LyrArc Article Gist
It looks likely that after ignoring the chances of the former Iraqi army disappearing in the war and becoming insurgents the Bush administration military has now embraced them in the form of Awakening groups in Anbar province, initially with tribal groups with ageold traditions predating even Islam but now more dangerously in Baghdad itself with former members of the Baathist military. The tribal groups have limited loyalties but are not friendly to the Shiite led government and fight among themselves. But the Baghdad Sunnis who have already suffered from the Shiite led national police and militas are hostile to the Shiite led government. This is why the movement is growing so quickly as the war against the Americans is turning into an effort by Sunnis of all kinds of politics to turn their attention to the eventual conflict that they see with the Shiites. These Awakening Groups are numbering some 65000 and could quickly reach 100,000 and are watched suspiciously by the SHiite led army and police who refuse to integrate them into the army and police making them more likely to look to money from elsewhere once the Americans stop paying them. The Americans for their part are paying them $300 per month which will cost the US military budget some 234 million dollars and save a lot of American lives and give the US already convinced that this is quite possibly a civil war situation not entirely of its own making , an opportunity to have cover for a withdrawal that shows honorable intentions to Sunni and Shiite alike. The American officers clearly say that once they withdraw there won't be anybody to administer the contracts. Would other Sunni countries like the Saudis step in with economic aid. This is a possibility. This may be why some Iraqis are actually now going back home from overseas, adefacto partition is already taking place, And the Awakening groups only provide the safety to Sunnis in their Baghdad neighborhoods. from the Shiite led police and army. Why would'nt the US simply recognize the defacto situation call it partition or anything else, its the defacto situation. Is it because that leaves most of the oil in Shiite or Kurdish areas, Basra and Kirkuk? But in effect thats what the defacto situation is because most of the oil production as figures show is from the South Oil Company in the Shiite south. See the link to the recent article WSJ Dec 13, 2007, on oil production numbers from the South Oil Company and in the north. Of 2.5 million barrels 2 million barrels came from South Oil and 500,000 from the north. Not much of the oil money is going to the Sunni areas anyway and the national government members are not willing to even meet with the Sunni representatives in some areas. From the larger standpoint of oil supply in world markets and oil prices this means that the current increase supply into world markets will see two new phases. For a while there will be good supply as the insurgency settles down to prepare for a sunni led government in sunni areas under cover of US protection and withdrawal because violence against pipelines ect will diminish. The when the US withdraws this production will decline for a period as the sunnis and shiites form their own separate governments. After that as peace settles down on the region in a kind of coexistence of sunni and shiite governments oil production in Iraq will see a modernization and significant increase. As the new Shhite government will need a lot of money to fund reconstruction of its areas Iraq may hav an incentive to really bump up production like the Russians did afterthe Yeltsin chaotic years. Note that of the $2.4 billion oil investment budget for 2007, only 30% of this was spent in 2007 according to the link WSJ Dec 13, 2007, even though the industry is using dilapidated and old equipment and facilities and badly needs investment, so the impact of a real modernization and investment once the country's Shiiites and Sunnis have their own governments and coexist and peace settles in the region would be huge increase in oil supply. In this sense this is why its been so difficult to understand oil prices and supplies. Twisters have been thrown into the works for the Iraq area because of the civil war situaton and for Iran the nuclear situation and the rhetoric simply complicated matters even as Iranian production was declining and its internal demand growing. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Major decline in oil prices in Oct. 2014 as prices drop to $81 per barrel and are forecast to reach $70. U.S. oil production increased by about 56% or 3.1 million barrels a day since 2004. U.S. demand for gas and fuel declined 8% compared to 2004. Initially instability and wars in the Middle East sustained high oil prices in 2012-2013. Yet with growing output from shale and other sources in N. America and slowing economies of Europe and China, the situation reached a point in 2014 where supply exceeds demand. This shift more than offsets any instability in trouble spots. The situation affects the U.S. consumer favorably with an estimate of $1 billion in savings for American consumers with every one cent drop in price at the gas pump, by one estimate from Deutsche Bank analysts. Typical American families gained an extra $50 a month from the decline June to October 2014, according to analysts at Gasbuddy.com. The declines are a boost for the slowing economies of Europe, Japan, China, S, Korea and India. China's imports for 2015 are estimated at 61% of oil consumption, using official estimates. In the current slowdown the lower prices offer relief. India which imports 75% of its energy benefits signficantly, as this helps lower inflation and reduces cost of fuel subsidies for state run companies. Russia is adversely affected by the declines as it depends on oil and gas exports for 50% of the nation's budget. Estimates by AFK Sistema economists show the Russian economy contracting in 2015 with oil at near $90 per barrel (Brent crude is at about $85, and WTI at $81 in early Oct. 2014). Russia's former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin reflects opinion among Russian executives and politicians, when he told state television that Saudi Arabia may be pushing prices lower to target Russia's oil resource based economy and Mr. Putin, in an effort to broaden the effect of sanctions. (The Saudis have strongly protested the Putin intervention in Syria.) Venezuela has used $120 per barrel and Angola $98 for its budget, leading to a strong hit for the economy. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Applebaum talks to two researchers at the University of Chicago and Princeton, Prof. Sufi and Prof. Mian, on the record of U.S. president Obama and Fed chairman Bernanke in helping homeowners facing foreclosure and underwater borrowers, comparing that record with their record in helping the banks. The issue is relevant as the policy and handling of homeowners had to be part of an overall effective plan for recovery in the U.S. economy, because ultimately without the U.S. consumer any recovery would be weak in the long run- a situation the U.S. faces in early 2014. The response to the issue of irresponsible homeowners borrowing beyond the limit without an equally robust response to irresponsible bank management that allowed wildly excessive leveraging of assets, and successful aggressive lobbying by banks in a shortsighted policy of going through with a wave of foreclosures; besides creating questions of fairness and equitable handling of the problem, also had major ramifications for the future of the U.S. and global economic growth. Here Christina Romer and other administration advisors say Bernanke was right in tackling the problem from the perspective of the banks needing to be recapitalized. Thoughtful advisors looking at the entire problem, Martin Feldstein and Sheila Bair strongly pushed for providing the same help to homeowners without getting caught up in the issue of who was responsible home buyers or the banks, and looking at the interests of the U.S. economy and the U.S. people. Proposals by Feldstein and Bair were equally robust in helping banks as they were in helping homeowners, only the banks understood their interests narrowly and had more access to policymakers in the Bush, as well as the Obama administration, Paulson as well as Geithner. This leaves us with the ultimate irony of the Obama administration pushing for the minimum wage, even to the point of electoral posture, when lasting damage had been inflicted on homeowners from the weaker portions of America's middle class by a policy that went against what two respected financial and economic experts from the Reagan period, Sheila and Bair had strongly advocated. See links and groups on Feldstein and Bair. Applebaum has followed most aspects of this problem closely and continues to provide exceptional reporting including the piece on the thinking of new Fed chairman, Janet Yellen. Private enterprise rules that require management at banks just as for other companies to take responsibility for failures, and be replaced with new management, was largely avoided leading to a fundamental failure in how a free market economy such as the U.S. and western European economies are supposed to function. Rules aggressively pushed by Geithner's mentor Treasury Secretary Rubin for a vigorous cleanup at banks in South Korea during a similiar situation in 1997, were not followed in any way here, also setting wrong precedents for the long run. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The recent appointment of fast food executive Andrew Puzder as Labor Secretary has caused great concern among union leaders. Puzder supports a $9 minimum wage compared to $15 supported by Democrats. Unions now represent 7% of the labor force, down from a high of 20% during Reagan's time when Reagan appointed a construction company executive as Labor Secretary and cut regulations.  Globalization has thinned the ranks of workers in unions. And the failure of Democratic administrations to stem the shift of factories overseas to China, Mexico and other places, as part of global supply chains focussed on cost, has weakened Democratic support among workers since the period of Bill Clinton. It eroded to the point where Obama won 65% of support among unions and Hillary Clinton won 56% in 2016. Interestingly the Republican Romney gained 33% versus 37% for Trump, showing voters were more inclined to move away from Democrats and only a smaller number willing to support Republicans, but the shift enough to give Republicans a win in 2016 for the presidency. The figures are from a Election Day survey of trade union AFL-CIO, and a larger proportion in midwestern states showed disaffection with policies from Clinton to Obama. In fact Obama spent years promoting another free trade agreement TPP that favored tech more than auto and older industries, just as Bill Clinton had promoted NAFTA, without giving thought to what this was doing to its worker base of support. A similar situation happened with Social Democrats in Germany as a SPD administration moved to the centre and handed Christian Democrats led by Merkel a win in parliamentary elections. As Democrats such as former Labor Secretary Reich, a professor at UC Berkeley who served under Bill Clinton, describe the problems of working class people their is less reflection on the impact of the changes from globalization and how Democrats handled or mishandled it, and more on the politics between the two parties.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This televised debate of Republican presidential candidates focussed on Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. Rick Perry said he would impose sanctions on Iran's central bank, something the Obama administration is reluctant to do because it might disrupt international oil markets. Romney and Gingrich said they would use military action if other measures failed. Huntsman called for a complete withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, saying: "This nation's future is not in Afghanistan. this nation's future is not in Iraq." Ron Paul said hw opposed military interventions in conflicts overseas. Perry and Gingrich said U.S. aid to Pakistan should be suspended because Pakistan was not a reliable partner.

LyrArc Article Gist
Nikos Voutsis, Greece's interior minister, says Greece lacks the money to make debt repayments of 1.6 billion euros to the IMF in June 2015. A proposal by the Left Platform, a faction within Syriza party led by energy minister Lafazanis, which has support of 30 of the 149 Syriza representatives in the Greek parliament, calls for not making debt repayments and looking for an alternate plan. It was defeated by the central committee of the Syriza party on May 24, 2015, with the vote 95 to 75 showing intense opposition within Syriza. Instead Syriza voted for a proposal to call for mutually beneficial negotiations and a deal that would preserve its core goals- a low target for the primary budget surplus, avoid more cuts to pensions, and restructuring Greece's debt to include an investment plan for economic recovery. Both sides in the negotiations, the EU/IMF and Syriza government in Greece, reached an impasse as the negotiating tactics of finance minister Varoufakis led to German finance minister Schauble also taking a tougher stance, saying he could not rule out Greece defaulting on its debt. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Journal editorial outlines steps the Obama administration must take for Libya. It calls for decisive military action before Ghadafi suppresses the democratic protests in Libya and points to the dangers of not acting now.

LyrArc Article Gist
The views being currently argued in meetings with the President about the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Vice President Biden's view: Completely change the goal and strategy. Scale down the military presence. Change the goal from protecting the people from the Taliban- and note that reports on the ground suggest that the people are indifferent and see the Americans and the Taliban as equally bad, with the Americans as foreigners far worse, see Doris Kearns others- to accelerated training of the Afghan forces to fight the Taliban. The focus of US interests would shift to Pakistan. Biden points to the disparity for every $1 spent in Pakistan $30 goes to Afghanistan, and the US real interests lie in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The US would work with Pakistan to take out Al Quaeda in the border regions. And the proof is that this is working, as Al Quaeda figures have been taken out with Pakistan's help. Counterinsurgency would be replaced by counter terrorism so the US doesn't get bogged down in support of a failing government. The fraud in the recent elections and increasing isolation and loss of support for the Karzai government, supported by unofficial evidence from the ground, make this a serious option, especially as President Obama knows the Karzai government does not merit support and presents a losing proposition. The second view is that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton- Ike Shelton of Missouri on the Armed Services Committee and Leslie Gelb (see links) share this view- who said in an interview on PBS, "Well Al Quaeda's no longer in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast Al Quaeda would be back in Afghanistan." The problem with this view is that the US has only a limited presence in a large mountainous country with the difficult terrain that Afghanistan has, and its not American ground troops that have done the damage in taking out Al Quaeda, its mostly high tech drones. WIth a wider engagement and expanded US ground troops in support of a failing government, that is alleged to have corrupt and narcoltics connections, the popular support would dwindle to the point that the extra troops would not be seen as protecting the population- because how do you protect a people who simply don't care or are suspicious of you? The solution requires some sort of settlement with the Taliban, which guarantees that it not serve as a haven for Al Quaeda. Progress with schools and modernization would have to be, at least in the short run, be given upon the basis of the U.S. coming to terms with what it can and cannot accomplish at an acceptable cost, and the idea of vital interests not lying in Afghanistan but Pakistan. The missing elements in this puzzle would help this strategy, bringing together key countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to assume greater joint responsibilities and abandon the entire postindependence. approach to relations. The third view is that presented by Bruce Reidel, who led the Obama administration's strategy review of Afghaistan and Pakistan earlier this year, and is based on pragmatic considerations and the unofficial information on the ground. Reidel puts it this way: "A counterinsurgency can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner, and thats in doubt now." And he goes on to say "part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that thay are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election." For a complete change in policy and focus Obama would have to admit that he now has different information, and he is willing to admit to have misread the situation during the first 6 months and during the campaign. That is a test of leadership, being able to change after looking at the reality of the situation and digesting it fully. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Bush administration's and Paulson's thinking that letting the government buy parts of the banking system was unthinkable, as recently as late September, may have led to squandering of valuable time. Now Paulson is following Gordon Brown's lead in planning an injection of capital in banks in return for equity stakes, using much of the $700 billion Congress has authorized, and Paulson says the package that passed Congress gives Treasury all the authority it needs to do so. The failure to be open to this thinking earlier may have cost valuable time in addressing this crisis. And now there are second thoughts on whether it was wise to let Lehman fall into bankruptcy, because the Administration had not correctly anticipated or calculated the true cost of the Lehmann bankruptcy in terms of the way it created a crisis in the rest of the financial system. Paulson has still not taken Gordon Brown's lead in guaranteeing lending between the banks which the British are doing as part of their plan. Is the administration too slow in its response and a bit wrongheaded or stubborn headed as each step of the crisis has moved faster than its ability to respond, and its response being one step behind. Frederic Mishkin of Columbia University a former Fed Governor says, "if you delay and create uncertainty, the amount of money you have to put up goes up." It appears from Paulson's remarks over time first turning down proposals for capital injection into banks for equity stakes, and now in making that route central to his plan, that Paulson and Bernanke simply did not anticipate the shutting down of credit markets and the collapse of stock market prices that occurred, and they had no backup plan prepared for a situation such as this. And on top of this the backup plan they went out to sell to Congress turned out to be short on details and in this sense naive for the amount requested. And then by refusing to consider alternatives such as capital injection for equity stakes, it was wrong headed, if not closed minded. William Poole who retired in August as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, says that " I am not aware that Treasury presented any evidence on auctions that have been successful when they are used for assets that are so heterogenous", referring to the reverse auctions that would take weeks to set up and would be terribly complicated to buy up troubled assets, as part of the plan presented to Congress in but 3 pages. Now the plan appears to be to let Fannie and Freddie, which were given $100 billion by the Treasury as authorized by Congress, to move ahead with the purchase of troubled mortgage securities, something for which Fannie and Freddie have the capabilities. In the end the crisis in confidence and near panic generated in the markets and the climate of fear may go way beyond the actual losses incurred from debt securities, and some of this may be the result of a clumsy and poorly thought out approach by Bernanke and Paulson. The cost of fixing the problem will be higher and the recession more prolonged because of this. It is a situation of capable people blinded by ideological reasons to see what is happening and in Bernanke's case not making enough of a case to Treasury about his reservations and his own thinking that capital injection was the right approach, as people familiar with the early planning say Bernanke argued that it would be easier and more efficient to inject capital directly into banks. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
After S&P downgraded 17% of its Triple A-rated structured finance securities in 2010, the company has faced intense scrutiny about how it rates securities. Mark Adelson joined S&P in May 2008. He is the chief credit officer of S&P, and the man most responsible for S&P's efforts to reestablish its credibility as a ratings firm. He worked for Moody's in the late 1990's, before joining the research team at Nomura Securities in 2001. Adelson made changes to the S&P ratings system for mortgage securities in 2009, which resulted in cutting the ratings of 68% of its commercial-mortgage securities. Adelson also helped set the new S&P criteria on sovereign debt rating issued on June 30, 2011.

LyrArc Article Gist
Joe Nocera describes his personal situation which also reflects the situation of the average investor in his 401(K) for retirement - inexperience in handling the boom-bust cycles in the market and loss of savings, especially in the last two decades with sharp swings in the market. The Employee Benefit Research Institute statistics on savings of the average American are striking, dismal is the right word- only 22% of workers 55 or older have more than $250,000 set aside for retirement, and 60% have less than $100,000 in a retirement account. The average savings of an American near retirement are $100,000.

LyrArc Article Gist
The European Commission is making efforts to reduce the influence of the ratings of credit ratings agencies. ECB president Mario Draghi says- "We should'nt make too much of these ratings changes by the ratings agencies." With the poor performance of the ratings agencies in putting warning flags on the credit boom in Greece- leaving it to the IMF's Dutch official Bob Traa to sound the warning in mid-2009- there is considerable concern about the reliability of ratings in correctly evaluating risk.