LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Galbraith explaining the true reason for his firing by Eide and the UN Secretary General Moon. The statement announcing his dismissal to be accurate would have said that this was over differences whether the UN was going to remain silent over evidence of electoral fraud in the Afghan elections, and the issue of ghost polling stations. There is another angle of this which risks endangering the US trrops in the north of the country. Karzai's opponent in the elction is half Tajik and half Pashtun, fraud in the elections may turn the Tajik north against US and coaltion troops, further complicating life for the US, and this is on top of the loss of credibility with the Afghan people of the Karzai government. See the separate article on General Jones telling McChrystal who commands US forces in Afghnistan to cooperate with the strategic review now underway, by not making statements to the press. The other questions arise about the manner in which this dismissal ocurred. A few days before this Hillary Clinton, Eide, and other representatives from the coalition told the press that they think Karzai would win. Had Obama authorized this and what would be the point of such a statement, and at the same time trying to conduct an unbiased assessment of the war in Afghanistan. Here Galbraith comes across as one who had the courage to decide according to what he believed would be right for America and the values it represents. His point is that he could not tolerate the last act of dishonesty in the dispute that went on for months, because of the loss of credibility for the UN itself among the many Afghans who do not support Karzai. This would destroy also the credibility of the US in the country. Can any number of troops make up for this? Wars in Asia have proven that popular support decides the eventual fate of the mission. Only by standing up for its values can the US not undermine the very principles that the troops are fighting for and the people support. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Niall Ferguson, a history professor at Harvard, and Moritz Shularick, a economic history professor at the Free University of Berlin, coined the term Chimerica, to describe the Chinese export machine and the American overconsumption right down to negative savings. Now they call it an economic monster that needs to be given a burial. It does little good for America. For America its a 10-10 deal the authors say, 10% growth for China and 10% unemployment int the USA. The mood in the USA is no longer to go on with this arrangement they warn, and ask that the Obama administration take steps to end this arrangement. The USA should ask China to make a 30 % depreciation of the renminbi say Ferguson and Schularick. Krugman makes a similiar point and warns of dire consequences in aworld out of balance on the same page of the NYT, see the link. Ferguson and Schularick point out that unlike China, both Germany and Japan let their currencies appreciate by 60% for Germany and 50% in Japan, at a similiar period in their country's development. China's renmibi is pegged at 6.83 renminbi to the dollar, and China's government used $300 billion in reserves to keep the renminbi from appreciating this year. Throughout the 1980's and 1990's it was pegged at around 8.28 renminbi to the dollar. For the USA this has been very costly, with a distortion in the global cost of capital significantly reducing long term interest rates, and helping create the real estate bubble in the US. They point out that with Japan and Germany dollar reserves increased roughly in line with growth of American GDP at about 1% and stable before moving slighltly higher in the 1970's. By contrast China's reserves have grown from about 1% of Ameica's GDP in 2000 or $165 billion to 5% in 2005 and 10% in 2008 and headed for 12% in 2009 end. This is simply unsustainable any longer; carrying on any longer risks China losing the very basis of its economic success which is the open global trading system....

LyrArc Article Gist
The use of fast track procedures under 510 K, for approval of Ren-Gen's Menaflex product to treat knee injuries. Under 510K rules for fast track no clinical trials are required, because the product is similiar to already existing products. Menaflex does not have asimiliar product, yet the FDA allowed Menaflex to be treated as fast track. The closest is orthopedic surgical operation, which is quite different. Menaflex is a C shaped pad used to repair a torn meniscus, a rubbery substance made from cow collagen that that acts like ashock absorber between the knee bones. Their is a booming market for meniscus repair among sports athletes. In fact originally Ren-Gen did not even apply as fast track, but only afte its clinical trials ran into trouble, did it try for fast track, which was turned down several times. At which point Ren-Gen got Democrats Senator Robert Menendez, Rep Frank Pallone, Chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep Rothman of Hackensack where Ren-Gen is based, and Senator Frank Lautenberg to intervene. At this point Senator Menendez and the others wrote to the FDA Commisssioner Dr Von Eschenbach, and Menendez spoke to the Commisssioner personally on the phone. After this intervention things started moving in Ren-Gen's dirtection, bypassing the FDA staffers who had reservations, and a special panel was appointed that again excluded anyone that had reservations, in an unusual procedure, which approved Menaflex. Now Congress and the Obama administration are being asked to review the whole process the FDA uses for medical devices because of the controversy this has caused about what is seen as unfair influence of companies in FDA approval process. Menaflex say those who had reservatoions faces alot of pounding and wear and tear between the knee bones and its safety and effectiveness needs to be proven before approval. It has been approved in Europe for afew years, but only 2800 patients have used it in Europe, only a small proportion of patients, and not enough is known about its effectiveness and any issues. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
An Italy based auto analyst for Global Insight consultancy, Pierluigi Bellini, says Marchionne understands how the system works in the US compared to Daimler executives, who had a difficult time understanding and integrating themselves with the Americans at Chrysler. Marchionne has worked in North America, and brings a youthful culture with plenty of creative energy, which could work well with Chrysler. Chrysler is also at the similiar stage that Fiat was in 2004, when Marchionne came in from outside- it is broken and everyone including the Obama administration is looking for a fresh start. In such a situation its easier to tear up the old organization charts and bring in fresh blood, young people with new ideas, and make a fresh start. Wth the government providing the financing, the financial risk is minimized. What remains is the risk in a drastically smaller and rapidly declining market. Here the lack of mass market small cars in the US, may work to the advantage of a European maker with fresh ideas and speed, and popular European small car models, which is what Fiat has at this time. It is quite possible that the idea that Americans do not like small cars may turn out to be not true. The market is changing and the demographics and economic situation is changing dramatically, cost conscious Americans may like to have a popular small car. Americans with larger cars may like to have a less conspicuous, and easy to drive and park car for short city driving, as their second or third car. If a economic recovery does not occur for several years and Americans downscale in everything from homes, appliances, electronics, and cars to what their European and Asian brethren are used to, both from an environmental point of view, and from a practical commonsense point of view of gettting rid of excess and extravagance, size may be sacrificed for convenience and practicality. Smaller cars are well equipped in Europe with all the comforts and electronics so small does not have to be cheap. In short in a growing small car segment, innovative design and speed of development, with quality engineering may be the ticket for Fiat and Chrysler to the American market....

LyrArc Article Gist
Only 1.9 million hourly workers in manufacturing now earn more than $20 per hour, its down 60% since 1979, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of all hourly workers in every sector of the economy the percentage of people earning more than $20 per hour shrunk to 18% in 2008 from 23% in 1979, thus losing some of the gains the US made since World War II which helped build the American middle class. One can see this unwinding clearly in the auto industry as wages are being reduced to match nonunion Japanese plants, and the industry itself is going through a huge downsizing fast. The hourly work force totals 76 million or 52% of all workers ranging from managers and professionals to factory and construction workers to technicians, educators and sales people. The wages of salaried workers show a similiar trend but are not converted into hourly amounts. As the numbers for 2007 are at the point where the economy was still booming, the path ahead as things go through a steep downturn can only have serious implications such as a slow recovery for demand in 2010. If a number of trends converge, employers shift to part time employment, auto related workers downshift to lower wages and benefits, shift to nonunion plants in the south or the midwest, and work is offshored or outsourced, this could worsen effects on consumption for years ahead especially with the credit remaining tight and consumers paying off old debt. Frank Levy, a labor economist at MIT, says that all this is happening wihtout a political debate or discussion, as people are worried more about having a job, and only secondly about what it pays and whether they are losing ground. Even the Pennsylvania primary debate, says Levy, between Hillary Clinton and Obama was conducted without quantifying the decline, and no one mentioned the eroding of the $20 per hour wage. What happened to support the consumption and support imports, was to pay for consumption by going into debt or refinancing the home. This has implications that range from the future of export industries in China's booming coastal sector, to how long the recovery drags on, and to what the future would look like....

LyrArc Article Gist
McCain's Plan announced in the debate with Obama moderated by Tom Brokaw was clarified further and looks more like the plan proposed by Hubbard in the WSJ. The government would step in and clear up the old mortgages and issue new 30 year mortgages at 5%. Taxpayer money would be involved, about $300 billion but the effect would be immediate relief to all homeowners, and the opportunity to stabilize home prices before a recession makes the situation worse with higher unemployment, more foreclosures. As much as 40% of all mortgages acccording to Deutsche Bank expected to go under water with home values dropping below the outstanding mortgages, and encouraging default in that situation. Lenders who made mistakes would get off without punitive price but even in the purchase of toxic assets by the government there is no certainty that private equity and other buyers of the assets from the government would not benefit. And the banks themselves could unload these assets at below their value to the Treasury because of asymmetric information, the lenders having a better idea than Treasury what these assets are really worth. And bad lending practices especially abusive ones can be prosecuted through investigation, the courts, and tough negotiations by the states and the government just as Jerry Brown obtained a settlement against Countrywide/Bank of America for $8 billion. And some of the people involved in the abusive practices and who benefited from them could have charges filed against them and end up serving time. The advantage of such a plan is that it would be decisive action and comprehensive action to see immediate effects of preventing whole neighborhoods being blighted across the nation, as most people underestimate the speed of this downturn from 6% to 16% home foreclosures from 2007 to 2008 and expected to hit as much as 40% of all mortgages in 2009 or 2010 absent any such action. Making what seems sensible letting lenders take the pain for their mistakes could then end up causing systemwide pain. When other ways of punitive action or shared pain or burden could be found especially prosecuting such behaviour and getting settlements through investigations and tough negotiations with the offending lenders. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Joe Nocera talks to experts like Simon Johnson at MIT. Johnson says that when he talks to other experts, after a two minute discussion, they say we should just nationalize the banks. Here Christopher Whalen, a veteran bank analyst, of Institutional Risk Analyst, and Joshua Rosner of research firm Graham-Fisher, say the same thing, with the phrases, lets get on with it or just do it. Says Simon Johnson, thats what we told emerging market countries, Thailand in 1997, or Russia in 1998, when he worked at the IMF. He says we told them to close down some of the banks, and take over the others, and inject government capital. He adds its the best practices, and its straightforward. So asks Nocera, is Geithner talking about the stress test banks will be subjected to, as first step preceding nationalization, more of a calculated approach to gradually introduce the idea of nationalization. But he isnt sure, as Geithner also told David Brooks of the NYT, that governments were not so good at managing banks. No one knows for sure. But says Nocera thats exactly what the government did to solve the S&L crisis. And the man who was former chairman of the FDIC, and helped run the program for the Resolution Trust Corporation, says the government did a pretty good job of it, taking over banks, replacing top managers and directors, and stripping out the bad assets and selling off the now healthy banks to private buyers. So can it be done again and will it be that hard? Yes, its been done before, and its not that hard say these experts. Every month that the administration and Geithner procrastinate puts the banks in a deeper hole, and will mean more layoffs and a worse crisis, even years taken to recover. What he has'nt mentioned is that even if after some procrastination the government gets around to doing it to clean up the mess, there is one added complication this time that is different than what happened with the S&L crisis or with the Swedish cleanup, or the Japanese cleanup after 2003, this time the global economy is caught up in the crisis which makes recovery that much tougher....

LyrArc Article Gist
The credibility of the US at stake in its ambivalent responses to the protests in Egypt against thirty years of one-party rule under Mubarak. Opposition leader and Nobel laureate El-Baradei leads demonstrators after prayers at a mosque in Cairo and is met by waves of police shooting tear gas. After returning to the mosque El-Baradei tells reporters that Mubarak's regime has closed the door to a peaceful transition with its use of the police in large numbers to stop the demonstrators. He said if the international community is not speaking now when would it speak up. He called the Mubarak regime barbaric in its treatment of the Egyptian people on the streets of Cairo and other cities. He held the US responsible for its wavering and hesitant approach to the popular revolt demanding democracy, human rights and the rule of law. By supporting the barbaric regime the international community should not be surprised if it loses all credibility in Egypt and the rest of the world, said El-Baradei. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Australian dollar surges as metals prices surge, with bearish sentiment for the dollar and new liquidity pumped into the economy by the world's central banks. A recovery in China is also part of this picture.

LyrArc Article Gist
Rep. Frank is saying he will move slowly on the bill that gives government the powers to put bankholding comapnies, insurance companies, and other large financial comapnies, into receivership. Now he wnats to put in the same bill the creation of a body that would act as systemic risk regulator. So instead of next month, this may take several months. Senators Dodd and Shelby on the Senate banking committe are also inclined to move slowly. Its hard to say why, because the government has been doing this on an adhoc basis for Lehman and AIG, and it ends up costing the economy even more, and creates more uncertainty. Congress would also need to provide funds for this.

LyrArc Article Gist
The NYTimes asks whether the administration has the will to take the tough actions necessary for an effective action plan for the banks, including ownership by the government of insolvent banks, new management, haircuts for bondholders.

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ's different take on the bank rescue plans, raising the issues related to Bank of America's "forced" acquisition of Merrill by Paulson and Bernanke.

