →