power

Huffington Post…

The Washington, D.C. faction of the Occupy movement is slated to issue a response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday. From their encampment in McPherson Square in D.C., Occupiers are expected to deliver their message via the “people’s microphone,” a system of call-and-response where one person reads part of a statement and the crowd then repeats it. An organizer for Occupy D.C. tells the Atlantic Wire that their group didn’t coordinate with the larger Occupy Wall Street movement. Choire Sicha at The Awl gives a preview from an embargoed press release sent around to reporters, writing that it’s strangely “off-key”: The language of the speech is bombastic yet vague, unspecific and sort of… narcissistic? Lots of rambling about how politics is bought and paid for, yadda yadda. (I mean, yes, that’s true! But it’s just atmospherics; why not name some names then?) About half of its claims are reminiscent of the Tea Party. (To be fair, Occupy and the Tea Party share about a 50% base common interest! Which is good and fascinating!) What’s worse about the planned speech is: it’s vaguely poetic without at all being poetry. Their rebuttal is expected to be streamed live, via Occupy DC’s UStream account . Below, Occupy’s entire statement: This 2012 “State of the 99%” response to the State of the Union will be delivered by a group of Occupiers assembled outside in a well-lit spot at McPherson Square following the conclusion of the President’s State of the Union address and/or the Tea Party response. The presentation will unfold this way: one participant will begin in the center/front of the group, in the middle of the camera frame, surrounded by the others. That person will deliver the first line of the speech, and will then be echoed by the People’s Mic. That person will then read their second line, and as the People’s Mic echoes the second line, that person will move off to the side and rejoin the group, while another person will step into the center spot to read the next two lines, with each line again echoed by the People’s Mic. This will continue, cycling through the crowd, with each person reading two lines and being echoed by the People’s Mic. Mic check! [mic check] Mic check! [mic check] Fellow Americans, good evening! [Fellow Americans, good evening!] We are men and women of the 99 percent Many of us have spent many months at Occupy Wall Street and at other Occupations across the country and around the world We are here tonight to report on the State of the 99 percent in America Of course most Americans know the state of the 99 percent very well But sometimes the one percent, on Wall Street and in Washington, need a reminder Financially, the state of the 99% is not strong That is an understatement. Never in our lifetimes have so many hard-working Americans Faced so many difficulties, so many uncertainties, so many indignities In Occupy camps around the country We find Americans from all walks of life [3 personal story couplets] Some of us have had it rougher than others And it turns out living in camps is no picnic either But we do not give up easily And we take inspiration from the brave Americans who came before us From Dr. King, who gave his life fighting for economic justice From the Suffragettes, who insisted the voice of women be heard From all of those brave or foolish enough to believe in America’s defining idea theidea of democracy That we are all created equal And we all have an equal voice in shaping the laws we all live by America Let’s be honest. When our courts tell us corporations have more right to speak than we the people do That’s not democracy. When pepper spray and midnight raids make a joke of the 1st Amendment right to assemble. That’s not democracy. When defrauding clients, blowing up our economy, forging thousands of documents and seizing people’s homes illegally is not a crime but protesting all that is a crime That’s not democracy. Our America is not a democracy, not yet. We all know why: Wall street owns Washington. Bribery is legal, and the laws we live by are for sale to the highest bidder That is why our government serves the very rich and powerful at the expense of the rest of us It protects the bonuses of bankers and Wall Street executives, while failing to keep hard-working families in their homes; It shields offshore tax havens for the very wealthy, while letting our bridges, schools, and infrastructure fall apart; There have been dark periods in our nation’s history, when corruption became the norm when grave injustices stood in the way of America living up to its best ideals. But time and time again, Americans stepped up to take back their government and correct our course. Today Occupy Wall Street and the 99% movement step into this proud American tradition. But fear not, one percent! We are not here just to help the 99% at your expense. We are here to help you too. For when you’ve begun to think rigging the game is fair game When you regard hard-working Americans as undeserving of a middle-class life and unworthy of the profit their own work creates When you treat the people who build your buildings and serve your food and raise your children and patrol your streets without respect You have not only lost touch with our humanity You have lost touch with your own humanity You need to find it again, for everyone’s sake Real democracy will do you good We are the 99% We are here to create the democracy we have all been promised. We are the 99%. Our finances are weak, but our spirit is strong. We are the 99%. Our spring is coming.

Read more from the original source:
Occupy Movement Responds To Obama’s State Of The Union

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

{ 0 comments }

Paul Ryan Changes Tune On Controversial Bill

by The Huffington Post on January 9, 2012

Huffington Post…

Facing pressure from constituents, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) came out against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) on Monday. In a statement released on his official website, the House Budget Committee chairman outlined why he does not support the bill, noting that the current openness offered by the web should stay as is. “The internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address a legitimate problem, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House.” Mashable notes that a Reddit campaign may have played a role in Ryan’s decision. “Operation Pull Ryan” was introduced last month, directing criticism against the congressman over his then-pro stance toward the bill. Ryan has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from organizations that support the initiative. Rob Zerban , Ryan’s 2012 Democratic challenger , has been part of the Reddit thread . The Kenosha County Supervisor applauded Ryan’s change of heart as an example of social networking power. “This is an extraordinary victory,” Zerban wrote. “Reddit was able to force the House Budget chair to reverse course — shock waves will be felt throughout the establishment in Washington today — other lawmakers will take notice.” Back in mid-December, The Huffington Post’s Zach Carter provided some SOPA background , explaining how the bill has “the power to fundamentally reshape the laws governing the internet.” Passage of the act would give the federal government broad powers to eliminate web domains believed to be partaking in piracy-related activities. SOPA opponents have come out swinging against the legislation. Moves against the measure include creating boycott apps , filming protest videos and transferring domains from pro-SOPA sites. GoDaddy.com was among the victims of that movement, eventually releasing a statement expressing opposition to the bill.

See the article here:
Paul Ryan Changes Tune On Controversial Bill

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

{ 0 comments }

Peter Gardett: Energy Voters as a Political Power

January 8, 2012

Can the millions of workers in the U.S. energy sector, their families and neighbors, and the millions more whose lives are built on energy activities, be convinced to vote their concerns about an industry? In other democracies workers in individual sectors often view their politics through their professional and industrial identities, while many recent election races in the U.S. have hinged on political identities rooted in social values as much as economic beliefs. While the U.S. energy sector remains one of the country’s largest employers and most visible sources of economic vibrancy, its natural constituents rarely raise its issues in their lists of concerns politicians (and presidential hopefuls) should address. Americans are accustomed to identity politics; can their identity as energy workers, producers and consumers outweigh other political identities? The oil and gas industry has launched a non-partisan campaign this week in which it asks Americans to vote “for” energy. While Republicans remain the traditional party of business, and executives at the American Petroleum Institute were not shy about pressing the Obama administration on issues of importance to their member firms in launching their public awareness campaign this week, one of the most powerful energy voices in Washington decided to focus on the issues rather than the names that have dominated the early months of the 2012 political race. In part that reflects realistic expectations that little will be achieved at the Congressional level or by politicians this year amid the turmoil and tumult of a hotly-contested national election. The industry’s issues, ranging from tax policy to accessing reserve areas, are long-term issues requiring bipartisan agreement that are unlikely to be addressed by a deadlocked Congress. The industry’s first test of its new political approach may be the unlikely issue of the Keystone XL pipeline. In a country widely held to be facing at best an infrastructure mismatch and at worst a disastrous shortfall the pipeline’s approval was held until a few months ago to be a done deal, but has become a political football wracked by controversies over safety and environmental impacts. The Keystone pipeline is a “bright line” test for the Obama administration, API’s CEO and president Jack Gerard said this week. If the pipeline is held to be in the national interest by President Obama, or under recent legislation simply left unopposed, it will be a signal to global investors and the American public that energy investment is welcome in the U.S., Gerard said. A decision to turn down the pipeline is a signal that carries “significant political consequences,” he said in releasing the group’s State of American Energy report this week. Energy voters are for now still an untested political bloc, an incoherent grouping largely still imagined by strategists and advertising campaigns. Keystone may be the first test of whether this group can emerge as a coherent reality, but with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, it will not be their last. This AOL Energy Comment reflects the views of the author alone, in this case, AOL Energy Managing Editor Peter Gardett. Join the AOL Energy discussion by leaving a comment below or joining a conversation on our Discussions page .

Read the full article →

‘We’re Just Ruining Ourselves.. Destroying Ourselves’

December 31, 2011

A decade ago, customers flocked to the store in the converted fire station on the east side of Toledo, Ohio, in pursuit of Old Glory. Howard Pinkley established Flags Sales & Repair in 1960, and runs it with his daughter, Wendy Beallas. In days after Sept. 11, 2001, customers lined up outside the door. Americans wanted to show their pride, their determination, their Americanism. It’s all a fading memory now. These days, folks are focused on paying bills. A new flag is a luxury, and the unvarnished patriotism of 10 years ago has been replaced by disgust with government. A recent Wednesday saw just two walk-in customers. Father and daughter have cut their payroll, but talk openly about whether they should give up. They’re no less dispirited than their neighbors. “I go home and I refuse to listen to the news because it’s frustrating,” Beallas says. “To me, it’s not coming together and getting things done.” When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election, his advertisements boasted that it was morning in America. Nearly three decades later, as another presidential campaign begins, it feels like twilight – or, if it is morning, it is the kind of gray winter daybreak when the sun is only a rumor and only an optimist clings to hope that the clouds will break. Listen to Americans in three closely contested states and you’ll hear the same plaintive echoes, not just about politics or the upcoming election, but about the unsettling predicament that is America in 2011. Republicans or Democrats, liberal or conservative, young or old, they lack confidence – in the country’s potential to be great again, in their elected leaders’ ability to do the right thing, in the economy and in themselves. It’s not that they feel incapable of doing what needs to be done, as much as they are uncertain about what that right thing is and whether anything they can do will have any real impact. In Mount Airy, N.C., where a quaint Main Street is merely a reminder of better days: “We need to get back to the `60s and the `50s, and we need to get ourselves back to where we used to be – standing on our own two feet,” says long-haul trucker Harry J. Moore, 57, punching a beefy fist into his open left hand to punctuate each syllable. “We’re losing our pride. Our pride’s gone away.” In North Las Vegas,, Nev., where the bursting of the housing bubble has forced hard choices: “People have lost a lot of spirit,” says Elmer Chowning, 70, who had hoped to slow down in his golden years, but is instead still working in real estate while raising his 8-year-old granddaughter. In Lima, Ohio, where people have seen America’s industrial might falter: “I’m just waiting for China or somebody to take us over. That’s the way it seems,” says Becky Jamison, 36, who has watched her 18-year-old son look unsuccessfully for work for months. “Because we’re just falling apart.” ___ If you look, you can find optimism in Ohio. The Armstrong Air & Space Museum is in Wapakoneta, hometown of Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. It stands as a monument to an earlier, more hopeful time, and there are visitors who are convinced that those times can come again. To Stephen Andrasik, a foam salesman from Indianapolis who has stopped in to the museum on his way back home from a business trip, the U.S. remains resilient, facing problems that can be solved by new leaders in Washington who will allow Americans to live up to their potential. “I think we’re still the same people we were back then,” says Andrasik. He studies a display case filled with inventions that were spinoffs of the space program, everything from fireproof clothing to battery-powered hand tools. “I’m assuming it’s going to get better as long as the American people have the ability to do what they want, to invent things, to start new businesses, we’ll be as great as we’ve always been.” But standing before a model of the Apollo 11 command module at the edge of the museum’s parking lot, Jake Retter, a chimney cleaner from Blissfield, Mich., notes the irony of a country that once raced a communist rival to put a man on the moon and now relies on China to buy its debt. Rather than pursuing national goals, politicians chase their own divisive agendas, he says. A nation built on hard work and thrift has lost sight of what really matters. “This country’s been falling apart for the last 50 years. It’s taken time,” Retter says. “It’s not that capitalism is failing us. It’s that we’re failing capitalism.” For many years, this region provided the muscle of American capitalism. Its pride in its talent for making things is evident in Toledo place names such as Jeep Parkway and the Veteran’s Glass City Bridge. The long, slow decline of factory work has been a source of constant sorrow in the Rust Belt. Recent stirrings such as announcements by Chrysler and General Motors that they will add 1,400 new jobs at their plants in Toledo, and Ford’s plans to ramp up engine production in Lima have offered some reason to hope. “I can definitely feel like the forward momentum is there” – jobs at the union hall are picking up, says Kurt Kaufman, 31. A union electrician, he worked steadily until 2006. He has since spent as much as nine months between jobs. Still, he says, “I don’t think it’s ever going to be as good as it was around here.” But a bad economy, some say, is not at the core of what ails northwestern Ohio, and America. There have been hard times before, and there will be again. The real problem, they say, is in Americans and their leaders. “What’s different from this and the Great Depression is that the moral fiber has changed,” says Russ Terry, a retired postal carrier who lives outside Lima and has stopped in for a morning break at The Meeting Place on Market, a coffee and sandwich shop downtown. “The reason we can’t handle this is we don’t have the moral backbone, the stick-to-it-tiveness, the collective people working together.” Terry, who describes his politics as very conservative, blames the federal government for printing too much money in an attempt to stimulate the economy. But at its heart, the country’s failings reflect the will of individuals, he says. “The government is just a reflection of the people, is it not?” Just down the road from Toledo’s GM plant, Martin Ridener says his worries are based on more than 20 years of running a 16-unit apartment building he once thought would pay for his retirement. Instead, a building that used to generate a steady income is now barely covering its expenses, as many tenants lose jobs, fall behind on rent and move out. Ridener, who is 75 and votes Republican, can’t imagine voting for President Barack Obama given the state of the economy, but he can’t see how Republicans taking over the White House will make things any better. “I don’t consider either side wrong in what they’re doing. What I resent is that every Democrat thinks completely one way and every Republican thinks another way. They’re afraid to talk over it and do what’s best for the country.” Across town, most of the red-checked tables are full at the Hungarian hot dog purveyor Tony Packo’s. But between bites, Pat Shupe, a 72-year-old homemaker, says she worries about the world her 3-year-old granddaughter will inherit with seemingly limited opportunities. “I absolutely see no light at the end of the tunnel until something is done in this country to equalize opportunity for people to get a job,” Shupe says. While the 2008 election gave her hope that the country could work through its problems, the gridlock in Washington has robbed her of that brief optimism. “I think we’re just ruining ourselves,” Shupe says, “destroying ourselves.” Not everyone shares that bleak outlook. Terri Leary’s employer eliminated her job as a senior housing manager in 2009, six months after her husband lost work in construction management. Leary, 44, was convinced that her lack of a college degree had made her expendable, so she enrolled at Owens Community College’s campus in Perrysburg. Days before her graduation ceremony in early December, she sat in the commons area of College Hall and described the tough times of the past few years as an opportunity, an outlook entirely decoupled from politics. The job losses and belt-tightening, she is convinced, were “a good thing. It teaches the kids very valuable life lessons, you know, make good with what you have. … We learned we can do more with less and be just as happy.” There are lessons to be learned, agrees 29-year-old Erin Tupper. She and her husband, Marc, have much to be thankful for. They have been married just a week, they have a home of their own (albeit modest and worth less than it used to be), and Marc prizes his job as a police officer. But they look around, and see evidence of an America that has lost its way. Erin, recalling her father’s pride in his work as a truck driver hauling new Jeeps off the Toledo assembly line, says she and her friends talk now of employers who pile on hours while treating workers as expendable. When she drives near her childhood home, she is dismayed by the big homes on what was once farmland, a sign of misplaced values centered on instant gratification and overspending. People seem to be more concerned with themselves and their own narrow interests than in working together for the common good. “We’re learning a lesson,” she says. And if we don’t, “we’ll be right back to where we were.” ___ “Your Community of Choice,” reads the motto on signs spread around the city of North Las Vegas, and for a while it was. Once among the fastest-growing places in the country, the city saw thousands of stucco and tile-roof homes sprout up to accommodate retirees and a middle-class workforce coming for jobs in the booming casino and construction industries. The city added workers, increased revenue and embarked on ambitious plans for redevelopment projects to keep pace with the growth. Today the community is deeply in debt, cutting programs, laying off employees, fending off a possible state takeover and weighing still more difficult decisions that will directly affect the 220,000 people who live here. Talk to people on the street, in the library, at the recreation center, and seemingly everyone knows someone who is out of work. If they own a home, its value has decreased substantially and their neighborhoods are filled with forsaken properties. You can’t watch TV without seeing local commercials for help with loan modifications or from lawyers pledging to keep the banks from your assets. The Neighborhood Recreation Center sits in the old part of town, a lifeline for senior citizens in need and young people whose parents can’t afford fancy gyms. Over the summer, struggling to plug an overall $30 million budget deficit for the fiscal year and unable to reach a deal with police unions over cuts, the North Las Vegas City Council voted to close the center. People who consider it a second home revolted, descending on council meetings with signs and petitions in hand. The facility was saved only after the local police union agreed to defer for six months a cost-of-living increase and distribution of accumulated holiday pay. That was enough to keep the center open through next summer. Recreation supervisor Neil Gallant sits at a desk littered with spreadsheets as he works to find grant money or other ways to subsidize the center’s costs. He talks of his seniors feeling “abandoned” when the City Council voted to close the center and of a sense of disconnection between elected leaders and those they serve. The politicians don’t know the people, Gallant says. “They don’t see them.” That sentiment was echoed by so many in North Las Vegas, but especially Gallant’s struggling older clientele. They are women like Nita Hargis and Maxine Delisle, who live on meager Social Security checks and depend on the center’s $1.50 hot lunch (rising to $3 come January) and the companionship they find in ceramics class. One Thursday, instead of molding candy dishes, they vented about the state of their community and the country, and the overarching theme was one of neglect – a feeling that every level of government is ignoring their needs and has failed them, despite so many promises to do otherwise. For Hargis, a 65-year-old who has lived almost her entire life in North Las Vegas and worked a variety of jobs – painter, gift shop clerk, remodeler – recent efforts to attempt to modify her home loan left her exasperated and in worse shape than she started. “They ran me around for nine months. They ruined my credit. I even got one of these government guys that was supposed to help me, and all he did was say, `Well, call `em back, call `em back.’ He never did anything to help me,” she says. For Delisle, it’s the glaring imbalance between people like her and those in government that leaves her feeling alienated. She notes that there hasn’t been a cost-of-living increase in Social Security for three years, yet it took months of difficult negotiations to get the local police union to agree to forgo its adjustment for just six months. Nineteen-year-old Oscar Corral works the front desk at the recreation center. He’s a philosophical young man with an optimistic smile and outlook. Neither of his parents graduated from high school, and yet his mom is an accounting manager at a local cab company while his father works construction. His dad was laid off not long ago but soon found another job and is “hanging on a thread.” “There’s this thing about humans. When they’re pushed, I guess they go into survival mode and they really work hard,” says Corral, who studies audio production at The Art Institute of Las Vegas. He likens the many problems facing Americans right now to climbing a mountain. “From far away,” he says, “it looks impossible. But when you start getting close up, you see there’s cracks here that I can climb up and you just attack it little by little. … Sometimes we just get caught up in the big problem.” It’s true that in North Las Vegas, as is the case nationally, the problems are so big it’s hard not to get caught up in them. Short-term fixes and eventual union concessions kept the city afloat this fiscal year, but already officials are predicting a $15.5 million deficit for the next budget cycle. Says Elmer Chowning, the real estate agent: “We’re a fast society. We want things to happen. And this is a thing that is lingering, lingering, lingering.” It’s no wonder, he adds, that people have taken to streets and parks in the Occupy Wall Street protests. “There is a tremendous feeling of camaraderie,” he says, but also “hurt and madness.” A couple of weeks ago, North Las Vegas and its residents did their best to put all of that aside for a time. Hundreds gathered on an unusually blustery evening to celebrate the grand opening of a nine-story City Hall – a project launched when the city was flush – and watch as the town Christmas tree was lit. It was a night meant to represent a fresh start, the promise of tomorrow. Nita Hargis was there with some of her friends from the recreation center, wondering aloud why the city felt the need to hand out commemorative tiles and paperweights and what was the cost to taxpayers. The Chownings brought their granddaughter, and stood in the back as a children’s choir sang Christmas carols and ballerinas danced on the shiny new granite floor. Soon they, and everyone, were joining in the carols, applauding the entertainers, sipping hot chocolate. Soon, their worries seemed to fade. At least for one night, anyway. ___ By comparison, Mount Airy is a bit of fantasy in the foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains. The hometown of Andy Griffith, it is Mayberry – America as it used to be, or as we would like to believe it used to be, when the nation’s industrial and military might was unquestioned and seemed unbounded; when a man, even one without a high school diploma, could earn enough to own a house, buy a new car every couple of years and send his kids to college for a better life than even he’d enjoyed. Stroll down Main Street, and you expect to meet characters like Aunt Bea, Goober and Floyd the barber. They’re not here. Instead, you’ll find businessmen and women struggling to survive the recession by selling nostalgia, and real people eager to buy. “They’re looking for what we wish that times could be again,” says Debbie Miles, who moved here with her husband from southern Indiana five years ago and opened Mayberry on Main, where the walls and shelves are lined with items like Aunt Bea’s Kerosene Cucumbers and Otis’s Moonshine Jelly. “That’s the main thing that we hear. `We wish that it could be like that again – like it was on the show.’” Business is down about 10 percent from a couple of years ago. But Miles can’t afford that kind of pessimism. “You know, if you’re an optimistic person, you think there’s nowhere to go but up,” she says with a laugh. “It probably does try everyone, but I think you still have to be optimistic, you know? That’s what Americans are supposed to do – think for the future.” Darrel Miles – who, like his wife, is a registered Democrat but did not vote for Obama – finds it a bit harder to be hopeful. “I think they need to turn the whole upside down in Washington and shake it real good,” says Miles, who worked 32 years for a company that made soda and ice dispensers. “I think we might have the wrong government, the wrong people trying to fix certain things. There’s too many hands in the fire, as you would say. I mean they can’t even come to agreement even within their own parties to fix certain things, you know?” Across the street, at Snappy Lunch, business is down 20 percent or 30 percent over a couple of years ago, says Mary Dowell, whose husband, Charles, has owned the restaurant since 1960. “We still have tourists who come in, but the bus groups have dropped a little bit,” Dowell says over the sizzle of meat for the diner’s “famous pork chop sandwich.” “Last year, I did have to give everybody a day a week off, because we were so slow. And we’ll probably do that this year.” On this sunny afternoon, Jennifer Brown stands outside Snappy Lunch and peers through the window. Her parents, Steve and Diane, both have good jobs in manufacturing. But the 27-year-old Cleveland-area woman, who has an associate’s degree in office management, can’t find permanent employment. “I did telemarketing. I worked at a park. I even worked at a county fair for a week,” she says. “I’m doing side jobs, some retail. But nothing that I wound up being able to keep.” Her mother, whose company was recently bought out by a European firm, can’t help feeling that the U.S. is in decline. “Because the average person can’t graduate from high school and find a job,” she says. “It’s easier for somebody to come from another country and get started than it is for us who grew up here.” “Mmmm,” her daughter nods in agreement. Jennifer Brown motions to the street scene around her. “This is where it needs to go back to,” she says. “Like the American dream. America, not the socialist stuff that’s going on. And where you could just, you can get a job.” Around the corner from the bustle of Main Street, in front of the Andy Griffith Playhouse and Museum, Sheriff Andy Taylor and son Opie stride in bronze, hand in hand, rods over their shoulders, toward an imaginary fishing hole. A plaque at their feet reads, “a simpler time.” Inside the museum, the gauges on two vintage “ethyl” gas pumps are frozen at 17.9 cents a gallon. Oil worker Jeff Zwicker of Vacaville, Calif., poses for a photo with museum founder (and Griffith childhood friend) Emmett Forrest. Zwicker, 55, a 20-year Air Force veteran who served on cargo planes in Operation Desert Storm, is worried about the deficit and American indebtedness to foreign creditors such as China. But if Washington can get those things under control – and he’s confident it can – “I think the future’s great for our country.” “We’re a great nation,” he says. “We have a lot of smart people here, and if we put all the smart people on this and get it going. But you’ve gotta get serious about it, you know? You’ve gotta really do it. You’ve gotta WANT to do it.” Forrest isn’t so sure. The 84-year-old former electric company vice president says Obama has “taken us down the path to absolute ruin” and, if he’s re-elected, “there’ll be no recovery from it.” “Ten or 20 years ago, I think we were the shining star of the world, and our star has dimmed quite a bit,” he says. “I guess I’m just cornpone patriotic. I love this country and hate to see it go down.” But to Pablo Hernandez, these are good times. Hernandez, 45, came here from Mexico in 1987. He traveled the country, picking apples, oranges, tomatoes – “everything” – before landing a job at a chicken-processing plant in nearby Dobson. For the past five years, he and his wife, Salustria, 33, have operated La Sierrita Tienda Mexicana in a strip mall on a bypass outside downtown. They sell everything from black beans and dried chilies to CDs from groups like Los Rancheros and Fortunato y sus Cometas. Sure, Hernandez is concerned about the recent wave of anti-immigrant sentiment in places like Alabama and South Carolina. The couple’s two daughters – Lesley, 13, and Nadia, 6 – were born here, but the parents have their green cards. But he is not a pessimist. The American Dream “is still alive for me,” he says, as Nadia reads a picture book beneath a ceiling dangling with colorful pinatas. “Because I’m still here, you know.” ___ Pauline Arrillaga reported from North Las Vegas, Nev., Allen G. Breed reported from Mount Airy, N.C., and Adam Geller reported from Toledo and Lima, Ohio. They can be reached at features(at)ap.org.

Read the full article →

Court Puts ‘Disappointing’ Hold On Power Plant Pollution Regulation

December 31, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal court Friday put on hold a controversial Obama administration regulation aimed at reducing power plant pollution in 27 states that contributes to unhealthy air downwind. More than a dozen electric power companies, municipal power plant operators and states had sought to delay the rules until the litigation plays out. A federal appeals court in Washington approved their request Friday. The EPA, in a statement, said it was confident that the rule would ultimately be upheld on its merits. But the agency said it was “disappointing” the regulation’s health benefits would be delayed, even if temporarily. Republicans in Congress have attempted to block the rule using legislation, saying it would shutter some older, coal-fired power plants and kill jobs. While those efforts succeeded in the Republican-controlled House, the Senate — with the help of six Republicans — in November rejected an attempt to stay the regulation. And the White House had threatened to veto it. The rule, finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency in July, replaces a 2005 Bush administration proposal that was rejected by a federal court. The Bush-era rule, which is expected to cost the industry $1.6 billion annually to comply, will remain in effect. The new rule would have added $800 million a year to that price tag. But those investments would be far outweighed by the hundreds of billions of dollars in health care savings from cleaner air, according to the EPA. In the first two years, the EPA estimates that the regulation and some other steps would have slashed sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent from 2005 levels, and nitrogen oxides will be cut by more than half. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution from power plant smokestacks can be carried long distances by the wind and weather. As they drift, the pollutants react with other substances in the atmosphere to form smog and soot, which have been linked to various illnesses, including asthma, and have prevented many states and cities from complying with health-based standards set by law. Environmentalists on Friday said they would continue to defend the regulations, which are essential for some states to be able to meet air quality standards for soot and smog and are far more protective than the ones proposed under the Bush administration. “The pollution reductions at stake are some of the single most important clean air protections for children, families and communities, across the eastern half of the United States,” said Vickie Patton, the general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund. But Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a coalition of power companies, said in a statement Friday that the ruling was the “first step to setting it right.” “The underlying rule was the subject of hasty process, poor technical support, unequal application and substantial threat to jobs, power bills and reliability,” he said. Six states— Texas, Nebraska, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, and Ohio — had asked the court for the delay. All would have had to reduce pollution from their power plants under the regulation. They were joined by Ames, Iowa, local power plant operators and power generating companies, including Entergy Corp., Luminant Generation Co. and GenOn Energy. “For the time being, this stay means Nebraskans will not have to foot the bill for unnecessary modifications mandated by the EPA,” said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. “We will continue to fight these job-killing regulations by an overreaching federal government run amok.” The court is asking that oral arguments take place by April 2012. ___ EPA fact sheet — http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/pdfs/CSAPRFactsheet.pdf

Read the full article →

GOP Candidate Rails Against Safety Recommendation

December 14, 2011

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) criticized the National Transportation Safety Board Wednesday for recommending a ban on texting, emailing and talking on cellphones while driving except in case of emergency. “I was thinking about that because it was in the news today. So I went to the Constitution and I looked at Article 1, Section 8. There is nothing in there about telephones,” he said to laughter and applause at a diner in Amherst, N.H., according to CNN Political Ticker . “Then I thought, ‘Well there is nothing in there about what you can do and can’t do when you are driving in a horse and buggy either.’” He added, “The federal government shouldn’t be involved.” Paul acknowledged that using cellphones while driving was dangerous but that eating and rowdy children also cause drivers to become distracted. He said the federal government doesn’t have the power to enforce a ban on cellphones. The National Transportation Safety Board urged all states to impose total bans on cellphones — including hands-free devices — while driving in a unanimous ruling Tuesday. GPS navigation systems would be excluded. The board does not have the power to impose restrictions but they carry significant weight among lawmakers. 35 States and the District of Columbia ban texting while driving, while nine states and D.C. bar hand-held cellphone use.

Read the full article →

German Finance Minister’s Plan For Eurozone Redemption

December 3, 2011

BERLIN (Reuters) – Germany’s Finance Minister spelled out details on Saturday of his proposal for national redemption funds for excess sovereign debt which he intends to present at a crunch summit of EU leaders next week aimed at restoring confidence in the euro. Wolfgang Schaeuble outlined his plans under which states would effectively siphon off a chunk of their debt to a special national fund and pay it off over about 20 years while committing to reforms to keep debt levels on target. Schaeuble believes his proposal, which has won qualified support from Chancellor Angela Merkel, would boost confidence as states would be sending a signal they were serious about limiting debt levels to 60 percent of gross domestic product. Investors are desperate for a sign from EU leaders next week that they can find a solution to the more than two year-old debt crisis which is having a knock-on effect on the global economy. Merkel is pushing for binding EU rules on budget discipline. “We need a redemption fund in every single country of the euro zone,” Schaeuble told the Passauer Neue Presse. “Each of these countries should put into a special fund that part of its debt which exceed 60 percent of its GDP, and should pay that off with tax revenues. Over a period of 20 years, the debt should be reduced to 60 percent,” he said. In Germany’s case, the fund – covering federal, state and municipal debts – would amount to about 500 billion euros ($672 billion) as German debt is around 80 percent of its gross domestic product, said Schaeuble. An earlier proposal this month from a panel of independent economic advisers to the German government which was rejected as unrealistic by Merkel, envisaged a European Redemption Pact. That proposal, for a fund of up to 2.3 trillion euros, was anathema to Merkel because it suggested pooling excess debt into a fund with common liability. Germany is dead set against any pooling of responsibility for debt within the euro zone, arguing states must themselves tackle their debt problems. Schaeuble’s plan has already hit opposition from Austria. Finance Minister Maria Fekter said on Friday any proposals that resulted in gathering billions of euros from taxpayers would encounter problems in national parliaments. Merkel’s spokesman welcomed Schaeuble’s proposal as “interesting,” saying it could help rebuild investor confidence. However, it is far from clear whether Merkel will push the idea. Her main focus is securing a deal on changing EU treaties to force states to be more rigorous in budget discipline. CRUNCH SUMMIT Merkel meets French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Monday to hammer out details on the changes they hope leaders will agree to at the December 9 summit. World stocks and European bonds made gains at the end of last week on hopes euro zone leaders may be moving closer to a comprehensive solution to the crisis. Merkel, who told her parliament on Friday there were no quick fixes to the crisis, wants the EU to have greater powers to stop national budgets if they risk breaching the budget rules and to punish offenders. Merkel’s spokesman dismissed a report in Focus magazine which said Germany and France would if necessary let the euro zone break up and make agreements with individual governments if treaty changes could not be agreed between all members. “The German government’s goal is to strengthen stability in the euro zone as a whole through a common set of rules for stricter budget discipline,” the spokesman told Reuters. The German government wants as many members as possible of the 27-member EU to sign up to the changes. British Prime Minister David Cameron threatened on Friday to obstruct the Franco-German drive for swift EU treaty change. Schaeuble reiterated Germany’s opposition to common euro zone debt issuance in the newspaper interview, as did Economy Minister Philipp Roesler, leader of the Free Democrats (FDP), a junior partner in Merkel’s centre-right coalition. He told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung that there would be no euro bond under this government. Schaeuble also reiterated Germany’s stance that the European Central Bank was independent. Former European Commission head Jacques Delors blamed Germany for insisting the ECB must not support debt-stricken members of the euro zone for fear of fueling inflation in an interview with Britain’s Daily Telegraph. The euro’s troubles spring from “a combination of the stubbornness of the Germanic idea of monetary control and the absence of a clear vision from all the other countries,” he said. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

‘The Office’ Dunder Mifflin Paper Now An Actual Product!

November 28, 2011

After seven and a half seasons of teasing us with their product, Dunder Mifflin will finally give the general public the opportunity to use their famed paper. Comcast, the parent company of “The Office” broadcaster NBC, has licensed for production a line of paper stock from the world’s largest (fictional) Northeastern Pennsylvania-based mid-sized paper company. Staples will produce and sell the product on its Quill.com, meaning fans of the show can print out their own love letters to Jim Halpert on the paper he’s made a career of pushing. That Comcast decided to go with Staples may raise some eyebrows amongst hardcore fans of the show; after all, Staples is one of Dunder Mifflin’s biggest competitors, and where Dwight briefly worked while on a sojourn from his beloved company. Another question to ponder: will the pages display the classic, recalled watermark that involved a duck and a mouse in a very obscene way ? For more, click over to the Wall Street Journal .

Read the full article →

Occupy LA Protesters Defy Mayor, Refuse To Leave Encampment

November 28, 2011

LOS ANGELES — Wall Street protesters in Los Angeles defied the mayor’s early Monday deadline to vacate their encampment near City Hall, with about 1,000 flooding into the area as hundreds of tents remained standing as they have for nearly two months. A celebratory atmosphere filled the night with protesters milling about the park and streets by City Hall in seeming good spirits. A group on bicycles circled the block, one of them in a cow suit. Organizers led chants with a bull horn. “The best way to keep a non-violent movement non-violent is to throw a party, and keep it festive and atmospheric,” said Brian Masterson. Police presence was slight right after the 12:01 a.m. PST Monday deadline, but it began increasing as the morning wore on. At the same time, the number of protesters dwindled. “People have been pretty cooperative tonight. We want to keep it peaceful,” police Cmdr. Andrew Smith told The Associated Press. He refused to discuss how or when police will move to clear the park, but he said: “We’re going to do this as gently as we possibly can. Our goal is not to have anybody arrested. Our goal is not to have to use force.” By 2:30 a.m., most protesters had moved from the camp site in the park to the streets. That put them technically in compliance with the mayor’s eviction order, but could lead to confrontation with police if they try to clear the streets. There have so far been no arrests or reports of violence. “We’re still here, it’s after 12, ain’t nobody throwing anything at the cops, they haven’t come in and broken anyone’s noses yet, so it’s a beautiful thing,” said Adam Rice, a protester standing across the street from police in riot gear. The Los Angeles showdown follows police actions in other cities – sometimes involving the use of pepper spray and tear gas – that resulted in the removal of long-situated demonstration sites. Some of those encampments had been in use almost since the movement against economic disparity and perceived corporate greed began with Occupy Wall Street in Manhattan two months ago. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said earlier that the park grounds would be closed after the deadline, while Police Chief Charlie Beck promised that arrests would eventually be made if protesters did not comply. But in a statement issued shortly before midnight, the mayor said police “will allow campers ample time to remove their belongings peacefully and without disruption.” As the deadline approached, people poured into the grounds, likely many of them answering calls on Facebook and Twitter to come out and show solidarity. Well after midnight, some protesters began marching into the streets, and several crossed the street to police headquarters. “Me and my friends, we are not leaving no matter what,” said Brian Guzman, who stood on the street corner holding a “Power to the People” sign. “Not until we get some changes.” Masterson said he had turned his own tent into a “non-violent booby trap” by filling it with sandbags to make it tough to tear down. “We can’t beat the LAPD, but we can make it difficult for them to do their job, and have fun while we’re doing it,” Masterson said. Elsewhere, a deadline set by the city for Occupy Philadelphia to leave the site where it has camped for nearly two months passed Sunday without any arrests. The scene outside Philadelphia’s City Hall was quiet most of Sunday and by early Monday the numbers of protesters – and police officers – had decreased. Philadelphia’s protesters have managed to avoid aggressive confrontations so far. By early Monday there was still hope the City of Brotherly Love would continue to be largely violence-free. But eight people were arrested in Maine Sunday after protesters in the Occupy Augusta encampment in Capitol Park took down their tents and packed their camping gear after being told to get a permit or move their shelters. In Los Angeles, some campers packed up their tents and belongings to avoid police trouble, but said they intended to return without them in support of their fellow protesters. Scott Shuster was one of those breaking down his camp, but he said it was only to protect his property and he planned to remain. “I just don’t want to lose my tent,” he said. Others moved their tents to the sidewalk so they were technically out of the park. Villaraigosa, a former labor organizer himself, has said he sympathizes with the movement but that he felt it was time it moved beyond holding on to “a particular patch of park.” He said public health and safety could not be sustained for a long period. Chief Charlie Beck told the Los Angeles Times in an interview published Sunday that he expected to make arrests at some point. “I have no illusions that everybody is going to leave,” Beck said. “We anticipate that we will have to make arrests.”

Read the full article →

Occupy Wall Street Takes On Black Friday Amid Skepticism

November 24, 2011

With Black Friday heralding the start of the shopping season, a bevy of groups identified with the Occupy Wall Street movement are asking consumers to reconsider their spending habits. But unlike other high-profile Occupy efforts of late — such as last week’s march across the Brooklyn Bridge , in which thousands of activists participated, it’s unclear whether the pushback against Black Friday shopping will serve as a show of strength for the movement. “I don’t think that they’re going to gain any traction out of this one,” said Stephen Hoch, a marketing professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. “If I was them, I wouldn’t be investing a whole lot of energy in using this as a poster child for what’s wrong with our country.” Black Friday, otherwise known as the day after Thanksgiving, serves as the unofficial start of the November-December holiday shopping corridor, one of the busiest times of year for retailers. About 152 million people are expected to shop this Friday , in what has become an annual tradition of shoppers mobbing stores in the hopes of getting limited-time deals. This November, a number of Occupy Wall Street groups have publicized plans to oppose Black Friday in one form or another. These efforts are in line with Occupy Wall Street’s overall mission of reclaiming power from major corporations and financial institutions, and come a little more than a week after the cradle of the movement, Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park, was forcibly evacuated on the orders of Mayor Michael Bloomberg . One group, known as Occupy Black Friday , is urging shoppers to bypass chain stores in favor of small and local businesses, while another group, named Don’t Occupy Walmart , is organizing a boycott of Walmart stores in protest of what it calls unjust and anti-union practices on the part of the retail giant. Still other Occupy chapters around the country are planning flash mobs, singing protests and other public demonstrations with the aim of encouraging shoppers to support local merchants. Sean McKeown, a chemist and New York resident who has spearheaded the Don’t Occupy Walmart group, told The Huffington Post that his group’s actions are intended in part to make a statement about the Occupy movement’s enduring presence in New York, now that Zuccotti Park has been cleared. “We’re trying to show that even if we don’t have a park that we’re staying in, we certainly have the ability to do a lot of things,” said McKeown, 31. “This is a way to show the power of the movement.” Still, skeptics question whether the disparate Occupy efforts — which have been unevenly publicized, and do not appear to be centrally coordinated — stand much chance of interrupting the post-Thanksgiving crush at stores and shopping malls. “It will be very difficult for any kind of organization to thwart the efforts of both retailers and consumers as they quest for the perfect deal,” said Marshal Cohen, chief retail analyst at the NPD Group, a market research company. “No one is going to get in these people’s way.” Since the Internet has made it possible to shop from anywhere and at any time of day, Cohen noted — and since seasonal deals are often available not just on Black Friday, but for days and weeks afterward — Occupy protesters could have a hard time making their message as widely heard as they’d like. And since many small and local businesses get their goods from the same corporate suppliers that stock the shelves at Walmart and Target, it’s not clear whether encouraging people to shop locally will strike much of a blow to big business. “You’re basically taking from Peter to give to Paul in many cases,” Cohen said. “What’s the difference if I buy Tropicana orange juice from Walmart or if I buy it from the local grocery store?” Occupy Black Friday, which is among the groups calling for people to spend locally rather than at chain stores, could not be reached for comment. The anti-consumption spirit of the various scheduled Occupy events has a precedent in Buy Nothing Day , the yearly undertaking — always scheduled to fall on Black Friday — in which participants refrain from spending any money. Buy Nothing Day was created some 20 years ago by advocates associated with the Vancouver magazine Adbusters , which also issued the original call for the movement that would become Occupy Wall Street. While it remains a red-letter date on the calendars of many social activists, its effects on retail sales have traditionally been less than earthshattering. “They’re fragmentary, they’re ephemeral,” said Richard Hastings, a macro and consumer strategist at Global Hunter Securities, of Buy Nothing Day and similar campaigns that have attempted to build commercial headwinds on Black Friday. “To really be quite poetic about it, they’re evanescent.” Hastings said that “the Occupy movement in the U.S. can only have some impact if it starts to do boycotts” — but added that he does not expect the anti-Black Friday forces to change many minds this year. “This is not a society where sitting around and obsessing about ideology goes on and on forever,” Hastings said. “We’ve been a consumer society for an extremely long time.” What people bought during Black Friday last year:

Read the full article →

Bessma Momani: Bringing the Right Investment to the Arab World

November 24, 2011

The causes and determinants of the political revolutions sweeping the Arab world are still too complex and nascent to explain with the authority of an academic analysis. Yet there is an overwhelming belief that economic factors are a key part of the puzzle in searching for determinants. The Arab Spring was not instigated by the poor underclass of the Arab world; instead, it was the educated, unemployed, disenfranchised and likely lower-middle class youth of the region that took to the Internet and the streets to protest. The Arab Spring started in countries that had economic growth and that were lead economic reformers. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and even Syria were ‘successfully liberalizing’ their economies. But the revolutions hit these same countries where the elite did not distribute the economic growth to the masses at a pace that met the rising expectations of the educated youth. What does this say to foreign investors, like Canadian businesspeople, who want to invest in the Arab world? Undoubtedly, the Arab world needs foreign investment to: provide technological know-how and innovation in short supply throughout the region’s production valuechains and energy facilities; create labour-intensive jobs; augment the technical and post-secondary education sector; and invest in infrastructural development projects needed in meeting urbanization challenges such as transportation, housing, food security and sewage systems. There are plenty of respected studies, particularly that of the United Nations Arab Human Development Report, that reiterate these points. Moreover, there is simply not enough domestic capital and know-how to generate the kinds of employment and productive capacity needed to meet the needs of the Arab masses. Foreign investment is key to the kinds of economic growth sought by the Arab masses — but not all foreign investment is created equal. Good vs. bad investment In recent years, the Arab world heavily depended on Arab Gulf countries to provide needed foreign investment. Much of this intraregional investment, however, was not labour-intensive and often invested disproportionately into real estate, mega shopping malls, tourist projects and resorts. These were further aggravators, I argue, of the social grievances of educated, underemployed young people who were striving to improve their standard of living and meet their dreams and expectations for a better life. Foreign investment into real estate and recreation is not what the Arab world needs now; it needs investment into jobs, and industries and services that spur jobs. The Arab Gulf countries continue to have capital surpluses that can be used for good throughout the region. But the incentive and expertise of Gulf capital is not in promoting the kinds of economic activity needed in the Arab world. More importantly, the tendency of Gulf investors to invest in real estate and recreation is a detriment to the long-term political and social stability of the Arab Middle East. The lesson for Canadian businesses: invest in increasing the productive capacity of the Arab world. There is immense opportunity with an educated and eager workforce. Drivers of the Canadian economy today are keenly in demand throughout the Arab world; specifically, construction and engineering, health services, and education providers are all in Canada’s comparative advantage. Moreover, Canadian products that have already been identified by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for their untapped opportunity in the Middle East include: wood, pulp, and paper sectors; health products; transportation equipment and machinery; water; energy; petrochemicals; and information technology and communications. These sectors will be an important part of building the Arab world in the post-revolutionary phase. The challenge will be to ensure that Canadian investors do not appear complicit in the political trappings of the inefficiencies of the Arab bureaucracies, and of currying favour with the crony-capitalists of the region. Here, Canadian businesses need to emphasize the virtues of good governance: dealing with a transparent, accountable and responsible political apparatus. This means Canadian businesses must demand operating in an open investment environment and duly report their dealings with Arab governments and businesses. Canadian businesses should not forget that the Arab masses are watching their own governments, and as the wave of democratization continues they will chastise companies and foreign governments that deal with corrupt regimes. Canadian businesses can take advantage of their positive country branding today and increase investment in the region, but by meeting the needs of the Arab economies. If they do this, they will bring positive returns — both financial and political — to the region. Bessma Momani is an associate professor at the University of Waterloo and senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance and Innovation. She will be speaking at the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations’ 2011 national conference in Gatineau from Nov. 26 to 27. (This article first appeared in Embassy magazine at http://www.embassymag.ca/.)

Read the full article →

WATCH: Chilling Video Of Students Confronting UC Davis Chancellor

November 20, 2011

A crowd of UC Davis students confronted chancellor Linda Katehi in the wake of an incident that occurred between protesters and campus police on Friday. According to reports , police unleashed pepper spray on a group of students protesers who were part of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Video footage of the protest shows that students were sitting quietly when police began to show off a can of pepper spray before dousing the students. Katehi held a press conference on Saturday to address the incident. Students began to surround the building in protest and she reportedly refused to leave amid safety concerns. Finally, the students cleared a path for her to exit. As she walked back to her car, surrounded by students, some began to ask her questions, which she mostly brushed off “Chancellor, do you still feel threatened by the students?” someone asked. She replied, “no” and a companion said that “we’ve asked for it to be a silent, respectful exit.” Katehi will address the students directly on Monday. The officers’ behavior has sparked outrage among the Occupy Wall Street and UC Davis communities. Two involved officers have reportedly been put on administrative leave and students have even called for the chancellor’s resignation . WATCH:

Read the full article →

Investor Files Lawsuit Against Scandal-Ridden Company

November 16, 2011

A U.S. investor sued Japan’s Olympus Corp, accusing the scandal-hit company of making false statements about its finances and intentionally hiding losses from investors. Lloyd Graham, who owns 55 American Depository Receipts of Olympus, filed a securities lawsuit against the company Monday, seeking to recover investment losses. The lawsuit seeks class-action status to represent all investors who bought Olympus ADRs in the five years leading up to Nov. 7. A spokesman for Olympus America did not immediately return a call for comment. Japan’s securities watchdog and authorities in Japan, the United States and Britain are probing the 92-year-old company, which admitted last week it hid investment losses for two decades using funds linked to takeover deals. The lawsuit also names as defendants Shuichi Takayama, the company’s current president, as well as Michael Woodford, who was fired as chief executive in October and then became a whistle blower. The court papers also named Tsuyoshi Kikukawa, who resigned as president on Oct. 26, as a defendant. The lawsuit was filed in federal court for Pennsylvania’s Eastern District, which covers Center Valleynear Allentown where Olympus has its U.S. headquarters. The Olympus scandal may not prompt the flurry of securities lawsuits that usually quickly follow accusations of cover-ups and misleading statements by companies. For one thing, Olympus primary stock listing is in Tokyo. Recent court rulings have limited U.S. investors’ ability to sue in U.S. courts over purchases of securities on foreign exchanges. In addition, the company’s ADRs only account for about 1 percent of the company’s float and no one investor has holdings of more than $1 million, according to BNY Mellon Depositary Receipts. This makes it unlikely that ADR investors could collectively seek a big recovery by suing. That has not stopped others from trying to get involved. At least four other law firms in the United States put out press releases encouraging potential plaintiffs to contact them. The case is Lloyd Graham v Olympus Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 11-7103. (Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Andre Grenon) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Adrienne Parks: Bullying Part Deux: Occupy Wall Street and the Gay Movement

October 31, 2011

What does the gay movement have to do with Occupy Wall Street? We have a once-empowered class of people challenging powerful bullies. That should sound only too familiar. This is one of those perfect Buckminster Fuller moments of critical mass, a time like when the labor movement initially stood up, Vietnam-era anti-war protesters said, “Enough,” feminists marched for equality, and the Stonewall men said, “No more.” It will be difficult to put our economic-collapse genie back in the bottle. Could the bully power of the 1 percent be why America has fallen so pathetically behind the rest of the world in, well, everything? Because the power to bully is the power to subjugate creativity, entrepreneurial interests, religious tolerance, out-of-the-box thinking, and society at large. Even if we all deluded ourselves into thinking we had a level playing field, it gave us hope, not to mention those great motivators: idealism, that sense of fairness owed, wrongs to be righted. Or our drive to succeed or exceed society’s expectations. Yet we have to ask: is that what America is still about? Believing in the mythical fairness of Wall Street? Of society? A patriarchal ownership of the very financial institutions that now underwrite our political campaigns, judicial process, religions, and corporate America. The 1 percent has proven it does not play fairly. Crazily, the sycophants latch on to the 1 percent to feel themselves empowered. They are fooling themselves and implicitly hurting the 99 percent. Seemingly they somehow remain clueless, intentionally or otherwise. We can say with certainty now that the proverbial Wall Street “king” has been revealed to have no clothes. Of economic necessity, good old-fashioned American democracy has come under scrutiny by soccer moms, apple pie, laid-off workers, and the rest of the educated disenfranchised. These were the very dreamers who drank the Democratic “Kool-Aid.” They are us — your neighbors, friends, and families who bought the balloon-payment homes, were scammed by the Enrons and the Madoffs, lost pensions and life savings in planned bankruptcies. Their home mortgages are larger than their equity. These are the people who have lost medical benefits. They were simply pink-slipped by corporate employers whose duty was to profit at any cost. They were abruptly dumped into an economic cauldron of Wall Street making. Some individuals, societies, cultures, religions, groups, businesses, and living environments try to find an ideal to which all can agree, find harmony, and live in peace. Not so in an oligarchy, where the very, very few control the many. Is this what America has become? Does “one person, one vote” mean anything anymore if one corporation is equal to, what, a million people, votes, dollars? A billion? Bullying is used to quell. Right-wingers brandish claims that OWS is voiceless, without a leader, and thus without power to effect change. The same was said of most great change movements. Every voice must steep and brew. Direction is found. Vowels come together. Consonants unite. There is strength in words that create sentences that lob paragraphs and whole essays at bullies. It was such with the labor, anti-war, feminist and gay movements; such I believe it will be with OWS. It is in gestation. It is forming, in the parks, on the streets, at the steps of important buildings. In the empty wallets, naïve hearts, and angst-ridden minds of the middle classes. Most importantly, in their voices. Humankind does not like to be controlled, manipulated, or especially destroyed. We don’t like having perceived rights denied us or taken away. Bullying makes the 1 percent feel big, taller, better-looking, more capable, richer, wiser, and just perhaps immortal or omnipotent. Extreme conservatives use bullying as their Christianity litmus test. Racists use bullying to justify their actions. Misogynists use bullying to subdue women; homophobes justify their hate speech against the gay community. OWS will continue from these days forward. While authorities might force them from the streets and frigid temperatures drive them inside, the very economy created by the 1 percent has imploded on itself. It is the economy, stupid, to quote James Carville. This woefully sad excuse for our once-wonderful democracy has jump-started inquiring minds. No longer will they bear blind allegiance to fund managers, stock brokers, bankers, and unfair employers. The OWS voices have begun to question and roar. In all likelihood, they cannot be stopped by wind, nor rain, snow, billy clubs, mace, or rubber bullets. They are educated pacifists who can no longer be kept down. The genie is still climbing out of the bottle.

Read the full article →

Companies With The Most Valuable Brands

September 10, 2011

At the same time the U.S. economy teeters on the edge of recession, public perception of even the most well-known brands is deteriorating. The combined value of the world’s 100 most valuable brands has already fallen by 2.4 percent since January, according to a yearly list made by Brand-Finance plc , a brand valuation consulting firm. Among all brands, it’s the banks that experienced particularly hard hits, especially Bank of America and Wells Fargo, the report finds. Not so for tech companies. Those brands remain strong, and none more than Apple and Google. An August poll by Gallup found that Americans better regard the computer industry than any other sector of the economy. Apple had a particularly strong year, leapfrogging Microsoft in brand value and putting itself within striking distance of Google, whose brand currently has the highest value of any company. And while Google continues to enjoy its status as the U.S. company with the best reputation — that also according to a survey last May by Harris Interactive — Apple is doing just fine for themselves. In August, the company that brought the iPhone to the world became the most valuable U.S. company by market cap. Here are the 10 global companies with the most valuable brands, according to Brand-Finance Global 100:

Read the full article →

Boss Reportedly Told Grieving Mother To Pretend Deceased Daughter ‘Did Not Exist"

September 9, 2011

Almost two years after her daughter Tatiana’s death, Cecelia Ingraham was reportedly forced by her boss to remove photos of her daughter from her cubicle, as well as Tatiana’s ballet slippers, Courthouse News Service reported. Ingraham sued her workplace, Ortho-McNeil, Johnson & Johnson and DeStefanis for discrimination, constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional stress. The publication went on to describe the incident in question: “He [Ingraham's boss] allegedly told her that several of her co-workers had complained about her tendency to talk about her daughter’s death, which made them uncomfortable. And he said she could “no longer speak of her daughter because she is dead” and should act as if her daughter ‘did not exist,’ the ruling states.” ABC news had more on Ingraham’s reaction : “I was still in shock. Nothing was coming out of my mouth at the time because I was still in shock and I was in disbelief,” Ingraham testified. “And I said to him, I cannot believe that. I says, I don’t see anybody avoiding me. They always come over, they give me my work.” Afterward, Ingraham left work and didn’t come back, according to ABC. A few days later she had to have heart surgery for sudden heart palpitations. Soon after her recovery, Ingraham resigned from the job and entered the lawsuit. The New Jersey courthouse ruled against Ingraham, however, saying that the defendant did not intentionally inflict emotional stress on the mother. The reason? According to the presiding judge, Judge Victor Ashrafi, the workplace is too complex to concretely narrow down motives. “The workplace has too many personal conflicts and too much behavior that might be perceived as uncivil for the courts to be used as the umpire for all but the most extreme workplace disputes.” According to The Daily Mail , Tatiana was diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia in 2003, but fought it into remission. Sadly, two years later the cancer returned, and she eventually died in May of that year. Court documents: Appellate Opinion

Read the full article →

Barney Frank Blasts GOP ‘Arsonists’ For Blocking Obama Nominees

September 2, 2011

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) sharply criticized Senate Republicans Friday for blocking President Barack Obama’s nominees to head government agencies. “It is the legislative equivalent to an arsonist having set a fire and objecting to a building’s inhabitants using the fire exit,” Frank writes in an op-ed for The Washington Post . Frank presents the case of Richard Cordray, a former state attorney general who was nominated by Obama in July to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Senate Republicans vowed to block Cordray’s nomination — or that of any nominee — without changes designed to weaken the new agency. Cordray is just one in a long line of Obama nominees that Republicans have blocked in order to protect financial institutions, Frank writes. In June, Peter Diamond withdrew his nomination for Federal Reserve governor after failing to gain support from Senate Republicans. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, was just one GOP leader who criticized the nomination, saying Diamond — who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2010 — lacked monetary policy experience. Shelby also had a hand in ousting Joseph Smith, who was nominated by Obama to be the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. While Frank notes that the Republicans’ ability to object to the independence of the consumer agency is “entirely legitimate,” he does disagree with what he sees as a misuse of power. “Senate Republicans are not entitled to use the confirmation power as a bludgeon to get their way when they cannot do so through the normal legislative process,” Frank writes. As for Cordray, Frank expresses disappointment in the 44 Senate Republicans who have vowed they won’t consider him to head the CFPB. “We’re going to see an extraordinarily qualified administrator of an important consumer protection agency be trashed by the Senate Republican minority because their primary goal is to ensure that financial institutions are not troubled by what they may see as an excessive concern for consumer fairness,” Frank writes. Related video:

Read the full article →

Brian Kahin: The Age of Disablement

August 12, 2011

The Great Patent Bubble of 2011 I recently wrote about the $4.5 billion auction for Nortel’s portfolio of 6,000 patents that went to a consortium that included Apple, Microsoft, and RIM (Blackberry) — three of four smartphone platforms. In the wake of this sale, Interdigital has contemplated monetizing its portfolio of 8,500 patents, perhaps even putting the company up for sale. Google announced that it has bought over 1,000 patents from IBM for defensive purposes. Perennial investor Carl Icahn suggested that Motorola cash in on some of its immense portfolio of 18000 patents. Analysts have noted that Kodak’s patents may be worth more than Kodak itself. The value of these patents is not in the technology. These prices are being paid for the power to block others from using technology they have developed independently. Or for the power to block others from blocking you by threatening to block them from using their technology — “assertion” and “counter-assertion.” The IT sector has learned to live with these practices at some cost, but the patent mania and litigation around smartphones is unprecedented. Nothing like this happened as the personal computer came of age. In Silicon Valley, suing for patent infringement was not part of the culture. Knowledge spread quickly and informally. Employees of rival firms socialized and exchanged ideas — and moved from company to company. The Valley’s unique form of social capital beat out the culture of control along Boston’s Route 128 and made Silicon Valley world famous. Too many companies are now embracing legal weapons on large-scale — and social capital is suffering. Times change. When hearings were held on software patents in 1994, Oracle was vehemently opposed to software patents: Our engineers and patent counsel have advised me that it may be virtually impossible to develop a complicated software product today without infringing numerous broad existing patents. That was in 1994. The number of software patents issued annually went up five-fold in the next 15 years to nearly 40,000/year. The number of lawsuits over software patents has gone up eight-fold. Having recently acquired Sun and its vast portfolio of patents, Oracle is suing Google over Android’s implementation of Java. Yet when Google adopted Java for Android four years ago, Sun’s CEO Jonathan Schwartz blogged about how delighted he was. Oracle recently deleted the posting. And Schwartz’s entire blog… Why now? The opportunities for patent arbitrage, ambush, and hold-up are plentiful and enticing. Businesses, including trolls, are simply exploiting opportunities presented, including the government-created opportunities of the patent system. Disclosure failure Paradoxically, in an age where search engines allow free instant access to information, the patent system suffers from massive cognitive failure. We can find a few words among trillions, but we don’t know who owns what process. Mission creep has expanded the system far beyond the areas where it works with reasonable precision (molecules) into areas where it generates huge costs and massive uncertainty. Hundreds of thousands of patents are written to secure the broadest possible claims while revealing as little as possible, with dozens of claims per patent to guard against the risk of invalidation while maximizing the opportunities for infringement. Despite the touted goal of public disclosure, these patents are written by lawyers for lawyers. Engineers and developers cope by ignoring patents , a perfectly rational response if they don’t want to spend their productive years trying to make sense of tactical legalese. Yet each patent is a government grant of the power to stop technology and commerce dead. Companies are hauling each other before the International Trade Commission, a federal tribunal that issues automatic exclusionary orders against infringing imports. You just need to show inadvertent infringement of a single inconsequential patent to keep an entire product line out of the U.S. The ITC blatantly discriminates against imports, but global value chains in information technology make all smartphones imports. And with all the innovative things that smartphones do, they face hundreds of thousands of possible patents. Where does this lead? More patents, larger portfolios, more and larger aggregators, and bigger markets for patents as weapons against products. Intellectual Ventures, the shadowy aggregator founded by Microsoft executives, has led the way and now has an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 patents. IV’s investors are bound to silence by non-disclosure agreements, and many of its patents are sold to subsidiaries or third parties who can take the rap for patent aggression. IV tried to keep its investors secret but was recently forced to reveal that they included Stanford and Cornell, two of the universities that developed Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Intellectual Property. Point Eight of these guidelines admonishes: Be mindful of the implications of working with patent aggregators. Respectable patent aggregation Backing from prestigious universities puts IV on the verge of respectability. Public universities like the University of Minnesota and the University of Texas System invest in IV, why not public pension funds and other sovereign wealth funds. Why shouldn’t governments invest in government-granted rights? After all, the Fed buys treasury bonds. Last year, France announced the first sovereign patent fund, France Brevets . But France Brevets has only 100 million Euros to play with — barely 3 percent of the price of the Nortel portfolio. France has since suggested a European patent fund , presumably much bigger. Surely there is a compelling case to be made in light of the post-Nortel frenzy. But given the debt crisis, perhaps government grants should be left to private investors… Google has some $35 billion in cash equivalents, and a number of commentators have argued that Google should be shelling out cash to protect Android. After all, $35 billion is much larger than the reputed $5 billion capitalization of counter Apple and Microsoft, and keep Android phones coming into the U.S. But defensive portfolios are utterly ineffective against trolls and despite the conspicuous attacks on Android by Microsoft and Apple, most of the lawsuits are filed by trolls. As for money, Apple has nearly $80 billion in cash reserves, and if it join forces with Microsoft, as in the Nortel auction, that’s another $50 billion plus. They can easily outbid Google for abandoned portfolios and failed companies flooding the market. If patents are all about money, $130 billion beats $35 billion any day. Apple/Microsoft wins. Game over. But as portfolios show real clout, they could look very attractive to sovereign wealth funds that might want to diversify. Shouldn’t be controversial. Patents are only property, right? Norway’s sovereign wealth fund owns prime real estate in the centers of London and Paris. Having stakes in an aggregator or two looks like a smart strategic investment, especially if it can help ensure access to the lucrative U.S. market. Talk of real money inevitably turns to China. While China has a $350 billion sovereign wealth fund, China also has currency reserves of $3.2 trillion, up 33 percent in the last year. Like Apple’s cash reserves, these are highly liquid assets held for strategic purposes. China’s reserves are mostly in U.S. dollars, the world’s reserve currency — and most of that in U.S. Treasury obligations. But how much liquidity does China really need? With patent portfolios looking surprisingly liquid and China’s need for access to the U.S. market, why not invest in the ” world’s currency of innovation ?” What does this look like? Markets for government granted rights to stop commerce — in which governments themselves are major players, using government-granted rights to stop others from using government-granted rights to stop commerce…

Read the full article →

Denise Bode: After a Scorching Week, Wind Power Lessons From the Texas Heat Wave

August 11, 2011

It’s over, for the moment — Electricity Reliability Council of Texas( ERCOT), the company that manages the Texas utility system, said Monday that it doesn’t expect peak electricity demand this week to surpass last week’s record levels. As he did after a sudden freeze stressed the Texas system in February, ERCOT CEO Trip Doggett credited wind power with a critical contribution during last week’s power emergency. Doggett said electricity from wind farms recently installed along Texas’ Gulf Coast began flowing at just the right time to help meet peak demand in the late afternoons. With that in mind, some lessons from the week’s real-world experience with substantial amounts of installed wind generating capacity on a large utility system: Adding wind power makes a utility system more reliable, not less. Balancing electricity supply and demand is a complex task, and utility system operators are used to turning various types of power plants on or off to match demand as it rises and falls throughout the day. Even though wind energy is variable, it varies slowly — unlike conventional power plants, which can fail instantaneously — and can be a critical component in times of need. For three straight days in the real world last week, wind made the difference between keeping the lights on and the air conditioners running — and rolling blackouts. No power plant runs 100 percent of the time. Throughout last week’s heat wave, as in February’s freeze, the Texas utility system was bedeviled by outages of conventional power plants due to extreme weather. According to an Aug. 2 blog article by Elizabeth Souder of the Dallas Morning News, “The high temperatures also caused about 20 power plants to stop working, including at least one coal-fired plant and natural gas plants.” Souder noted that a spokesman for ERCOT, “said such outages aren’t unusual in the hot summer…” This is fascinating, since the rap on wind is that it’s not dependable because “sometimes the wind stops blowing.” In the real world, sometimes it also gets too hot or too cold for the supposedly dependable fueled peaking power plants to operate properly. Geographic dispersal of wind farms makes their electricity production more dependable. This is something that seems intuitively obvious — the wind is usually blowing someplace — and has been predicted by a host of studies. Last week, it became crystal clear, as the Gulf Coast wind farms, which provide some 13 percent of Texas’s overall wind generation, accounted for as much as 70 percent of the wind-generated electricity being provided during peak hours. The reason for this is that winds are often low in west Texas, where most of the state’s wind farms are located, on very hot days, while ocean breezes blow more strongly. Generation from offshore and coastal land-based wind matches up well with summer demand peaks. Again, this is a phenomenon that has been predicted by studies. During a heat wave in the Northeast in July, Cape Wind, the company that hopes to install a large offshore wind farm off Cape Cod in Massachusetts, said its meteorological data showed the project would have been producing at full capacity during peak demand hours. The Texas experience bears that out, with ERCOT CEO Doggett telling the Austin American-Statesman , “We’d love to have more development of coastal wind. And we’re hoping their ability to generate during the peak hours may encourage more development in that area.”

Read the full article →

JPMorgan Repurchases Soldier’s Home Same Day He Returns From Iraq

August 11, 2011

In America today, even men and women returning from war can’t expect their families to be exempt from the foreclosure crisis. On the same day that soldier Aaron Collette returned from a tour of duty in Iraq to his father Tim’s home in Bend, Oregon, that very house was bought back at auction due to foreclosure, local news KTVZ reports . According to ThinkProgess , a campaign by Senator Jeff Merkely (D-OR ) had delayed the foreclosure proceedings. But still, despite promising to work with the Collettes , JPMorgan Chase eventually went through with reportedly repurchasing the home. Aaron and his dad are no different from the millions of people who have been foreclosed upon due to a crisis that has seen also affected numbers of military personnel . “Average Joe, nobody special — even my situation isn’t special,” Collette’s father told local news KTVZ , despite his son’s status as an active-duty member of the military. Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, active-duty soldiers are protected against foreclosure unless it is court-ordered, but Collette’s case would seem to imply that a parent’s foreclosure is not covered. Collette’s case if far from the first military-related foreclosure controversy. The Justice Department recently agreed to a $22 million settlement with a unit of Bank of America and Saxon Mortgage Services, a division of Morgan Stanley, to provide relief for more than 170 active-duty service members who were victims of improper foreclosure proceedings. Likewise, JPMorgan Chase will pay $27 million in reparations for overcharging around 6,000 active-duty military personnel on their mortgages, according to Businessweek . While Aaron will be returning to Iraq after his two-week leave, his father Tim, who could no longer afford mortgage payments after his construction business failed during the recession, will be facing an eviction notice soon. His lawyers are determined to fight the foreclosure. And for Aaron, that’s additional stress that he doesn’t need. “To have to worry about if he is going to be in a house when I come home,” Collete told KTVZ, “it’s just always worried me.”

Read the full article →

Christine Bronstein: Can Estrogen Fuel Our Global Economy?

August 11, 2011

When I was 24, I raised a $4 million round of venture funding from Sequoia Capital . I was arrogant and self-involved, so I felt like I fit in pretty well with all those men over on Sand Hill Road. Until, one day I disagreed with one of the partners over the firing of one of my employees. “You little bitch.” He screamed at me over the phone. “Consider your company bankrupt.” The rest of the drama was only healthy for the lawyers. Pretty quickly I got out of the business I had co-founded and ran off to the polite, considerably more well-mannered enclave of business school. And, after that, to stay-at-home motherhood. And now as I dip my toe back into the entrepreneurial world I see a very different landscape, a landscape that helps me keep my faith in the global economy. Here’s what I see: Women can save the day. The latest evidence: A 29 year-old entrepreneur Demet Mutlu, founder and CEO of Trendyol.com — a private Turkish shopping site, just raised a record breaking $26 million from venture capital firms Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) and Tiger Global. This is the first time a woman has raised this much money in Turkey. It is KPCB’s first investment in Turkey. And it was done by two female partners from KPCB, Mary Meeker and Aileen Lee. Can you hear the glass shattering? This was despite the fact that studies show only 3-5 percent of women who run businesses get funded, and less than 10 percent of those working in the VC field globally are women. But recent deals like Mutlu’s show a very different environment in Silicon Valley, where women VCs level the playing field for women entrepreneurs one deal at a time. Mutlu’s Istanbul-based shopping site Trendyol.com has exploded to 4 million members in just 16 months. This customer-service driven company has employed many unique business strategies: no offices, rotating desks, private label products and allowing customers to vote on what new fashions it will stock. “We are a customer obsessed team. Every area of the company, even finance, thinks about customer service,” Demet told me in a phone call from Istanbul. And they are not selling burquas. “Conservative doesn’t sell on Trendyol,” Demet says when I ask about selling clothes in an Islamic country. “Right now shorts and high heels are our top sellers.” Taking advantage of women’s global purchasing power, Turkey’s growing economy and its high level of Internet usage, Mutlu, Aileen Lee and Mary Meeker are creating new statistics. And it is happening here in the U.S., too. Media outlets are taking notice of this trend. The Mercury News reported on a similar investment: “The deal hinged on the long-term relationship between the founder, a serial entrepreneur, and a venture capitalist who has become a leading figure in e-commerce startups… In other words, it’s the kind of thing that happens every day in Silicon Valley — except for one crucial detail: They’re both women. And that makes the story of Joyus founder Sukhinder Singh Cassidy and Accel Partners’ Theresia Gouw Ranzetta worth highlighting.” Although women are leaving the VC field at a much higher rate than men, the power of those few women VCs remaining and their growing network of women CEOs is having an enormous impact on women who run startups and, as a result, on our global economy. “Firms with women investment partners are 70 percent more likely to lead an investment in a woman entrepreneur than those with only male partners,” said a recent report from Illuminate Ventures. This presents a gigantic disruption of one of the last bastions of old boy networks. And hopefully a change from the testosterone driven, cut-throat world I entered 14 years ago It’s about time, not just for social and cultural reasons, but because of hard economic fact. “Between 1997 and 2006, businesses fully women-owned, or majority-owned by women, grew at nearly twice the rate of all U.S. firms (42.3 percent vs. 23.3 percent).” And it is not just about our business savvy, but it is also about our purchasing power. “Women oversee over 80 percent of consumer spending, or about $5 trillion dollars annually.” KP venture capitalist and Tryndyol investor, Aileen Lee, wrote on Techcrunch . “Women control the purse strings when it comes to disposable income. That’s long been the case.” “But what’s different now is that there is an exciting new crop of e-commerce companies building real revenue and real community, really fast , by purposefully harnessing the power of female consumers. One Kings Lane , Plum District , Stella & Dot , Rent the Runway , Modcloth , BirchBox , Shoedazzle , Zazzle , Callaway Digital Arts , and Shopkick are just a few examples of companies leveraging ‘girl power.’ The majority of these companies were also founded by women, which is also an exciting trend.” How encouragingly far away that is from “little bitch.”

Read the full article →

Ernan Roman: 4 Lessons About the Power of Twitter from the Debt Ceiling Drama

August 10, 2011

The Situation Twitter played an important role in helping move Congress to finally pass the debt ceiling legislation. The Marketing Takeaways At several points over the past few weeks, the president called a press conference to repeat points that he had already made many times before. Why did he bother? Because each of these press conferences included a direct appeal to voters to email, call and tweet at the members of Congress who represented them. Obama repeated those appeals on his Twitter account, which boasts 9 million followers. And each time he did that, Congressional offices were swamped with constituent communications in support of the president. Marketers should be curious about how the president pulled this off. Whether we agree with his handling of the debt ceiling standoff or not, we have to admit that Obama and his team know how to use Twitter. Multiple mainstream media sources (including Federal Computer Week and The Register ) have acknowledged the effectiveness of the White House’s use of this powerful medium, and a few (including Media Matters for America ) even seem to suggest that it might have been one of the turning points in resolving the crisis. Obama used Twitter to mobilize his base of contacts and issue calls to action that people quickly obeyed. Here are four best practices, straight from the Oval Office: Act like the relationship matters and keep people in the loop. The difference between treating people like a record on a database and treating them like valued customers or supporters lies in keeping them updated on the issues that affect them. Obama’s team did this, regularly keeping millions of followers up to date on the latest developments in the crisis, and explaining what needed to happen to resolve it. Engage using relevant content. The bigger the story got, the more interested Obama’s core base of Twitter followers became in updates and other messages from the White House. Obama’s team saw this need and positioned the White House as an alternate news stream on the story. Keep this in mind as you consider the power of relevant communications. Engage frequently. Twitter is all about speed and immediacy. If you are going to be effective in this space, you need to post new material regularly. Obama’s team certainly did this, offering dozens of posts a day. Is it wise for your organization to try to hit that level, no matter what? Probably not. But you should get Voice of Customer feedback regarding the frequency and content of the messages customers and followers want to receive from your organization. Say “thank you.” This is a huge part of good Twitter etiquette. In fact, it’s almost an end in itself. It was impossible not to notice how often the President used Twitter to thank his followers over the past few weeks. Here, he thanks them personally at the end of the crisis, via a special video link embedded in a tweet. Thank people for following you on Twitter. Thank them for mentioning you. Thank them for anything you can credibly thank them for. Big Lesson To support your brand and build an engaged base of motivated followers, do these four things on Twitter — whatever your politics happen to be.

Read the full article →

Robin Koerner: Inflation: Where Cronyism Meets Poverty

August 8, 2011

Inflation is built into a monetary system that is designed, so it seems, to help political and financial classes exercise power over ordinary citizens, and to make us pay for the privilege. As Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of Bank of England (1928 – 1941), said, If you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit. A while ago, I wrote the following . This creation of money by bankers, including central bankers, is inflation. The steady erosion of the value of money transfers wealth to those that create it, impoverishing those who do not hold significant assets. Those asset-poor people are the lower 90% of our nation. Over time, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and those in the middle tend to join the latter group. The skilled American householder today earns less than he earned in 1973. And whereas it used to take one income to raise a family, it now takes two. To keep the system running without riots in the street, the same government officials who license the banks to print money pass welfare laws, which keep the disenfranchised at the bottom, but off the streets. Therefore, there is no welfarism, beloved of the old Left, without crony capitalism (which pays for it). And there is no crony capitalism, beloved of the old Right, without welfarism (which maintains the political stability that protects it). In response to the article in which this appeared, one reader asked, Is the middle class really so helpless in all of this? As a member of that group, I feel we can extricate ourselves from the left-right power games, and we can pursue our lives in a way that makes the power-mongers far less relevant. This article focused on the state and the banks’ manipulation of money-but do we have to play that game? If we refuse to go into debt, if we live within our means-then doesn’t that undermine the power of the banks? This is an excellent point, but the odds are stacked infinitely against us. As any supporter of Ron Paul will tell you, Federal Reserve Notes (a.k.a. dollars) represent no physical thing of value. Before Nixon took the USA off the gold standard in 1971, a dollar bill could theoretically be redeemed for a chunk of silver from the Treasury. In other words, a dollar had actual value as an entitlement to receive a certain amount of some physical asset. Nowadays, the federal reserve note has no intrinsic value. Its only value is practical — in that the government decrees that it shall be used to settle all debts, public and private. In other words, if you refuse to take it in an economic transaction, you can be put in prison. That is the meaning of fiat currency . Ultimately, the demand for these notes is created by the requirement to pay taxes in these notes. The government that decrees the use of this “money” licenses banks to create it. The only other way money is created is when it is spent into the private sector directly by government. On the first mechanism rests the systematic transfer of wealth from productive participants in a free market (workers and entrepreneurs) to financiers, and on the second rests the ability of the government to spend what it has not raised in revenue. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith provided the best introduction to the creation of money by banks when he said, The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. It works like this. A man walks into a bank. He asks to borrow money. Let’s call the amount requested P (for principal.) The bank creates the money by typing some numbers into a computer to add the funds to the bank account. The money has now been created out of nothing. At the same time, however, a legal obligation is created: the man must pay the bank back an amount P plus some interest. We’ll call that amount I . So P dollars have been created by the bank and P plus I dollars are owed to it. The interest, I , will of course be profit to the bank. For this profit, the bank had to produce nothing. The borrower, though, will have to work to earn the amount P plus I to pay the bank back. In other words, the wage earned by the borrower as he works to create some tangible product or service of value will be transferred to the bank that has produced nothing. Bad enough, but here’s the catch: when the bank lends the money to the borrower, only money in the amount of the principal is created. The interest on that principal is not. Therefore, in aggregate, people owe banks more money than has yet been created! It is only the time lag between the taking out of a loan and the interest payments that allows time for the money to cover the interest to be created by someone else’s taking out a loan with a bank somewhere else. In other words, the inflation is built into the system. If everyone stopped borrowing from banks, the creation of money would stop. If everyone then tried to paid back their bank-loans, all the money in the economy would go back to the banks but people would not be able to pay back their interest because the money would not yet exist to pay it. To put it another way, money is debt and the only thing that stops the economy from collapsing over night is people’s choosing to go into debt. The next time you look at a dollar bill, know that you’re probably holding in your hand a bit of your neighbor’s debt. Put yet another way, practically all money belongs to the banks. Of this situation, Robert Hemphill, former credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Georgia, said simply, When ones gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible, but there it is. Indeed. The banks are allowed to do this only because the government gives them a special license to do so. When you or I create money, we have committed a crime. When the banks do exactly the same thing, they have not committed a crime. Not only that: they get to make a profit off the money that they create. It is the ultimate risk-free business. As money is created without the production of goods, prices rise, and so we can all buy less with the same number of dollars. What about when the government creates money to purchase goods and services of the private sector? As the creator of the dollars, it gets to spend them at today’s prices, but once the money gets into the economy, prices go up and everyone else has to pay more for everything. In this way, the government gets to spend money without taxing us. In so doing, the government leaves untouched the bank balances of the citizenry, but transfers away their buying power to itself. We don’t notice the effect until it’s too late, so we don’t riot. In each case, inflation is government-sponsored, and makes poorer those at the bottom of the economic scale who have no assets. Not only do the poor not realize that the government and monetary/banking system are causing the problem by making their earnings worth less (on the one hand) and transferring wealth systematically to the creators of money (on the other), but worse than that, the beneficiaries of these transfers actually think the government is helping them through welfare programs etc. – and vote for the politicians who promise to maintain them. All the while, they don’t realize that the same politicians that are helping them in their poverty are contributing to the poverty by this system of debt-money and inflation. For this reason, the fact that JP Morgan has a profitable business administering food stamp debit cards is the perfect metaphor for the entire American economy, which depends on simultaneous distribution from the middle to both “the top” and “the bottom.” To make this a little less abstract and a little more specific, I ran some numbers. Consider a worker who started his career in 1971, when Nixon took us off the gold standard, and the inflationary regime described above was freed of any real constraints. That worker, earning $40,000 in today’s money, would have been paying an average of about 17% in taxes out of his paycheck (including income tax and Social Security, etc.). If he is being conscientious, like the person imagined by the questioner who responded to my previous article rightly suggests we should all be, and if he therefore tries to minimize his participation in the money-debt system, say, by taking on no debt but saving 15% of his after-tax paycheck every month, then the loss of value of his savings over forty years due to government-sponsored inflation alone would be equivalent to an extra income tax of 9.1% — or more than half the tax he was paying on his income! (Note that this number is much higher than inflation, because of the effects of compounding over time.) And so, as I suggested in my original article , wealth is concentrated in the hands of the financiers and power is concentrated in the hands of their political sponsors, at the expense of the working middle. Lest you think that this edifice is anything other than an insidious evil, hear the repentant words of the very president who was more responsible than any for setting up this system, Woodrow Wilson: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. But heed the words of a philosopher: None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann W. von Goethe (If you are interested in these ideas and others I’ve written about , and can get to the University of Colorado in Boulder, visit the Blue Republican page on Facebook for updates about upcoming seminars there.)

Read the full article →

Workers Put Verizon On Hold: Portray Strike As Defense Of Middle Class Jobs

August 7, 2011

NEW YORK — Outside Verizon corporate headquarters in downtown Manhattan, a group of more than 40 union employees gathered wearing red shirts and placards proclaiming “CWA on Strike For Middle Class Jobs.” Over 45,000 Verizon workers — 35,000 represented by the union Communications Workers of America, 10,000 by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers — went on strike early Sunday morning when contract negotiations between the unions and Verizon broke down. The workers are striking, they say, because the company wouldn’t budge on the nearly 100 concessions headquarters has asked employees to make on a set of broad-ranging issues. At the top of the list: wide spread wage cuts, increased employee contributions to health care plans and pensions — which the company has proposed to freeze for current employees and eliminate for new hires. The contract expired Saturday at midnight and covered the heavily unionized East Coast wireline devision of the company, including FiOS, Verizon’s television and Internet service. Verizon’s wireless devision is not, and never has been, unionized. Those gathered cast their fight as larger than just one union fighting management for a bigger piece of the corporate profits. More broadly, the workers manning the picket line on Sunday afternoon perceived their struggle as being against a national effort to role back union power and increase the gap between executive compensation and rank and file earnings — a gap that has widened in the last thirty years as union power has waned. The workers outside headquarters found a rallying cry in the attack on collective bargaining rights last winter in Wisconsin. In front of headquarters, an employee on a bullhorn shouted: “We ain’t going back on our knees! This isn’t Wisconsin, this isn’t Ohio. The line stops here.” The crowd erupted in cheers. “It’s mind-boggling: These are things we won in the past,” said Greg Albi, a Verizon field technician with the company for thirty years. Albi has been outside Verizon headquarters since 7:00 a.m. Sunday morning. “They want to take fifty years of our contract and just throw it away like it never existed,” adds Al Russo, a Verizon employee for 11 years and a chief steward at CWA local 1101. Russo has been out since 10 p.m. Saturday night. He is losing his voice and looks exhausted but he insists he isn’t tired. He says his son, age 8, just texted him “keep it up Daddy.” While talks are officially on hold at the moment, both sides say that they are ready to continue negotiating — but with caveats. “We are willing to negotiate and we are ready and waiting for the unions to sit down and continue these discussions,” says Richard Young, a company spokesman. “That said, we expect the union to come with an open mind.” The crowd marched in a loop in front of the building shouting traditional labor slogans: “What’s disgusting? Union Busting!” “Who has the power? You have the Power,” and “No contact: no work.” At frequent intervals, a Verizon employee or two would walk in or out of the building — staring straight ahead — and shouts of “scab!” and booing would erupt from the crowd. “What are we going to do?” Albi asks. “We live in a progressive world. Things should get better, not worse.” Like many workers interviewed on the picket line, Albi sees the strike in a context larger than his own benefits, but he has personal concerns too. He worries that if the union gives in, he won’t be able to help his two children finish college. “It’s hard enough,” he said. “I already have loans for them — if I get stuck for money they will get stuck with the debt. The next generation will get screwed, too.” This is the fourth strike Albi has participated in, but, he says, “This is the first time they’ve asked for so many givebacks. They’re trying to break the union. And we’re here to say ‘no.’” The union is accusing the company of making extreme demands which will dramatically erode the middle class life union employees have fought for over the past half-century. Verizon, meanwhile, claims that the concessions are necessary for their wireline devision to stay competitive. While the company has earned around $3 billion in the first six months of this year, according to a company spokesman, they say that the wireless devision is the real profit earner and that the wireline business has been declining for the past decade. “The cost structure of this business was set in place many decades ago at a time when Verizon was the dominant phone provider,” says Young. He denies that they are trying to break the union: “This has nothing to do with breaking the union. It has everything to do with coming to the realization that we’re operating with cost restraints that are out of touch with today’s marketplace.” Union employees say they are outraged that the company is asking for major concessions while they are profitable. Former Verizon Chief Executive Officer Ivan Seidenberg (who stepped down on Aug. 1, 2011) is ranked 10th on the Forbes list of Executive Pay in 2011. At stake, say labor experts, are the future of the union in the industry, and the ability of workers in the field to earn a solid living wage. Union employees earn on average between approximately $60,000 and $80,000 a year. “I think it’s really a question of [whether] union standards are going to be higher than nonunion standards in the industry,” says Jeffrey H. Keefe, an associate professor at Rutgers Univeristy School of Management and Labor Relations. “It’s a question of: will they continue to have bargaining power, going forward?” The strike, he says, is a “declaration that this going to be a very tough-fought battle.”

Read the full article →

Peter S. Goodman: Republican ‘Terrorism’: Debt Ceiling Debate Are Dangerous For All

July 25, 2011

A major factor in how the United States wound up in hock to the tune of $14.3 trillion is the so-called Global War on Terror, the American jihad under which all causes have been subsumed, while niggling things like facts, the constitution and strategic objectives have been relegated to irrelevance. So it seems a tad ironic that as they attempt to square the books, the same Republicans who have so eagerly prosecuted the war on terror, running up huge deficits in the process, are now behaving like the enemies on which they have squandered so much blood and treasure: They are acting like terrorists. Yes, terrorists. A central feature of any fruitful negotiation is that both sides can reasonably assume that certain outcomes can be ruled out, chief among them the possibility that one party will resort to something so dangerous that it risks blowing everything up. Yet in threatening not to lift the debt ceiling without first extracting enormous cuts in government spending, Republicans are in essence threatening to obliterate the underpinnings of the global financial system — the bed-rock faith that, come what may, Uncle Sam always makes good. How can any rational negotiation take place in the face of such a threat? If the Republicans are serious about following through, they are either fundamentally ignorant about the workings of finance, or they are insane. Or to add a third possibility, they are courageously cynical: They are exploiting the assumption that the people they are dealing with will ultimately cave, paying whatever price is required to avert catastrophe. Act like a madman, the logic goes, and the sane people will be forced to accommodate. Meanwhile, the rest of us wait and worry and wonder what will happen, every day dominated by anxious talk that American creditors will start demanding higher interest rates on the next extension of credit, heaping fresh trouble on a stalling economy. We imagine what an American default would look like, a thought that renders the logic of global capital effectively inoperable. It would change everything — faith in the dollar, confidence in the sanctity of all debts. When everything is different, money has a way of standing still. Perhaps the Cuban missile crisis felt a little bit like this, with the crucial difference being that we are the ones stacking up the nuclear warheads and threatening to detonate them on ourselves. Obama has already rewarded extremism by signaling willingness to cut to some $3 trillion in spending from the federal budget — cuts that would tear further at the damaged fabric of the social safety net by reducing support for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, while adding to the drag on the economy. Which means that, whatever happens next, it’s not going to be good. Paul Krugman has it right : Either a deal gets cut and we avert financial crisis, while settling instead for the consequences of idiotic budget-cutting — the long, slow slog through elevated unemployment with no relief — or no deal happens and we find out what happens when the American Treasury slides into delinquency. Last rites have been proclaimed on civility in American politics so many times that bemoaning the state of things is a tired cliché. Yet this episode feels like the reaching of a new low, a renunciation of the most basic form of responsibility by people who were elected to pursue the national interest. The Iraq War was a disaster, an unenlightened response to the tragedy that was 9/11, and yet I’m willing to accept that the people who prosecuted that war believed that we would be safer for it, even as that has proven wrong. The deregulation of finance under the Clinton and Bush administrations produced tragic consequences. Yet there too, I am open to believing that it was a product of a flawed belief system that saturated too much of the decision-making class, a near-religious faith in the merits of laissez-faire economics. What is happening now is appalling in a wholly different way. One party is willfully and intentionally driving us to the edge of a cliff, using the national interest as a hostage. The American system is, like all systems of governance, imperfect and vulnerable to the foibles of the human beings who wield power, along with the fickle ways of the electorate. It is open to the manipulation of powerful organizations whose interests often pull in the opposite direction of the citizenry — people working stressful jobs, hauling kids to school and struggling to figure out how to pay their own bills, with little time left for keeping educated about the doings of the people who are supposed to be managing the national finances in Washington. And still the American system has proven dynamic and strong. It has weathered a civil war and two world wars. It has expanded the rights of people who have been systematically discriminated against. It has more often than not managed to balance the interests of a nation of people who are geographically scattered and separated by culture, race and religious beliefs. None of this is to dismiss the considerable injustice woven into American history, not to mention the present, but if you had to pick one way to run things off the global menu, you could do a lot worse than the American system of governance. Yet the system can only function so long as we can assume that the parties jockeying for influence will respect certain limits — that they will rule out certain tactics whose mere discussion is dangerously destabilizing. That is something we can no longer assume. One organized party is willing to threaten to lay everything to waste in the pursuit of its agenda. It is willing to court extreme danger for everyone as a means of getting its way. This is the message of the summer of 2011, a message that will remain even after some sort of unsatisfying deal is inevitably cut to avoid the prospect of default. The mindset of the terrorist has been insinuated into the practice of American policy.

Read the full article →

Obama Threatens To Veto GOP Bill Aimed At Weakening Controversial New Agency

July 20, 2011

WASHINGTON — The White House on Wednesday threatened to veto a House Republican bill that would curb the powers of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, reviving last year’s pitched partisan battle over President Barack Obama’s overhaul of the rules governing financial markets. The veto threat came a day before the House was to vote on the GOP legislation – a debate to be held on the very day that the bureau officially opens. The agency was created by the financial overhaul measure, which Obama signed into law a year ago Thursday as a response to the 2008 financial crisis. While the legislation is expected to clear the Republican-run House, it has little chance of even being considered by the Democratic-led Senate, making both the bill and the veto threat symbolic gestures. The bureau is supposed to protect consumers from abuses involving mortgages, credit cards and other financial instruments. It’s been embraced by Democrats but opposed by many Republicans who say it threatens to stifle financial companies. The GOP bill being debated this week would replace the bureau’s director with a five-member bipartisan commission. It would delay the planned transfer of powers to the bureau from other agencies until a Senate-confirmed chair of the commission was in place, and make it easier for other federal financial regulators to block the bureau from issuing regulations. The Republican measure “simply promotes greater accountability and transparency” at the bureau, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., said in a written statement. “The American people want accountability at every massive government bureaucracy.” In its written statement on the GOP legislation, the White House said the bill “would expose American consumers and the nation’s economy to the same risks that led to the 2008 financial crisis.” The statement said that Obama’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto the legislation and any other that poses similar threats. All 47 Republican senators have promised to block confirmation of anyone to head the bureau unless Obama agrees to change it, including replacing the director with a bipartisan commission. That would leave Senate Democrats seven votes short of the 60 votes they would need to confirm a director. Presidential adviser Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and longtime consumer activist, has led the administration’s start-up of the agency. Facing sharp GOP opposition to her becoming its director, Obama this week nominated Richard Cordray, the former Ohio attorney general who has been the bureau’s enforcement chief, to become director.

Read the full article →

Bing Inks Huge Deal With China’s Largest Search Engine

July 4, 2011

By Jason Subler and Georgina Prodhan SHANGHAI/LONDON (Reuters) – China’s Baidu is to partner with Microsoft for English-language search, giving the U.S. software giant a chance to expand its tiny Web presence in a market Google has stepped back from, and helping the Chinese company’s international ambitions. The tie-up will direct English searches from Baidu to Microsoft’s Bing, which will deliver the results back to Baidu’s Web pages, Baidu said in an emailed statement on Monday. Baidu has about 80 percent of the search market in China — a nation with almost half a billion Internet users and still only about 30 percent penetration — after Google left mainland China in a high-profile fallout with Beijing over censorship. Bing — which filters out results in China relating to controversial subjects, such as political dissidents, Taiwan or pornography, to be able to operate in the country — has a negligible share of the market, while Google has nearly 20 percent counting visits to its offshore sites. Baidu spokesman Kaiser Kuo said Bing was not submitting to any further censorship or restrictions on its English search as a result of the deal “than they already do.” Microsoft had no immediate comment beyond confirming the partnership. Google is losing share to Baidu but is still number two in China. Worldwide, Google runs about 84 percent of Web searches, followed by Yahoo with 6 percent and Bing with 4 percent, according to analytics firm Net Applications. “Google has potentially shot itself in the foot when it comes to cooperations in the Chinese market,” said Daniel Knapp, analyst at media industry research firm Screen Digest. “Chinese local players like Baidu would be very wary about striking up a relationship with Google, a rogue authority in the eyes of the Chinese authorities. Microsoft has always been very diffident — for Baidu it’s much safer,” he added. The new tie-up, due to be launched later this year, builds on existing cooperation between Baidu and Bing on mobile platforms and page results. Baidu is beginning to diversify from its core search business to compete in the fast-growing segments of mobile and social networking. [ID:nL3E7HO1IY][ID:nN27174987] It also has a Japanese search service that is currently loss-making. Search engine marketing company Greenlight said it saw the deal as positive for both sides, and could envisage the new partners dominating the Chinese search-advertising market. “Whilst it represents an opportunity for Bing to make more money from the Chinese market, Baidu gets what it needs to expand overseas when it is ready to do so,” said Greenlight Chief Operating Officer Andreas Pouros. “Microsoft has entered the Chinese market slowly and has made some friends, in a way that the Chinese government will have no issue with. This should leave Baidu and Bing to control the Chinese search ad market without too much difficulty.” Baidu made $1.2 billion in online marketing revenues last year, up 78 percent from 2009. Microsoft’s total online advertising revenue in fiscal 2010, including a small contribution from Bing, was $1.9 billion. Some analysts were skeptical over how much demand there would be for English search on Baidu. “It’s a good thing, but I see very minimal impact for Baidu. I don’t see a lot English keywords going through Baidu. It goes through Google,” said Wallace Cheung, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Credit Suisse. (Additional reporting by Melanie Lee and Samuel Shen; Editing by Matt Driskill and Louise Heavens) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Read the full article →

Interest Rates Must Rise Globally To Curb Inflation: International Report

June 26, 2011

BASEL, Switzerland (Sakari Suoninen) – Global interest rates must rise to avoid high inflation becoming entrenched, the Bank for International Settlements said on Sunday. It also warned that delaying deficit cuts could risk intensifying the sovereign debt crisis and have grave consequences were investors to lose confidence in a major economy such as the United States. “With the arrival of sharper price increases for food, energy and other commodities, inflation has become a global concern,” the BIS said in its annual report. “Tighter global monetary policy is needed in order to contain inflation pressures and ward off financial stability risks.” Of the four major central banks, the European Central Bank is the only one which has raised rates since the intensification of the financial crisis in late 2008. Central banks may have to raise rates at a faster pace than previously, BIS said, adding that as long as global growth is robust, food and commodity prices may remain high or even rise further. The Group of 20 economic powers agreed in Paris on Thursday to tackle high food prices by boosting farm output, food market transparency and policy coordination, after world food prices hit a record high earlier this year. The deal is another sign that global policymakers are reaching beyond traditional economic policy tools to sustain global growth, which has shown signs of slowdown in recent months. BIS said inflation expectations suggest central banks’ long-term credibility has so far survived the inflation surge, but added that rates have to rise to ensure this anchoring. “The great danger is that long-term inflation expectations will start to climb, and current price developments and policy stances are sending us in the wrong direction.” The annual report also said the Bank of England should think about tightening its policy in the face of high inflation. “In the United Kingdom, CPI inflation had exceeded the Bank of England’s 2 percent target since December 2009,” it said. “As yet, there has been no move by the Monetary Policy Committee, but one wonders how long its current policy can be sustained.” FISCAL TIGHTENING Turning to fiscal policies, the BIS said that a major economy being drawn into the debt crisis could have catastrophic consequences. “We should make no mistake here: the market turbulence surrounding the fiscal crises in Greece, Ireland and Portugal would pale beside the devastation that would follow a loss of investor confidence in the sovereign debt of a major economy,” it said. “The time for public and private consolidation is now.” It added that markets might not continue to view U.S. public debt as favorably as now were it to continue carrying heavy deficits. “The current ability of the United States to easily finance its deficit cannot be taken for granted. Past examples of a number of smaller economies in deficit suggest that market confidence can evaporate quickly, forcing sudden and costly adjustment.” Emerging countries should do their part to reduce global imbalances by easing exchange rate pegs, the BIS said, adding that China should let the yuan appreciate against the dollar. “The large costs of monetary instability mean that adjustment should principally work through more flexible nominal exchange rates,” the report said. “In the case of the United States and China, the costs of that adjustment would probably fall mostly on China.” The BIS also said that while extremely low interest rates help commercial banks, they can delay necessary action. “At the same time as ultra-low interest rates have given banks the breathing space to take the necessary actions, they have weakened incentives to pursue the clean-up,” the report said. “When banks are not forced to write down loans, they are actually provided with incentives to “evergreen”, i.e.. to roll over non-performing loans to firms that should have been bankrupt.” (Reporting by Sakari Suoninen) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

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 →

Harrisburg’s ‘Bad Deal’: City Forced To Pursue Parking Privatization

June 15, 2011

NEW YORK — The finances of Harrisburg, Pa., are so desperate that local officials are considering a deal they fear will ultimately make the city more miserable. A state-appointed panel , charged with crafting a financial recovery plan for the city, announced this week that Harrisburg must pursue the sale of public assets to help resolve its fiscal crisis. The nearly-bankrupt state capital, weighed down by debt more than four times the size of its budget, “is not in control of its own destiny,” the state team said in a report. Three years ago, confronted with a similar budget shortfall, the city considered leasing parking garages and meters in exchange for quick infusion of cash, but that deal was never approved. Last month, the offer resurfaced when New York-based developer LambdaStar expressed renewed interest. Some city leaders harbor a growing fear that Harrisburg will be forced into a deal that will bleed its coffers over the course of decades, after it surrenders valuable assets to a profit-driven company with the power to raise rates on a captive base of customers. But those misgivings may not matter, as a budget crisis chokes Harrisburg into submission. “This is a situation where Wall Street will get paid, and the little guys on Main Street, taxpayers, are going to get stuck holding the bag,” Harrisburg City Council Member Brad Koplinski said. “There have been jokes that we would have to change the name of the city to Frydman-ville or something like that,” Koplinski added, referring to Jacob Frydman, managing partner of LambdaStar. “Yes, it’s a joke, but there’s a small grain of truth in there as well.” Harrisburg isn’t the only city to consider selling assets. Indianapolis approved a deal to privatize parking meters late last year. Memphis, Tenn., and New Haven, Conn., recently shot down similar deals, but some local officials still tout privatization as a lifeline. Dan Miller, Harrisburg’s controller, points to Chicago as a cautionary tale: Parking rates there more than quadrupled after the city leased its meters to a private entity in 2008. That deal, set to last 75 years, low-balled the parking meters’ value by about $1 billion, the city’s inspector general later determined. Miller calls Chicago’s experience “horrific.” Vandals mutilated Chicago parking meters in the months after the deal, gutting them of coin boxes and filling coin slots with super glue. Financial experts lament the Chicago transaction. “If you’re selling something today to cover a budget shortfall, you’ve made a horrible mistake,” said William A. Brandt, chief executive of the Chicago-based consulting firm Development Specialists, at a recent state and municipal finance conference in New York. “You might as well just throw money in a bonfire,” added Brandt, who also serves as chair of the Illinois Finance Authority. But Harrisburg, a city of 50,000 that grew up on the steel industry, is staring at a similar deal. Its current nightmare began in 2003, when local officials borrowed $125 million to repair a trash incinerator. With the project delayed, and the money used up, officials borrowed tens of millions more. The city, which guaranteed that debt, is now on the hook for about $310 million, according to the Monday report prepared on behalf of the state under Pennsylvania’s Municipal Financial Recovery Act. The incinerator, finally complete, clears a few million dollars a year. But that’s not nearly enough to pay off its debt. This year, Harrisburg’s debt service will be equivalent to more than a fifth of its general fund expenditures, according to the state-appointed group. City officials agree that something needs to be done. This week, the state handed down a set of initiatives that the city must adhere to, or else risk losing crucial state aid. To the chagrin of some in City Hall, the state-appointed group determined that Harrisburg must immediately pursue a sale of its incinerator and parking system. A bidder is standing by. “If the city does not accept a transaction which generates capital from its assets in order to pay off its debt, the residents will be forced into a position of much higher property taxes,” said Frydman, the partner at LambdaStar. “Businesses will run from the city, homeowners will not be able to sell their homes and the city will be devastated.” In a May letter, LambdaStar proposed a deal to help bring about a “comprehensive solution” to the city’s crisis. The company and another firm, acting through a newly formed private entity, would lease the city’s parking system and incinerator, an arrangement intended to help the city pay down much of its debt. LambdaStar proposed a 75-year lease of the parking garages and meters, in exchange for an upfront payment of $215 million, or else a 50-year lease for $195 million. The city would forgo revenue it gets from the parking system, yielding that money to the private entity. Harrisburg in recent years has gotten about $4 million annually from its parking system, more than 6 percent of its budget. And the city would give the private entity the power to double parking rates twice a year, under the 2008 proposal , which the May letter revived. “It’s a very, very bad deal for the citizens of Harrisburg,” said attorney Neil Grover, who served briefly on the board of the authority that operates the incinerator. While an immediate cash infusion might help the city pay down its debt, it wouldn’t be enough to cover the whole burden, Grover said. “The deal wouldn’t come close. This is the illusion of it.” “They’re treating people like people don’t know anything,” he added. Frydman would not comment on the record about the specifics of the proposal. In addition to the debt the city has guaranteed, the parking system has debt of its own. The Parking Authority’s debt service payments increased more than 26 percent between 2006 and 2010 to reach $8.6 million last year, the state-appointed group noted in its Monday report. Not all city leaders are so wary of privatization. Harrisburg Mayor Linda Thompson has spoken in support of selling city assets and seems amenable to the idea of working with a private company. After the consulting firm Wilbur Smith offered a valuation of the parking system, Thompson’s office issued a press release in May saying the mayor was “comfortable” with the figures. “This is better than anticipated,” the mayor said in the release. In New Haven, the city aldermen recently shot down a proposal to sign away a portion of parking meter revenue to the investment firm Gates Group Capital Partners. Under the proposed deal, the city would have gotten $50 million from Gates Group up front, promising to pay the company $120 million by the end of 25 years. That’s a loan with 140 percent interest. But some local officials say the city needs such a deal. “The point I was trying to make to people was that if you’re in desperate times, you have to make decisions that are not that palatable,” said New Haven Alderman Yusuf Shah. “If we don’t have some serious projects coming into New Haven, we’re going to be looking at that stuff again.” Privatization deals, though, may be inherently fraught with pitfalls. They require governments to enter a playing field where they have little experience, said David Johnson, a partner at the Chicago-based ACM Partners, a boutique financial firm that advises struggling municipalities. “There’s a reason that there’s been so much enthusiasm in the finance community for privatization deals. You are dealing with a less savvy partner,” Johnson said. “The bigger sucker is always the government.”

Read the full article →

Pablo Alvarado: What the Government Should Be Verifying: Jobs, Safety, and Training

June 14, 2011

In America, we desperately need to address the hardships everyday people increasingly face. As Rep. Lamar Smith points out, unemployment rates in the U.S. have reached nearly 10%. Those who do have jobs increasingly face lower wages, longer hours, and less protections at the work site. To address the challenges U.S. workers and the unemployed are facing, Washington has an unprecedented opportunity to invest in job creation, workplace safety, and training opportunities that would usher those excluded from the workforce into meaningful employment. To raise the floor for struggling and working families, we need policies that grow our economy, ensure job security, and offer new opportunities. We don’t need more scapegoating. Unfortunately, politicians like Smith have become more practiced in political pandering than in real solutions. The man who would have himself seen as the champion for the unemployed is more accurately the cheerleader for the Arizonification of America . As part of Smith’s crusade, he’s combined Arizona’s immigration and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker labor policies into a bill to make use of e-verify (the federal employment eligibility on-line database) mandatory for all employers, whether they have one employee or one hundred thousand. Because of its high error rates and negative impact on state revenues, the system was essentially banned in Illinois. However, Arizona became a leader in its implementation in 2008 as part of that state’s anti-immigrant hysteria. The e-verify debate is just one more example that when politicians take aim at immigrants, the country ends up shooting itself in the foot. In the past four years Arizona’s economy plummeted from being the 14th poorest state in 2007 to the 2nd poorest state and the third weakest economy in the nation today. Instead of growing the economy, policies that Smith supports in Arizona like SB 1070 would most likely shrink the economy by upwards of $48 billion according to some estimates . Three years after the implementation of mandatory e-verify in the state, one in five Arizonans live in poverty. Worse about Smith’s proposal today is that it not only is a false solution, it’s a canard that takes aim at real tested and proven solutions: workers centers . This proposal would require unions and workers centers to use e-verify, as if they were employers. Doing so not only misclassifies what worker centers and union halls are, it would have a devastating effect on the ability of these organizations to work effectively with low-wage U.S.-born and immigrant communities. For more than two decades, cities have seen worker centers as community institutions that bring neighbors together and play a key role in local economies. They play a crucial role in supporting workers in maintaining standards and holding accountable exploitative employers and in integrating immigrants into civic life. They are often the only recourse when an employer refuses to pay minimum wage and overtime or subjects workers to abominable health and safety conditions. By enforcing labor laws and bringing communities together, worker centers are a boon for all of us while Smith’s demagoguery is increasingly a bust. The crucial role of workers centers is what led to a partnership I’m proud of between the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the AFL-CIO in 2006. Together we are committed to promoting policies that raise the floor for all workers, providing all workers with a voice on the job, and preventing divide and conquer efforts of unscrupulous employers to pit us against each other. When I came to this country after escaping the war in my native El Salvador, it was a worker center where I was able to learn and practice English and begin to understand my rights and responsibilities in my new home. Rep. Jan Schakowsky described workers centers in 2006 as institutions that” … Give a voice and power to people who often lack both. They are gateway organizations that meet immigrant workers where they are and provide them with a wealth of information and training. In all too many cases, these centers are the only ‘port in the storm’ for low-wage immigrant workers seeking to understand U.S. labor and immigration laws, file back wage claims, and organize against recalcitrant employers. The Representative from Illinois goes on to say that bills like Smith’s “don’t just jeopardize the lives of some immigrants, they are attacks on all our communities.” At a time when the need for solutions is so serious, the continued waste of our legislators’ time and our country’s resources on criminalizing migrants is itself near criminal. We must accept that immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, are not responsible for the economic crisis. In fact, workers who were displaced from our home countries and forced to migrate share the same corporate causes as U.S. workers facing unemployment today. The anti-immigrant rhetoric is being used to undermine the rights of all workers. Undocumented workers did not steal pensions. That was Enron. Undocumented workers have not laid off hundreds of thousands. That was Ford Motors. Undocumented workers did not bail out the banks without providing a penny of relief for homeowners, that was both political parties. It wasn’t undocumented workers who bankrupted schools and hospitals. It is the reallocation of social funds to endless and expanding wars. It wasn’t undocumented workers who didn’t pay taxes last year. It was GE, Bank of America, Exxon Mobil and others . The government should stop its immigrant witch hunt and start focusing on real solutions. What we need is verification of workplace safety and effective enforcement of wage and hour laws. Instead of sending us down Arizonifying rabbit-holes, Congress should be creating full employment programs, collecting corporate taxes, investing in proven community institutions like workers centers, and passing innovative bills that grow the economy like like the POWER Act and the CARE Act .

Read the full article →

Robert Kuttner: The Gang of Six and Other Rogues

June 13, 2011

If we can just get Congressman Anthony Weiner off the front pages, the Democrats should be enjoying a nice political windfall thanks to the Republicans’ blunder on Medicare. Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal to end Medicare as a public program is monumentally unpopular. Budget Committee Chairman Ryan’s plan also has the added benefit of dividing Republicans, and usefully contributed to Newt Gingrich’s self-immolation . But watch for the bipartisan Gang of Six, and their conservative allies at Tim Geithner’s Treasury Department, to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. In the most likely budget compromise that saves the country from defaulting on the national debt, the differences between the parties will collapse in a largely conservative direction. If the current script is followed, Republicans will be the big winners. They will win on gutting social spending, aborting a fragile recovery, humbling the president, and undercutting his re-election chances. Heckuva job, Gang of Six. Zachary Goldfarb’s recent Washington Post profile confirmed Geithner’s role in persuading President Obama to give deficit reduction priority over job creation. With the resignations of senior economist Jared Bernstein and more recently chief economist Austan Goolsbee, no senior economic adviser to the president is pushing jobs over budget cutting. Even with the withdrawal of Senator Tom Coburn, leaving just five bipartisan stalwarts, the Gang of Six (minus one) claims it is on the verge of agreeing to a deficit reduction plan that proposes $4.7 trillion in spending cuts over a decade. If the test is how much to cut, this plan goes both Obama and Ryan one better. But is that really the right test? For most Americans, the federal deficit is an abstraction. The problem is too few jobs, flat wages, declining home equity, unaffordable health care, rising college costs, diminished opportunity for the young. The entire political class has convinced itself that the way to economic recovery is via deficit reduction. The only problem with that is that no known theory of economics can plausibly demonstrate the connection. Debt financing is not crowding out private investment — interest costs are at record lows. The problem is that business doesn’t see enough customers to increase investment, because of the recession itself. No amount of deficit reduction between now and November 2012 will improve the jobs picture. On the contrary, by denying the government money to invest in projects that could create jobs, the deficit obsession will worsen the economic picture — and the Obama Administration’s re-election prospects. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, former chairs of Obama’s commission on fiscal reform, could not win the necessary super-majority support for their draconian plan, which included Social Security cuts, but they just won’t shut up. They recently published a fatuous op-ed piece in the Washington Post assuring readers that the Gang of Six would soldier on and find a budget compromise. The oped concluded with the immortal words, “Pray for the Gang of Six.” Well, if you believe in the power of prayer, it would be better to pray for the Gang to splinter over partisan differences — because those differences actually play to the strength of progressives. Most Americans don’t support cuts in Medicare or Social Security. Most are opposed to the kinds of savage cuts in programs for the poor and the working middle class that are at the core of the Ryan budget and that will be part of a Gang of Six package if the Gang ever agrees. Most would like to see investments in infrastructure to put Americans back to work — the very investments that would be ruled out as part of a Gang of Six austerity budget. If those differences are submerged in a frenzy of bipartisanship, mainly along fiscally conservative lines, we lose and the right wins. The Republicans on the Gang of Six — senators Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Mike Crapo of Idaho, as well as their absent colleague Tom Coburn, are against tax increases on the well off. They are also opposed to more than token cuts in the military. So any Gang-of-Six deal accepted by the group’s fiscally conservative Democrats will be mostly domestic spending cuts. That, in turn, will up the pressure on President Obama to accept what is basically a Republican budget and an unpopular one at that. But what about the debt and the risk of a default? The debt is a modest problem, over the long term, but the urgent crisis right now is a flat economy. The better way to reduce the burden of past debt is to get a serious recovery going. That will take more public investment, not less. As for the debt ceiling, why is it that only Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats get to play chicken with the risk of a default? It would be better for President Obama to make clear that he is not about to sacrifice valued social outlays for far-right ideology, and hold Republicans accountable for spooking the money markets. Most of the debt increase was caused by the recession itself, by the Bush tax cuts, and the military buildup. The simplest way to tame the debt would be to revert to the tax code of the 1990s (a decade of prosperity), to shift military spending to domestic uses, and to increase federal revenues via a strong economic recovery. The final budget agreement will necessary be a compromise. But if Democrats give away their principles before the final negotiations even begin, they should not be surprised when the compromise looks mostly Republican. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His latest book is A Presidency in Peril .

Read the full article →

Caroline Dowd-Higgins: Does Your Career Zig or Zag?

June 2, 2011

My father spent his entire career with one organization and 45+ years working his way up the ladder of the competitive banking and finance industry. While he enjoyed multiple retirement parties and was given the proverbial gold watch upon his self-determined exit from the workforce, he represents a generation of professionals that are becoming extinct. In 2011, it’s not so much that people have changed their professional values but that organizations don’t honor the long-term employee as they did in years past. The “grow talent from within” philosophy can still be found in some of the corporate giants like Proctor & Gamble and DuPont but today organizations are also embracing the new industry zig-zaggers . These individuals have multiple companies represented on their resumes and work for brief stints, then move on. What they bring to the table is innovation, an ability to be flexible and embrace change, and a fresh approach to solving problems with creative solutions. Recruiters and hiring managers are now welcoming the new industry zig-zaggers because these professionals know their unique value-add in the workplace. They bring with them a breath of fresh air and often the industry tricks-of-the-trade from competitor organizations. Many zig-zaggers have made conscious career transitions because they find change stimulating, while others have had to showcase their resiliency in an unmerciful job market and needed to reinvent quickly. It used to be that having short stints at multiple companies was a red flag when applying for a new position. Times have changed and these candidates can market themselves wisely as desirable hires if they don’t present as an immediate flight risk. Here are some things to consider if you are a conscious zig-zagger , or someone trying to make a fresh start in this unpredictable job economy. Showcase Your Value-Add . Every employer wants to know what they will get as a return on their investment if they hire you. Be prepared to clearly define what you bring to the table. Develop your 30/60/90 day plan and systematically outline your strategy for success in the organization. Be well prepared and know what the company needs before your interview. Illustrate Your Flexibility, Innovation, and Ability to Handle Change . These are the most highly sought after competencies as reported by head hunters and recruiters these days. The company can train you for additional skills but you must be a good cultural fit and be ready to handle whatever comes your way. The only consistent thing about this career world is that it will continue to change quickly. Zig-zaggers should demonstrate how they bounced back after a set-back and handle uncertainty with an open mind and a positive attitude during the new job interview. Often new leaders are born when they step up to the plate and accept organizational change without complaining. Here’s where a zig-zagger can have an edge. Know the Value of Transferable Skills in Career Reinvention . Many zig-zaggers have reinvented their careers in entirely different industries. Be firmly in control of your own marketing message to help others understand the value of your transferable skills. Be ready to give examples and consider this when selecting your references that will be called if you are a final candidate. They too should be able to speak to the power of your transferable skills. Long Term Career Plan . Some professionals became zig-zaggers beyond their control, and others have opted for short-term assignments to consciously grow their careers when they hit the glass ceiling. In many companies, moving up and out is the only opportunity for promotion and career growth. Any hiring manager worth their salt is going to probe into your long-term career plan. If you value security and longevity in an organization, don’t be shy about saying so, especially if this is also a company value. But be aware that organizations want you around long enough so that you become profitable to them after the initial training and orientation period. If you are a perpetual zig-zagger you will need to choose organizations that embrace your constant momentum and have a shorter value-add period for their pay back. Since a lifelong career path in a single organization is going by the way of the dinosaur, you must be in control of your own career destiny. Don’t assume your boss is looking out for your career future. Consider where you want to be in five-year increments and develop a plan to get yourself there. If upward mobility requires a bit of zig-zagging , you will not be ostracized as long as you can definitively show your value to a company and a sincere interest in working at the organization. Whether you zig or zag — your career destiny is in your hands! Caroline Dowd-Higgins authored the book This Is Not the Career I Ordered and maintains the career reinvention blog of the same name ( www.carolinedowdhiggins.com ) She is also the Director of Career & Professional Development at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Read the full article →

Andrew Cowell Joins Intersil as Senior Vice President of Consumer Products

June 2, 2011

MILPITAS, CA–(Marketwire – Jun 2, 2011) – Intersil Corporation ( NASDAQ : ISIL ), today announced Mr. Andrew Cowell has joined the company in the newly created position of Senior Vice President of the Consumer Products Group. This new group has been created from existing consumer-focused product lines within Intersil’s Power Management and Analog & Mixed Signal product groups.

Read the full article →

China Hikes Power Prices In Attempt To Counter Threatening Shortage

May 30, 2011

BEIJING (Jim Bai and Tom Miles) – China has raised power prices for industrial, commercial and agricultural users in some regions by about 3 percent in an attempt to ease what threatens to be the worse power shortage in seven years in the world’s second-largest economy. The power price rise, which excludes residential users, will add to inflationary pressures but revive profit margins at power producers. That should prompt an increase in electricity supplies from loss-making power plants that had failed to keep up with rising demand. Higher prices should also discourage excess power consumption. “This is obviously good for the power shortages and it was very much expected – the only way the problems can be solved is by adjusting prices,” said Lin Boqiang, director of the Center for Chinese Energy Economics Research. “The other problems – like the power grid or the transportation of coal – are long-term and can only be solved after several years. There was just no other way. This is clearly going to have some sort of impact on industry but the impact of actually having no power is much bigger. Most businesses will be more willing to accept higher prices than power cuts.” China looks set for the worst summer power shortages since at least 2004 as demand growth remains strong while coal-fired power plants, which generate 80 percent of national electricity output, have restricted production due to operating losses resulting from high coal costs. At the same time, hydropower has been hit by a drought in central China, including Hubei province, home of the Three Gorges Dam, the world’s biggest hydropower project. The government raised the prices that grid firms charge industrial consumers by 0.0167 yuan per kilowatt hour , Chinese state media said after a briefing by the National Development and Reform Commission, the country’s top economic planning body. Lin said the price rises would add about 0.5 percentage points to inflation, but the impact would be much more if the shortages were allowed to continue unchecked. The increase, ranging from 0.004 yuan/kWh to 0.024 yuan/kwh in 15 Chinese provinces including Shanxi, Qinghai, Gansu, Jiangxi, Hainan, Shaanxi, Shandong, Hunan, Chongqing, Anhui, Hubei, Sichuan, Hebei and Guizhou. The price rise came earlier than some analysts had expected. Several had said China would first raise on-grid power tariffs, the prices at which power generating firms sell to grid operators, and then hike prices for end-users once inflationary pressure had subsided. “The move aims to ease power shortages, this will add to inflationary pressures but the impact will be limited and it will take some time for upstream price rises to trickle down to downstream,” said Wang Jun, an economist at CCIEE, a government think-tank. The increase was the first since November 2009 and follows on-grid tariff hikes in 12 provinces on April 10, with three more provinces following suit on June 1, the NDRC was quoted as saying. The average price rise offered to power producers was 0.02 yuan per kWh, slightly more than the hike for end-users. Jianguang Shen, chief economist at Mizuho in Hong Kong, said he expected the price of coal would jump in response to the price hike, wiping out the margin gain for power producers and adding to Chinese coal imports. To prevent that, the government would order state-owned coal producers to hold down their own prices, he said. The previous on-grid price hike had no significant impact on the power shortages because of a concomitant coal prices rise, said Want Wei, a senior analyst Guotai Junan Securities. “Coal imports could rise after the power rise hike as coal producers and trading companies are likely to raise coal prices, triggering more coal imports,” he said. “Every 0.01 yuan rise in power price could offset an increase of 50 yuan in coal prices.” China has already cut power supplies to some industrial users in eastern, southern and central regions as pent-up demand rebounded after local governments ordered power cuts in late 2010 for the purpose of achieving energy saving goals. In addition, power generating firms curbed their output levels because rising coal prices undermined their operating margin. The National Development and Reform Commission, China Electricity Council and some industry analysts have all warned of the possibility of worse shortfalls in summer when demand peaks. The State Grid of China, the country’s dominant power distributor, said it would cut supplies to more industrial users in summer to shortfalls expand. China’s five state-owned power generating groups lost more than 10 billion yuan ($1.5 billion) on their thermal power operations in the first four months of the year, an official with the council said on Tuesday. The five groups, parents of China Power International Development Ltd (2380.HK), Datang International Power Generation Co Ltd (0991.HK) (601991.SS), Huadian Power International Corp Ltd (1071.HK) (600027.SS) and Huaneng Power International Inc (0902.HK) (600011.SS), had racked up more than 60 billion yuan in losses in past three years, according to the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. (Additional reporting by Judy Hua, Kevin Yao and David Stanway; Editing by Ken Wills and Simon Webb) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Video: Utility Companies Seek Younger Electrical Linemen

May 27, 2011

May 27 (Bloomberg) — Chris Housand, who left his job as a forklift operator in January, trains in electrical-lineman school at Nash Community College in Rocky Mountain, North Carolina.¶ Housand is catching a wave of demographic change that’s likely to benefit younger workers. A generational replacement cycle is taking hold as companies such as General Electric Co., Norfolk Southern Corp., Boeing Co., American Electric Power Co. Inc. and Dominion Resources Inc. all try to hire skilled younger staff to prepare for a wave of retiring workers. Bloomberg’s Lizzie O’Leary reports. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Carbon Energy Limited (ASX:CNX) Bloodwood Creek Syngas 5MW Power Station Update

May 26, 2011

Carbon Energy Limited (ASX:CNX) Bloodwood Creek Syngas 5MW Power Station Update

Read the full article →

Australian Power And Gas Company Limited (ASX:APK) Appoints Mr David Goadby As General Manager Of Sales And Marketing

May 26, 2011

Australian Power And Gas Company Limited (ASX:APK) Appoints Mr David Goadby As General Manager Of Sales And Marketing

Read the full article →

Jonathan Littman: World Bad, Sony Good

May 24, 2011

Sony’s CEO has forwarded a remarkable new rationale for his company’s recent catastrophic network security failures. Howard Stringer warned last week that the April hacker thefts of millions of his customers’ personal records are a prelude to global digital horrors. “It’s not a brave new world,” he told the media. “It’s a bad new world.” Preaching Armageddon as a PR response to a corporation’s own faulty technology and service is an unlikely tactic, especially when continuing attacks this very week show that Sony has clearly not eliminated its vulnerabilities. It’s not our mess, Stringer seems to be implying with his dramatic blame shifting. It’s the world’s mess. What’s strange about this is that it seems to undercut an apology by Kaz Hirai , the head of Sony’s gaming division, delivered ten days after the intrusion. Reuters called Stringer’s comments “a stark departure from the remorseful tone struck just two weeks ago.” Just last week the company offered an apology package , including a 12-month free identity protection program, free games and free content. Though late in coming, those were strong moves. Yet Stringer’s comments suggest Sony does not truly feel sorry for how badly it has treated its customers. What this bizarre narrative demonstrates is that Stringer and Sony are stuck in the first stages of grief: Not over the harm they have inflicted upon their customers, but in the potentially irreparable damage they have done to themselves and their brand. Stage one of grief is shock and denial, stage two is pain and guilt, and stage three is anger and bargaining. Sony has gone through the first two stages and now Stringer is lashing back at critics who have blasted the firm for everything from its substandard security to an indefensible delay in alterting tens of millions of customers — many of them children — that personal and credit records were stolen. “Forty-three percent (of companies) notify victims within a month,” a feisty Stringer told reporters last week in his first public statement since the April break-ins. “You’re telling me my week wasn’t fast enough?” It was a bizarre statistical crutch to rely upon to defend what’s widely considered one of the worst network security gaffes in history. Why compare your firm to average companies? Especially when New York’s Attorney General and Congress are demanding Sony turn over detailed information about its security breakdown. Like how it allowed hackers to steal the names, addresses, email addresses, birthdays, and PlayStation Network login details of over 100 million customers. But Stringer’s most surprising plot twist was to attempt to divert scrutiny of Sony’s problems with a wild claim of impending doom. Stringer told the media that one day hackers may strike at the power grid, air traffic controllers, or the global financial system. Is Stringer Rumpolstillskin? Hackers have been attacking the Internet and high-tech companies for more than two decades. In 1990, I wrote about Rober Morris, the Harvard graduate who launched the first Internet worm, a science experiment gone awry that disabled a large chunk of the budding network. In the mid ’90s I wrote The Fugitive Game and T he Watchman , two books about the hackers, Kevin Mitnick and Kevin Poulsen, that showed the deep vulnerability of the Internet and major corporations to criminal intrusions. Every major firm doing business on the Internet knows that their potential — and Achilles’ heel — is the Internet. Google, Facebook, Microsoft and hundreds more corporations have known this for a very long time. The Internet makes these companies billions in profit. Doing business responsibly on the Internet — and taking extraordinary care for the personal records and privacy of your customers — is nothing short of a sacred duty. Quite simply, Sony abandoned its duty, and Stringer is steaming mad about that internal breakdown because he knows that it threatens Sony’s future. The timing couldn’t be worse. This week Sony posted a $3.2 billion loss, due in part to the March earthquake and tsunami. The CEO has declared that Sony did everything possible to prevent the break-ins. That is denial. We’ve seen this broken narrative before. It is not taking the high road. It does not work. Congress, investigative journalists and hackers will eventually reveal the truth, and it will prove even more costly to the company’s tattered reputation (Experts have already predicted the breach will cost Sony nearly $1 billion). We will learn that Sony engineers and officials knew of inherent internal weaknesses. That it had plans to roll out a new, more secure system. That it could have taken far more steps to prevent or reduce the harm to its customers. Sony’s story won’t play. It won’t play because it is not authentic, and it won’t play because Stringer can’t seem to remember his own narrative. Security — and honest communication — requires consistency. In the same week that Stringer declared the attacks on Sony had ushered in a “bad new world,” he called the crisis “a hiccup in the road to a network future.” Which is it — trivial or cataclysmic? And what a strange, disconnected way to talk about a potential disaster for tens of millions of Sony customers? Would you like threats to your financial and personal security to be seen by Sony as nothing more than hiccup? And what of Stringer’s suggestion that the future does not hold “a brave new world” but a “bad new world?” On top of everything else, Stringer apparently is ignorant of the meaning of a ” brave new world .” In reaching for a sound bite, Sony made another gaffe. Perhaps the embattled CEO or someone on his communications team should have bothered to read the Wikipedia page on Aldous Huxley’s 1932 book, Brave New World . Stringer shot himself in the foot. Huxley himself described Brave New World as a “nightmare.” The Wikipedia page says that the dystopian sci-fi novel explored the “fear of losing individual identity in the fast-paced world of the future.” Indeed. Jonathan Littman is the co-author of the Ten Faces of Innovation and the Art of Innovation. He is the founder of Snowball Narrative.

Read the full article →

Report Warns Against Slashing Intelligence Budget

May 24, 2011

WASHINGTON — With America’s top terror target eliminated, the nation’s intelligence agencies fear they will look like a fat target for budget cuts. Their chief argument: Gutting intelligence budgets led to the shortfalls that allowed Osama bin Laden to carry out attacks in the first place. Lawmakers say they are well aware that the terror war is not over but warn that cuts are coming. Congress approved an intelligence budget of $80.1 billion in 2010, but lawmakers are keeping that roughly the same, slightly north of $80 billion for the next two years – and south of the White House’s request, according to two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss classified budget figures. Those who lived through the purge of what is known as human intelligence – on-the-ground spies, informants and go-betweens – after the fall of the Soviet Union fear a rerun of the 1990s. Then, the spy world saw across-the-board cuts, agency by agency, on the theory that their main reason for being had ceased to be. “There was very little effort to look across the community and say if one organization is cutting analysts deeply in one area, let’s make sure another organization isn’t doing the same,” said former Pentagon intelligence official Joan Dempsey. The last time the budget masters took a buzz saw through the intelligence agencies, the White House was blindsided by al-Qaida’s strike on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, Dempsey said. She’s among a wide spectrum of intelligence professionals warning against a repeat of such cuts, in a report released Tuesday by the Intelligence and National Security Alliance. “After the victory against the Soviet Union, we cut deeply across our capabilities in Africa, because people said we were in Africa because of the Soviet Union,” Dempsey said. That left the intelligence community practically blind during “an entire decade of unrest, and turmoil, in which U.S. troops had to intervene” in fragile states like Somalia, and al-Qaida built in strength, she said. The former chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., agrees. He remembers meeting resource-starved CIA officers in his first trips in 2001. “They told me they had no capability,” Hoekstra said, in a continent where the human intelligence needed to penetrate tribal and gang-supported unrest far outweighed the usefulness of the satellite and signals intelligence that was so popular at the time. “We let human intelligence die on the vine.” After al-Qaida attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, “we tried to hire quickly to make up for the damage,” he said, “and sent a lot of people on dangerous assignments with not enough mentoring.” But Hoekstra also warned against cuts to satellite and signals intelligence investment, citing the lead time needed to develop and launch satellites to replace an aging fleet. New satellite systems are attractive to cut in the short term, because a single system often runs into the billions. But when the older satellites start failing, leaving gaps, the rush to replace them quickly can cost even more, he said. “I had about $2 for every dollar (former CIA Director George) Tenet had when al-Qaida struck on Sept. 11,” said retired Gen. Michael Hayden, who led the CIA from 2006 to 2009. Hayden oversaw one of the largest periods of expansion the intelligence agencies have ever seen. “So the record shows it paid off, but everyone recognizes it would be hard to sustain,” Hayden said. James Clapper, director of national intelligence, told Congress in February that he’d be making cuts across the community, signaling that the post-Sept. 11 rate of growth had come to an end. Several DNI officials were part of a task force that helped write the industry report released Tuesday. Clapper was careful not to identify what areas he has been thinking of cutting, Dempsey said, for fear the power of his suggestion might drive congressional committees to beat him to it. The intelligence budget has risen steadily since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to two U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the precise figures are classified. Clapper published the 2010 figure, at $80.1 billion, up from $75 billion the year before. The current version of the 2011 intelligence authorization act does cut some of the personnel requests made by the CIA, but adds millions of dollars and thousands of civilian positions, including “critical counter-terrorism positions at the CIA and a significant increase to the National Counterterrorism Center,” said a House intelligence committee member, Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I. Key programs like the CIA unit that hunted down bin Laden have been funded, but the lawmakers have started weeding out what they’ve decided are unnecessary duplications, said Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., the intelligence committee’s minority chairman: “There is duplication of programs. There are some programs we can’t afford, or that might have to be delayed for a few years.” Hayden said the cuts to the military make it all the more important to guard against cuts to intelligence, after Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that a budget-reduced U.S. military may no longer be able to fight a two-front war. “If forces are going to be drawn down, then how you use those forces will be much more limited,” Hayden said. “So strategic intelligence is all the more important.”

Read the full article →

Beverly Macy: The LinkedIn IPO Changes Everything

May 23, 2011

Brand new horizons for start-ups, conferences, corporate education and more. I was at a financial services conference this weekend and someone remarked, ” LinkedIn changes everything. It’s like Netscape in 1995.” So true. Yes, the flag dropped on Thursday, May 19, 2011 and the race is on. Yippee! It seems everyone is finally waking up from a long slumber — the VCs are suddenly voraciously looking for dealflow, the job market seems brighter somehow and there’s a kind of hope that smells of innovation, money and success in the air. And like 1995, we’re just at the beginning. Remember, Yahoo!, Google and Amazon weren’t even born in 1995. Jump to May 2011 and corporations are just waking up to the fact that they better get smart fast because real-time social media is here to stay. Yes, that conversation about their brand is taking place whether they’re in it or not. Yes, influence matters, and if you don’t know your Klout score, you’re not with it. Not only that, but the organization alignment issues that business process change engenders are coming like a fire hose blast. Does social belong in marketing or customer service? What about the legal implications, regulatory and policy considerations, talent sourcing (LinkedIn, again!) and more? We offer Social Media for Executives corporate education and since Thursday, my email inbox is full and my phone is ringing off the hook with requests to schedule that internal corporate ed seminar we discussed months ago. And rightly so. The social media revolution is going to happen with you or without you, so get on board now. Conferences have a new level of excitement as well. Whew, just when we thought we’d all die of boredom if yet one more smug executive preached the blah blah blah about “digital marketing,” something has shifted. We launched Gravity Summit back in February 2009 to great accolades and buzz. But our next event as part of the FutureM week in Boston is drawing the biggest buzz yet. Sponsors are lining up at the door. We believe it’s partially because we’re part of the MITX’s FutureM — an intellectual marketing mash-up: a five-day long offering of events, discussions and parties throughout the Greater Boston area. We see this as the way of the future in the ‘new conference experience’ and we’re excited to be involved. Second Line in New Orleans is another intriguing concept and format. Earlier this month, the inaugural Second Line launched as an interactive conference celebrating the New Economy successes and strategies with disruptive innovation, value creation and sustainable social impact. I’ll be involved in next year’s event and can’t wait. I’m personally fired up and ready to go. I’m excited about influencing what happens next and how this will play out. I’m also passionate about educating the business community on what this all means. So come on in, the social media water is fine. Beverly Macy is the CEO of Gravity Summit, Inc. the Co-Author of The Power of Real-Time Social Media Marketing . Contact her to schedule Social Media for Executives training at beverlymacy@gmail.com. And follow her on Twitter @beverlymacy; @PowerRTM; @GravitySummit or email her at beverlymacy@gmail.com .

Read the full article →

Andrew Reinbach: Health Care Could Kill Us: We Don’t Have to Let It

May 23, 2011

News that Vermont’s Senate recently passed a single-payer health care system must have gladdened many progressive hearts, but truth be told, future health care costs would bankrupt America even if single-payer systems spread nationwide. That’s because the problem’s not in the accounts receivable department; it’s the actual cost of health care, now growing at roughly seven percent a year. That’s about twice as fast as the economy grows in an average year. And since the future of Medicare is one of the things forced onto the table by Republicans as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling, minimizing that rate of growth could mean the difference for many aging Americans between some health care, and, under the Ryan Plan, de facto health care rationing according to the ability to pay. Meanwhile, saying you’ve solved America’s health care crisis by changing how you pay for it is like saying you’ve stopped the spread of nuclear weapons by outlawing the nicknames of certain missiles. And because the country is getting older and sicker, focusing on how to pay, instead of what you pay, does almost nothing to bend the cost curve. The Alzheimer’s Association, for instance, says the cost of treating that disease will grow from $189 billion in 2015, to over $1 trillion in 2050 . That’s twice what we spend for Medicare today. And the National Cancer Institute expects annual cancer treatment costs will grow 27 percent by 2020, to $158 billion . Can we do anything about this? Maybe, if we come to grips with the fact that there are worse things in life than death, that modern medicine offers many of them, and that with today’s medical technology, a worst-case scenario isn’t dying — it’s years of falling apart, slowly, ending with a few years of progressively aggressive treatment that basically keeps you, well, not dead. This nightmare has been given to us by what Daniel Callahan and Sherwin B. Nuland, in a May 9th article in The New Republic titled “The Quagmire”, call The War on Death. The article isn’t available free online. What we’ve bought into, say the authors, is the idea that we’re all somehow going to live a long and healthy life, followed by a brief decline and a quick, easy death — hopefully, while we’re sleeping. A pretty picture; and pretty unrealistic. “What we need is a different philosophy about death and dying,” says Callahan, who’s president emeritus of The Hastings Center. The good news in that grim analysis is that it finesses the toughest political problem about medical care in America — the screaming on the Right about so-called socialized medicine and death panels. This is because what we’re talking about here is mostly a matter of personal choice, and professional guidelines, not government programs. No faceless government bureaucrats play any part in this — although personally, I’ve never seen any difference between faceless government bureaucrats making health care decisions, and faceless private health insurance bureaucrats making the same decisions. This doesn’t mean making choices like that is easy. It’s not, not by a long chalk. Most people don’t want to talk about dying. And that goes double for families with elderly parents, who will otherwise wind up managing their parent’s care in those last, machine-filled days in the ICU. But if we can bring ourselves, as individuals, to move past the fantasy of a good, long life and a good, short death as some sort of real probability; come to grips with the fact that, as medicine is practiced now, it’s likely to put us on a road to the reverse; and organize our personal health care around avoiding that worst-case scenario; we can not only avoid that horror in the ICU — we can maximize the likelihood that we, as a people, can enjoy decent healthcare for all, however we pay for it. There are some other things we can do as well. For one, as Callahan and Nuland say, we can do something about the very high costs of medical school. As they point out, those costs force young doctors into the big-money medical specialties that let them repay their debts, but starve America for the primary care physicians we need to manage our health. Another: we can stop buying the latest drug as if it was a flashy new toy, and rely on tried and true medicines that do pretty much the same job for fractions of what the new drugs cost. This is a different version of what Callahan means when he talks about needing a different philosophy about death and dying; these new drugs are inevitably sold as great advances in medicine, offering almost unlimited health, while never mentioning the cost. A senior FDA scientist, speaking on condition of anonymity because he isn’t authorized to speak to the press, told me that not only are the potential side-effects of most new drugs often poorly understood; but that they produce only very marginal improvements in results in return for vastly higher costs. Securities research for pharmaceutical companies, for instance, routinely touts the financial value of such drugs not only because they produce higher profits today, but — because they often have to be taken more or less permanently — produce reliable, long-term revenue streams. This is great for pharmaceutical companies; but for Americans paying taxes and insurance premiums, not so much. A third thing we can do: think about what we’re giving our elderly relatives when we start fighting to keep them alive — an all-too-common scenario– and show some courage and compassion. Let me tell you a little story. My best and oldest friend — we were like brothers for 50 years — died about three years ago from cancer-related complications. His wife was his health care proxy, and I was his back-up proxy. He had no hope of any recovery, his condition wasn’t reversible, and he made us promise that whatever happened, he wouldn’t end up on a respirator. He did though, for reasons that don’t matter now. It’s enough to say he still didn’t want to be on it, knew he was dying that day, and wanted to go. All his wife had to do was give the order to disconnect him; the medical staff was standing by. But she couldn’t pull the trigger. She’s in no way a bad person; it just wasn’t in her. I had to do it, and was proud to give my friend what he wanted. After all, he would have done it for me. Of course, if I hadn’t been there, the hospital would have had to do everything in their power to keep him from dying as long as possible, running up millions of dollars in bills that, one way or another, would have paid for by you and me. For no result. I’m sure there are other things we can do to control costs instead of just deal with the payments piece. These are just three of them. But it seems to me that if we can screw up our courage, face the facts and choose wisely, we can have a batter life and a better death, and the American people can have better health care in the bargain. That seems to me to be a goal worth pursuing. Visit me at www.Reinbachsobserver.com

Read the full article →

The Rules Have Changed

May 23, 2011

On July 17, 2009, Terry Harris of Jonesville, S.C., lost her job as an executive assistant at a promotional products company. The company, she says, went belly up. “My boss actually cried when I was let go,” she says. “I have an excellent letter of recommendation from him.” In other words, Harris says, “It was purely an economic thing.” She lost her job through no fault of her own. What she doesn’t understand is why she’s still unemployed and why her husband’s been bounced from one wretched low-paying job to another. Why, she asks, if they both finished high school, got some secondary education, have solid work histories and held off on having kids, is it such a struggle to pay for things like getting the car fixed and visiting the dentist? “I think the thing that keeps me going is knowing that we are really lucky, even in spite of the challenges that we are facing,” says Harris in an email. “I can’t help but feel badly for those that I know are worse off than we are. And I am truly grateful. And knowing that we are not alone helps a great deal, too. But it seems to be getting harder. Harder not to worry, not to cry, not to give up hope. We did everything right, I thought.” She’s right: It is getting harder. President Obama, in his 2011 State of the Union address, talked about how most people could remember the good old days, when getting a job meant showing up at a factory after finishing high school. “If you worked hard, chances are you’d have a job for life, with a decent paycheck and good benefits and the occasional promotion,” the president said, adding that he understood “the frustrations of Americans who’ve seen their paychecks dwindle or their jobs disappear — proud men and women who feel like the rules have been changed in the middle of the game.” “They’re right,” Obama continued. “The rules have changed.” Indeed they have. And for many who have been out of work for a long time and are willing to share their thoughts with a reporter, the new rules are merciless. “Good, decent people who worked hard, did everything right, believed in the American Dream have been destroyed,” writes a Californian who said her brother killed himself after job loss collapsed his financial situation. “On the eve of my 60th birthday and without marketable skills I have no chance of ever finding a job again in the traditional economy,” writes a North Carolinian who’s been out of work nearly two years. “I am determined to survive this horror show. But my survival will not be determined by our broken economy. It’s ‘think outside the box’ time. Traditional methods obviously won’t work for people like me.” “I did everything right, I played by the rules, I got skills, I excelled in my job, all to no avail,” writes a New Jerseyan who said he lost his job in 2010. “I don’t know what I’m going to do. All the years of both parties talking about free trade agreements and how we will retrain America was just a bunch of BS; it was easy to say all that when times were good.” And so on. By the way: Just what the hell are the new rules? What follows is a brief handbook. Don’t Be Old Harris suspects age discrimination is a big reason why she can’t find work. She’s not even 40, but she’s keenly aware of her years. She says she and her husband didn’t have children because they wanted to wait till they had a more secure financial situation. Under the old rules, after all, age brought economic security for decent people. “We wanted to wait till we could afford it, and now look — I’m 39 last month.” And when she applied online for a job at Bojangles Famous Chicken ‘n Biscuits earlier this year, the application form required her to disclose her date of birth. Several big companies, including Target, Kroger and Home Depot, do the same thing. It’s illegal to discriminate by age and to specify an age preference in a job ad, but it’s not illegal to ask about age, though employment law experts say doing so does bear a whiff of discrimination. Age discrimination is unbearably obvious to anyone over 50 who’s been in the job market for more than a short time, but it’s impossible to prove. You can’t beat it. That’s why it’s a rule. Don’t Be Unemployed Employers openly discriminate against the unemployed in job postings on sites like craigslist and Monster every day. A May 16 craigslist posting for a restaurant manager in Salisbury, Md., for instance, specifies that applicants “must be currently employed or recently unemployed.” Last year, after reporters asked, global phone manufacturer Sony Ericsson claimed its ad that said “NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL” was a mistake. It’s not illegal to have such a rule, but in response to stories about the phenomenon on The Huffington Post, state and federal lawmakers in the past year have tried to lawmakers in the past year have tried to ban overt discrimination against the unemployed. Don’t Pin Your Hopes On College The unemployment rate for college grads is 4.5 percent, and it never got much higher than that during the Great Recession. For high school dropouts, it’s 14.6 percent. So finishing college pays. But this old rule’s been bent. New college grads these days face a huge pile of debt and an unemployment rate near 10 percent . And among people who’ve been out of work 99 weeks or longer, a college degree doesn’t mean anything. High school dropouts and grads were equally represented among the 1.4 million people out of work that long as of last October, according to the Congressional Research Service . Don’t Expect To Make More Money At Your Next Job Sure, the private sector’s been adding jobs, but they’re crappy jobs. The National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group, reported in February that low-wage industries like retail and administrative support via temp agencies account for 49 percent of job growth in the past year. The same sector only accounts for 23 percent of the jobs lost in the same time period. By contrast, higher-paying industries constituted 40 percent of job losses over the last year, but just 14 percent of growth. Bob Poropatich of Pittsburgh has been working part-time as a barista since he lost his job as a manager for a major clothing retailer in 2008. He says he’d been with the company for six years and had 30 years of experience. He has a master’s degree. He’d been making $65,000 a year; now, he says, he makes about $180 a week. Did he do something wrong in his life, or is he falling backward by chance? “This is random and pointless,” Poropatich says. “I didn’t choose to age. I didn’t choose to be 59. I didn’t choose to be laid off. Every decision was made by a higher power and an HR director.” Poropatich says that in the five job interviews he’s had, he has tried to get around the rule against being old by promising his hiring won’t raise a company’s insurance premiums. It hasn’t worked. “I said, ‘By the way, I won’t be applying for health benefits and things like that since I already have my own coverage.’ They say, ‘Okay, thank you.’ Nobody is impressed by it. I would think that’s the biggest thing.” He says the worst moment was when his former employer came to his coffeeshop. “My ex boss, the one who laid me off, came in and ordered a venti mocha,” Poropatich says. “It didn’t faze him at all. I felt like I was two inches tall. I wanted to say, ‘Excuse me,’ and run into the bathroom.”