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about how Mr Geithner has handled his job at the New York Fed and at Treasury during the bailouts of financial firms. Were there close relationships with bankers, hedge fund managers, and others that compromised the Fed's ability to regulate the financial industry? Why was Geithner advocating loosening standards for the reserves financial institutions have to hold to insure against potential future losses, as late as 2007? Inherent in the design of the job of New York Fed President was a conflict of interest, as the institution is supposed to be a watchdog over the financial industry, but the President of the NY Fed reports to a board that is comprised of the heads of banks and financial instituitons. These financial leaders also participate in the selection of the new President. Geithner was a quick learner and a listener, who asked questions, but he was an outsider coming from work at AID, the IMF and Treasury. He is described by one bank executive Sanford Weill as "a baby face," and lacked experience in dealing with the financial industry. He was brought in by Rubin and Summers, two mentors at Treasury. These two had close ties to the financial industry, and did not question practices of overleveraging and risk taking in the financial industry. Was it too much to ask of Geithner, under the circumstances, that he would rock the boat and ask the tough questions about risk and leveraging. On the other hand did he miss things completely when he was asking for even looser capital standards for banks in 2007, less than a year before the crisis hit, which were never adopted. And was he too close to the financial industry and aggressive in the wrong sort of way when advocating in a meeting as President of the New York Fed, that the government back up all the debt in the financial system. Did he too casually overlook the conditions that could easily be put in place for the government to be able to recover some of the money put into the bailouts. And was he too close to Goldman Sachs, that he brought Goldman in for advice in the AIG bailout, even though there were conflicts of interest and money that would never be recovered from the $182 billion bailout of AIG, some of which went to banks including Goldman. If Geithner had seen some of the problems in risk taking why had he not supported FDIC's Bair in her opposing view for capital reserves, and government conditions on bailouts that enabled some recovery of capital put into failing financial institutions. And did he get too close to Citi, that at one point Sanford Weill tried to bring him in as CEO even when he was already President of the New York Fed. Does it go to show that -the very idea that this was even possible- the design of the New York Fed with the President reporting to the Board of the very same bank presidents that he was supposed keep in check, makes for an incomprehensible position of regulation at odds with the structure of reporting and selection....

LyrArc Article Gist
How will posterity view Angela Merkel. As she ends a fourth term this BBC News report says it will remain a contested legacy. Much of what went right has already been written. A woman, a pragmatic scientist who hewed to the center not just as a scientist but with a knack for politics. Much of her early period in office was one in which she had to tackle the eurozone crisis. The euro's weakness had its roots in the way Mr Kohl allowed eurozone membership for countries such as Greece without adequate entry requirements. Some of the other problems were also left behind by an overzealous mentor Helmut Kohl who pushed for German reunification that never really happened in terms of bringing all east Germans into the idea of the Federal Republic. These problems in a neglected eastern part of Germany around Dresden were never tackled by Merkel. They were social issues that Merkel's pragmatic thinking failed to grasp. Letting in migrants from Arab and African countries was a move that Merkel made without realizing the full implications. This policy was reversed but led to the emergence of extreme right wing sentiment in parts of the country. It is left to a future German leader to tackle the social and economic disparities that affect Germany today. As time passes people reflect and a more careful view prevails. Dr Rudiger Schmitt-Beck reflects this when he says that the Merkel years were about  a bizarre mix of modernization and backwardness. Merkel rejected nuclear energy after the events at Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan. As a scientist she was able to tackle such issues. Yet on the major social issues of the day Prof. Schmitt-Beck of the University of Mannheim, says she left Germany "grotesquely behind"- on child care, climate policy, digitization, infrastructure building, on demographic change. These are the issues that the Social Democrats and the Greens are standing up for today. Ironically Merkel may be remembered more for something that is not even mentioned in this BBC report. This is the European solidarity shown by action to financially support all EU countries including Italy with EU funding during the coronavirus pandemic.  This may be her biggest achievement because it will be lasting. Without it Europe would not be the better place it is today, resilient in the face of the pandemic.  Seen from outside Merkel will be seen as a German leader who failed to see the potential for India and other Asian countries with almost twice the population of China. Fascinated with 13 visits to China she studied Chinese history, politics and economics, says the WSJ. And did too little to balance Germany's close business and trade ties with China, with efforts in India and other countries. Seen from America as pointed out in the WSJ front page on September 23, Merkel made no effort to rebuild US relations with the Biden administration after the tumultuous period under presidents Obama with spying on her phone and with Mr. Trump over the EU's participation in NATO defense. She seemed resigned to a view that America had seen her best years, a belief that today does not exist anywhere in America. US president Biden's first phone call to Merkel was put off for a few days says the WSJ, and Merkel continued to build close ties with China, ignoring the fact that this was a new administration closer to that of presidents FDR and Harry Truman who did so much for Germany. And a president very different than any of Biden's five predecessors. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Karl Rove says Gingrich lacks organization in Iowa, and failed to get enough signatures to get on the ballot in Ohio. He did not qualify for the Missouri primary. Because organization is crucial in the primaries, this remains a Gingrich weakness. Rove reminds readers that according to CBS polls two thirds of Iowa Republicans say they can change their minds.

LyrArc Article Gist
Create small, more transparent financial institutions out of the big banks by breaking these big banks up and selling them to private equity. These big banks are too big to save, too big to manage, andprone to taking excessive risk, thus damaging the economy. Craft policy and antitrust laws so that no financial firms become too large, as this has been proven to create risks for the whole economy. Do this by dividing banks up regionally or by type of business. TARP simply contimues the old game of big banks and financial institutions. These are the views of Paul Krugman and Simon Johnson presented to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress on April 21, 2009. Also on the panel Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig who said policy measures have focussed too heavily on propping up big institutions like AIG.