Read the full article →

AFL-CIO Threatens To Break From Democrats

May 21, 2011

WASHINGTON — Prominent labor leaders, frustrated that Democrats in Washington aren’t aggressively pursuing the union agenda, are threatening to limit their campaign support for Democrats, an act that would hamper the party’s bid to regain control of the House next year and keep a majority in the Senate. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka’s threat of a pullback Friday was the latest warning to a party that has long relied on labor’s cash and grass-roots support. If it makes good on its threat, labor probably would spend more time and money combating union-busting efforts by state officials. “We will change the way we spend, the way we do things and the way we function that creates power for workers,” Trumka said. In a speech at the National Press Club, Trumka called for “an independent labor movement” and said unions were not responsible for building the power of any political party, but for improving the lives of working families. He promised that unions would spend the summer holding leaders in Congress and the states accountable. If labor makes itself truly independent of the Democratic Party, it would mark a major shift in a long-standing political relationship. “It doesn’t matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside to let it happen,” Trumka said. “The outcome is the same either way. If leaders aren’t blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families’ interests, then working people will not support them.” The AFL-CIO’s executive council is considering a plan that could spend less on congressional races and more on fighting state battles like those in Wisconsin and Ohio, where lawmakers want to weaken collective bargaining rights and reduce union clout. But Trumka made clear the federation had no plan to follow the lead of the nation’s largest firefighters union, which announced last month that it would halt all political donations to members of Congress because they are not fighting hard enough for union rights. The move has won praise in many corners of the labor movement, where union activists have openly grumbled about House and Senate Democrats being too quiet while unions are getting pummeled in dozens of states. “We’ve spent money where we have friends and we will continue to do that,” he said. Leon Fink, a labor historian at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said unions are tired of being taken for granted and discouraged that their influence with moderate and conservative Democrats has been limited. “Spending a lot of money electing conservative Democrats in marginal districts had no legislative payoff for unions,” Fink said. “They don’t seem to have the capacity to impose their will on the party.” Unions have been disappointed that Congress has not passed a more ambitious stimulus plan to create jobs, that health care reform didn’t go far enough and that Democrats – when they held a majority in Congress – couldn’t muster enough votes to pass a bill that would make it easier to organize unions. The AFL-CIO spent more than $50 million to support Democrats in last year’s midterm elections, much of it in critical get-out-the vote efforts in dozens of key races. But a growing number of union leaders remain frustrated at what their money has bought. Some activists want to reallocate resources permanently so that more is spent bolstering grass roots support in the states. Unions have threatened to pull support from Democrats before, only to come back as election time draws closer when they realize there are few political alternatives. Asked how seriously Democrats should take the threat, Trumka pointed to former Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln. Unions spent about $10 million last year trying to unseat Lincoln in the Democratic primary because she refused to support a broader health reform package and a bill that would make it easier for workers to form unions. Lincoln beat back the challenge, but lost in the general election. Yet unions continued to offer support to other Democrats in the 2010 election who also wavered on the health overhaul, as some leaders feared the consequences of a GOP majority would be even worse. It remains unclear how far the trend on unions trimming back political donations might spread. The politically powerful Service Employees International Union does not intend to reduce its role in federal races, SEIU political director Brandon Davis said. Guy Cecil, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said organized labor is not just an important part of the Democratic Party, but is “critical to rebuilding our entire economy.” “We are working closely with labor at every level to build strong campaigns and deliver results for working families,” Cecil said. Jennifer Crider, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said “labor’s fight is our fight and we’re proud to partner with them.” Trumka saved his harshest criticisms for Republicans in Congress and dozens of state legislatures for passing budgets that slash pensions and curb bargaining rights of union members while giving tax cuts to “the powerful and well-connected.” “The final outrage of these budgets is hidden in the fine print,” Trumka said. “In state after state, and here in Washington, these so-called fiscal hawks are actually doing almost nothing to cut the deficit.” He said these budget deals are sending a message that “sacrifice is for the weak.” “Powerful political forces are seeking to silence working people – to drive us out of the national conversation,” Trumka said. Trumka and other union leaders have said they expect the moves in some states to curb union rights will create a backlash that will help organized labor grow stronger. Unions are already spending millions to help recall campaigns in Wisconsin and Ohio. They are hoping the momentum of those recalls can be sustained through the 2012 elections.

Read the full article →

Gemma Godfrey: IMF Revelations: The End of European Dominance & the Rise of Emerging Markets?

May 20, 2011

As ” super-injunctions ” are labelled ” pointless ” by the rise of ‘new’ social media sites, the world seems a smaller place for those wanting to hide potential transgressions. Indeed, such accusations can have broad ramifications, as the head of the International Monetary Fund this week steps down from his leadership position. Could this trigger the end of European dominance at the IMF and even pave the way for Emerging Market leaders to acquire a more appropriate size of the power pie? Jurisdiction Arbitrage: The Super-Injunction Flaw Last week, an anonymous twitter user exploited a ‘jurisdiction arbitrage’ to name celebrities whose identities are being protected by a series of ‘gagging-orders’. The Twitter site is based in the U.S. and therefore ” outside the jurisdiction of the British courts “. Furthermore, not only would the user himself be ” difficult to trace ” but the number of other users who forwarded on the names and could be charged represented a ” mass defiance ” and ” unlikely ” any of them would be pursued. Therefore potential wrong-doers can, for the moment at least, be named and shamed in some form of media. Just how dangerous can these revelations be? The IMF Revelation This week, legalities are once again in the headlines as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, (now the former) head of the International Monetary Fund, stands accused of politically damaging indiscretions . Regardless of the outcome of the case, the political impact has been made, and focus is on identifying his potential successor. The European Bias Historically the IMF Managing Director has been European and the World Bank President American but nowhere in the ” Articles of Agreement ‘ is this mentioned. So where did this bias come from? It dates back to the Bretton Woods conference, where the fund was formed and this informal agreement struck. In the aftermath of World War II, European economic stability played a large part in the health of the world’s economy and voting power reflected the balance of power. The U.S. has a 16.7 percent share, Germany 5.9 percent and the UK & France 4.9 percent each; leaving the ‘door open’ for ‘behind the scenes’ negotiations . Unsurprisingly, since this time, there have been 10 Managing Directors, all of them European. Flaws of a European Successor Proponents of a continuation of European dominance point to the IMF’s crucial role in stemming the European Sovereign Debt crisis. A German government spokesman, Christoph Steegmans, maintains that the leader needs to understand ” Europe’s particularities .” Interesting then that there has been no talk of electing an official from the Middle East as Egypt requests a $4bn loan to ‘ fill its budget gap .’ With all the turmoil, doesn’t a leader need to understand the ‘particularities’ of this region too? Instead, focus is on German candidates (including Axel Weber, the former head of the Central Bank who recently withdrew from the race to succeed Trichet as head of the ECB). A favourite amongst pundits is French finance Minister Christine Lagarde. Bank of Canada Governor, Mark Carney has even been given odds of 10-to-1 by a British bookmaker. Gordon Brown’s name has even been thrown into the ring but was quickly opposed by our PM Cameron, due to the record budget deficit which continued to build during his tenure. Here lies the crux of the issue, since the EU and ECB have yet to solve the debt crisis, is it time for someone else to have a go? Opportunity for Developing Markets The economic balance of power is changing. China has overtaken Japan as the second largest economy and it has been argued that it will surpass the U.S.’s share of global GDP in a decade . Back in 1973, the developing nations asserted more of their power as a group led by Indonesia and Iran vetoed the nomination of a Dutch candidate (seen as too closely aligned to the interests of wealthy nations). With this in mind, candidates from South Africa , Turkey , Singapore , Indonesia , Mexico and a Chinese official who advises the IMF already have been mentioned in the press. Brazil too has contributed to the discussion, as their Finance Minister argues for a ” new criteria “. Indeed changes to IMF governance were decided in 2008 and last year, shifting 5.3 percent of the voting share to emerging markets. Although nothing has yet taken effect. However, with the increased contribution of funding coming from these regions and the negativity within these countries expressed against too much focus on the developed world, change is warranted. Investment Conclusion As ever, economic issues can often lie opposed to equity market movement. But changes (or continuation) of dominance could affect short-term sentiment for various country’s financial markets. Exploit any over-reaction in the short-term whilst remaining focused on quality in the longer-term. The shift of economic power is well underway, let’s see if the political powers play catch up….

Read the full article →

Rich Tafel: Nudge the Market, Change the World

May 20, 2011

“It’s sort of the worst of times and the worst of times.” This quote from Irv Katz, president of the National Human Services Assembly, a coalition of nonprofit organizations, sums up the state of nonprofit organizations’ funding cuts in the public policy arena. Nonprofit organizations that survived the budget cuts in 2011 are now developing a new campaign to combat far deeper reductions in 2012. Even if these entities are successful in staving off the worst, it is clear that the familiar ways of doing business with the government are over. To continue aiding their constituencies, nonprofit organizations must reconsider the “old-style advocacy” type of government funding requests and take a more creative, long-term approach. This “new normal” in economic matters requires a new perspective. In Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness , Cass Sunstein and Richard H. Thaler discuss the power of choice architects, who shape incentives to advance the public good. The government is the largest choice architect in citizens’ lives; it incentivizes and nudges people in thousands of different ways toward what it considers to be the public good. Should a person buy or rent a home? This decision is often based on government tax incentives for home ownership. Should one purchase a hybrid or conventional car? Tax write-offs and privileges such as using fast lanes on highway can make the hybrid a better choice. I put more money in my retirement account because I get a tax break for doing the responsible thing, although this action resulted from prodding by the government. When the government taxes cigarettes, smoking decreases and tax revenues increase, which is another example of government nudging. Government incentives can allow greater freedom of choice and, unlike government grants, do not require an annual public request for funds. Home mortgage deductions total about $100 billion each year and silently drive our housing market. But, imagine if individual homeowners were required to lobby the government every year to grant them a mortgage refund. Their chances of success would likely be zero. Because it’s a nudge through our tax system, we hardly notice this $100 billion annual payout. Nonprofit organizations seeking to improve the lives of the voiceless should pay attention to this psychology. The truth for nonprofit organizations is that neither philanthropic nor government grants can provide the sustainable funding solutions required to meet the needs of those they seek to serve. Their cause might be popular this year, but popularity among funders and government can vanish when the newest, hottest social entrepreneur comes onto the scene. To be successful in the new normal, nonprofit organizations need to become policy choice architects, for those they serve, by answering this question: “What government policy, if changed, would incentivize those we seek to serve to come to us?” Let’s look at a real-world case study of Shifting Gears , a career transition pubic-private program in Michigan, to see how this approach might play out. As Diana Wong , the program’s creator, summed up, “This new fiscal environment has made us re-think our advocacy strategy.” This public-private program has been getting grants from donors and the government. It offers a focused career-coaching program, placing white-collar workers in second stage growth companies that need new talent after working through entrepreneurial start up stage. They have an amazing success rate, with over 75% of all participants landing a well-paying job. However, they spend a huge amount of their time chasing government and foundation funding. Following this, they spend more time recruiting unemployed workers into the program. They are thinking of a new advocacy strategy by asking this powerful question: “What government policy could we change that would incentivize the unemployed to use our successful career transition model?” They decided the best policy nudge with the greatest impact is the unemployment check sent by the government. They promoted the idea of having state governments extend unemployment benefits to those who enroll in their programs. Under this scenario, all stakeholders win. Workers win because more than 75% of those enrolled get new jobs. Government wins because this transforms the unemployed into taxpayers and prevents the brain drain the state is facing. In addition, given the program’s success rate, only a small percentage of those who seek such an extension will likely ever use it. Nonprofit organizations win as well. Rather than focusing on expensive, time-consuming lobbying campaigns to get government and philanthropic support every year, these organizations’ leaders can spend less time on fundraising and marketing these programs and more time implementing them. Changing incentives makes all stakeholders winners, which is the goal of all successful advocacy efforts. Nonprofit advocates can begin by envisioning themselves as choice architects for lasting world change and asking this simple question: What public policy could we change in order to nudge the world? Rich Tafel is President of Public Squared , an organization based in Washington, DC, that is dedicated to training nonprofits for success in the public policy arena. Tafel is also a board member of Michigan Corps . -a local and global network of leaders advancing education and entrepreneurship across Michigan. His email is rich@thepublicsquared.com.

Read the full article →

In Flood’s Crosshairs, A Community Waits

May 20, 2011

BUTTE LA ROSE, LA. –- The evening chorus of bullfrogs, crickets and screech owls along the waterfront has seemed louder these last few nights. The homes are empty. The music and chatter from neighbors has disappeared. The electricity is almost entirely switched off, plunging the remaining holdouts of this hideaway community into pitch-black nights illuminated only by the moon and stars. In the heart of the nation’s largest swamp, Butte La Rose lies in the direct path of floodwaters unleashed last Saturday from the Morganza Floodway, an effort to divert the Mississippi River’s force away from Baton Rouge and New Orleans. But before the water rises here, it must spread out over hundreds of square miles of cypress swamps and bottomlands. The people of Louisiana have become attuned to disasters over the years, yet the slow creep of rising water through this untamed region has even the hardiest natives on edge. “Growing up down here, you become acclimated to hurricanes. It’s fast-moving,” said full-time resident Michelle McInnis, a native of Hackberry, La., a town walloped by Hurricane Rita more than five years ago. “It’s mentally anguishing, this slow rise of the water … and knowing you can’t come back for six weeks.” A surprising number of full-time residents live in this Atchafalaya Basin town, a collection of both dowdy trailer homes and million-dollar fishing retreats with names like “Bar-B-Que and Drink a Few” and “Dad’s Pad When Mom’s Mad.” There are two ways in to Butte La Rose: a ramp down from Interstate 10 and a floating bridge. By Saturday, the bridge will be off limits, leaving only entrance. The handful of stores and bars close one by one. Local sheriff deputies Army National Guard Humvees constantly patrol the area, making daily rounds to warn anyone left that a mandatory evacuation remains in effect. The daily checkups have become a sort of joke for Randy Moncrief. He’s vowed to watch over “Timbuktu,” the two-story red waterfront home owned by his father, until he either runs out of food or can no longer tolerate bathing in the canal behind the house. “Cleanliness is gonna drive me out, if anything,” Moncrief said. “I’ve got plenty of shotguns. I’ll kill me a rabbit, a gator, a deer, whatever.” Before it comes to that, Moncrief has stocked up freezers and coolers with nearly ten pounds of red beans and rice with sausage, a full frozen brisket, 20 pounds of shrimp and loads of deer sausage. He’s not sure exactly what he’ll do for the next three or four weeks. “It’ll be some long days,” he admitted. His truck is gone, left on higher ground. He has a four-wheeler to traverse high water, if needed. Randy Moncrief on his porch Moncrief is a product of the Atchafalaya Basin, a wild region of swamplands and marshes west of the Mississippi River. His grandparents trapped nutria and muskrat for years at a “camp” in the middle of the swamp, accessible only by shallow-draft boats. He said he’s used to being surrounded by water. But in recent days, nature has started to rear its head. Snakes appear in greater abundance, along with alligators. Moncrief was tending to a plant in the backyard three days ago when a snake bit his hand. Shining a flashlight on the canal behind his house at night reveals numerous pairs of red alligator eyes lurking in the waters. Moncrief is one of only a handful of people in Butte La Rose planning to ride out the flood. Most escaped in a frenzy last weekend when the Army Corps of Engineers opened the floodway at Morganza. Last Saturday and Sunday, the two-lane road leading out of town was backed up for hours, jammed with a long procession of trucks and trailers hauling everything out. Some hired contractors at the last minute to jack up their houses, an attempt to buy another few feet. Many left signs tacked to their homes, staking out their territory. One read, “Nothing left worth stealing.” The mood this week has been much calmer. McInnis and her boyfriend have been packing up their belongings slowly. She marks the calendar each morning with the new flood heights. It began May 3 at 15.5; the water now sits at 20.94. Within a week it’s expected to rise another five feet. On Friday, the couple headed out of town to stay with relatives. They shut the power off behind them, not knowing when they would return. “You have to respect Mother Nature 100 percent,” McInnis said. “You can’t think that you’re going to go against her and win. Because you will not.”

Read the full article →

Video: Cohan Says Scrutiny on Goldman Is Like `Water Torture’

May 20, 2011

May 20 (Bloomberg) — William Cohan, author of “Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World” and a Bloomberg Television contributing editor, discusses Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s public relations strategy and U.S. Senator Carl Levin’s report on the firm’s mortgage bets. Cohan speaks with Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Australian Power And Gas Company Limited (ASX:APK) Achieves 250,000 Net Customers And Continues To Grow Across Eastern Seaboard

May 19, 2011

Australian Power And Gas Company Limited (ASX:APK) Achieves 250,000 Net Customers And Continues To Grow Across Eastern Seaboard

Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: The Economist Joins the Tech Bubble Herd

May 18, 2011

The construction of a new conventional wisdom is a wondrous feat. Seemingly, in the middle of the night, a new truth emerges that is impregnable, monolithic and unassailable, and it rises upon a landscape scattered with the rubble of previous conventional wisdoms. The newest “truth” is what appeared this week on the cover of the Economist : “The new tech bubble.” But it’s not just the Economist , which does wrestle with some of the complexities of bubble creation. The Economist , in fact, comes a little late to this parlor game. The notion that there’s a new tech bubble — inflated valuations from social media wunderkinds like Facebook, Twitter, Groupon and LinkedIn to the nosebleed-high $8.5 billion Microsoft paid to grab Skype — has been a blogospheric meme and has recently graced, as if by dictation from above, nearly every major newspaper. But is it true? Are these ballooning valuations for a handful of tech startups, mostly in social media, a reprise of the dot-com bust of 2001, or for that matter, the mortgage bubble and meltdown? How strong is the evidence? Are their divergences from those previous bubbles, which of course we can only confirm as bubbles because they burst? And the key question really: Why do we believe that we can call this inflation of tech valuations a bubble, when we’ve been so wrong, so regularly, in the past? What does it say about the power of the media to do anything about it? And what do we really mean when we say there’s a bubble brewing? The Economist offers a compact recitation of the charges that a tech bubble is inflating. The valuations for Facebook and Twitter — still private companies — are astronomical. Skype was clearly overvalued by Microsoft, based on its still-thin earnings. “Prices,” notes the Economist , look even more excessive for fledgling firms in the private market (Color, a photo-sharing social network, was recently said to be worth $100 million, even though it has an untested service) or for anything involving China. There has been a stampede for shares in Renren, hailed as China’s ‘Facebook,’ and other Chinese web giants listed on American exchanges. The Economist does offer some caveats. The world is different than in 2001 and the Internet is a far larger, more diverse universe with extensive broadband connectivity. Moreover, many of these startups have real revenues and earnings, unlike the hundreds of dot-com startups of the late ’90s that had traffic but no discernible business models. Those ’90s startups were also hoisted aloft on a vast surge of initial public offerings, which has yet to develop. And while tech stocks have been rising, as a group they’re well below the Nasdaq of 2000. So where’s the bubble? The Economist argues that wealthy angel investors, many of whom made their money in the ’90s, are scrambling to take stakes in Web startups, competing with traditional venture capitalists who in turn are feeling heat from “Gucci-shod leveraged-buyout-kings” (oh please) and “bank-led funds hunting for profits in a bleak investment environment.” Most of this hot money, the Economist declares, hasn’t done its due diligence and doesn’t know tech (perhaps, but no evidence is offered). And to make matters worse, they’re increasingly investing overseas, adding to the risk. How does the Economist marry up these two seemingly contradictory realities? The magazine admits that we’re still early on in the bubble process. Facebook and LinkedIn look like real companies — like Google, which stirred its own bubble prognostications after its IPO in 2004 — but that will just feed the mania to overinflate the startups that the magazine believes will inevitably follow. “The froth in China’s web industry could also lead to unrealistic valuations elsewhere. And it may be China that causes the web bubble eventually to burst.” Notice the “could” and “may.” But even then, “with luck the latest web bubble will do less damage than its predecessor,” mostly because telecom isn’t mixed up in the mess (though given its latent state, who knows what neighboring sectors will get sucked in). The Economist then asks: “When will that be?” Excellent question. But after congratulating itself on calling the dot-com and mortgage bubbles, it fails to answer it. Someday. In the future. Could there be a tech bubble gestating? Certainly. But there could also be a bubble in emerging market stocks, in anything China, in energy and commodities and, for all I know, in rare earth metals and university tuitions. The wonderful thing about bubble prediction is that it’s so easy. No one will really care if you’re wrong — you’re just being provocative, even if you’re part of a herd — and the definition of a bubble can extend from an uptick in prices that aren’t sustainable to a crash that threatens the economy. This may explain why, at the end of the day, no one pays attention to bubble warnings: They occur too often, and they’re often far too amorphous and far too early. Contrary to the media critics, bubble warnings appeared regularly on both the dot-coms and mortgages. Few listened. Or rather, not enough listened and, importantly, acted to stop the inflation and destruction. In a decent market, some stocks — or M&A and private valuations — are always being driven up. There are always hot sectors that the “smart” money is chasing like a newly discovered cache of Warhols. And as the Economist admits, those investment decisions may be sloppy, but they aren’t necessarily irrational or based on fantasy. Facebook, like Google, looks like the real thing, which wasn’t necessarily apparent just a few years ago. LinkedIn is a real company, making its IPO valuation a matter of debate, not sheer faith. The process of bubble inflation is not fast, and it’s not simple. It requires both a larger supply of startups than we have right now and a broadening beyond the bounds of a single sector. The dot-com bubble grew serious when it drew in telecom and when it spread beyond the smart money, which can make as many mistakes as anyone, and into the broad retail universe. Real estate inflation became a bubble when it spread nationwide and drew in more than just subprime; it became a mortal threat when it sucked in core financial institutions. For the “new” tech bubble to become a systemic danger, it must diffuse far beyond what the Economist calls “the antics of angels” and into the consumer world, and it must spread beyond social media — say, to mobile. To drive the bubble, some fundamental innovation needs to occur, which as yet, we do not detect. After all, this is also the age of Tyler Cowan’s “stagnation” thesis, which also may be right or may be wrong, but which clearly represents one aspect of the Zeitgeist. The dot-com bubble was powerfully driven by tech euphoria, underpinned by low interest rates, strong growth, robust productivity, low inflation, low unemployment and a sense that the American-centric world grew better and better every day. A bubble is always the confluence of many streams; the probabilities have to line up. Right now, we only have a few of them. It’s a leap — though always possible — to predict a few more. But as we project out, our ability to get anything right decays. And the Economist is peering pretty far out in this exceedingly turbulent world. This is a glib observation, but I’ll offer it anyway: The closest thing to a bubble in tech these days may be the rush to declare it a bubble in the media. Even if it turns out to be the case, it would be more luck than prescience.

Read the full article →