LyrArc Article Gist
Adam Bryant interviews Steve Case, founder of AOL online, on the lessons learned from the failure of the AOL Time Warner merger and failures in execution.

LyrArc Article Gist
A brief history of Xinjiang which translates as New Frontier in Chinese. Its the western frontier of China and a vast area that comprises the desert region of the Tarim basin. It has 13 sizeable ethnic minority groups and borders eight countries. Because of the lack of irrigation technologies these arid expanses were settled very late in history, says Victor Mair, a Professor of Chinese language and literature at the University of Pennsylvania. Even the Uighurs were tribes from the Mongolian steppes who settled Xinjiang in the 10th century. For China it was mostly aplace for havin border military garrisons. Around the 10th century and the Tang dynasty in China, trade on the Silk Road- with places like Kashgar oasis towns on the fringes of the desert as hubs- was at its height. It was not until 1760 under the Quing dynasty of ethnic Manchus, that this area was annexed by CHina and serious effort made to settle it with demobilized troops. A civil and military administration encouraged immigration, say scholars Millward and Perdue in a 2004 book of essays by 16 scholars, "Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland." About 50,000 demobilized troops were offered benefits, seeds and land if they stayed. A similiar situation seems to have been repeated after Mao annexed Xinjiang in 1949. In the early 1950's the Chinese government established the Xinjiang Province Production and COnstruction Corps, which was setup to manage large farms and construction projects called bingtuan and provide jobs for demobilized troops. The bingtuan are profitable enterprises and an estimated one of every six people in Xinjiang are employed in bingtuan, or 1.3 million people. THe HAn who were 6% of the population in 1949, now comprise 40% of the 20 million population of Xinjiang. Another source of employment is in the oil and gas industry, with the Communist party secretary of Xinjiang for the last 15 years being aprotege of President Hu Jintao, from his days in the Communist Youth League, coming from the oil industry province of of Shandong. These jobs are mostly all reserved for Chinese which causes resentment among the local Uighurs. Wong quotes a Uighur university student as saying, who is the foreigner here and whose culture, language and way of life should be protected. This may be the crux of the grievances of the Uighurs, as their use of the language and religious practice is restricted, and they feel they are second class citizens in their own land. Other articles in the NYT and Economist go to point out that the links with international terrrism are not a source of the problem, and the unrest among the Uighurs is more about a feeling of loss of culture, language, religion and identity, and jobs. And the idea that the best way to work with minorities, or regions with different language, religion and culture, just as the British did in South Asia and India is doing now is through tolerance. See the links to NYT and Michael Wines on 7/11/2009 about the Communist party secretary for Xinjiang, Wang Lequang, whose policies in Xinjiang and now in Tibet through a protege, may be worsening this situation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Greece's political parties negotiated through the night of Feb. 9, 2012, over the details of the 130 billion euro aid package from the EU and the conditions laid out by the troika of the EU, IMF and ECB. The political leaders Papandreou and Samaras agreed on wage cuts -with a 22% cut in the minimum wage- and public sector job cuts, but resisted deep cuts in pension benefits which would leave a 300 million euros shortfall in 2012 budget targets. This is part of 3 billion euros in austerity measures set by the EU finance ministers as a condition for further aid. Another sticking point was the serious consideration given by the EU, according to EU economics commissioner Olli Rehn, that the 130 billion euros be placed in a special escrow account so that Greece's private creditors would be paid from the account before money was taken out for the Greek budget. This was seen by Greek political parties as an infringement of Greek sovereignty. The EU is requiring all the main political parties in Greece give written pledges agreeing to the program and the Greek parliament voting to approve it. The language used by Greece's finance minister, Evangelos Venizelos, as he put the choice to Greece, shows the difficult choices facing Greece, Venizelos said: "If we see our future and the salvation of the country in the euro zone, in Europe, we must do what we must do in order for the program to definitely be approved...If our country, our people prefer another political decision that necessarily leads out of the euro zone and therefore outside European integration, we have to say this clearly to ourselves and to our compatriots." Because the agreement is designed to get Greece's debt to 120% of GDP by 2020- it asks for a decade of austerity measures. Some experts say Greece is better of defaulting like Argentina and going back to the drachma to recover export competitiveness. Another factor complicating this is the rapidity with which the Greek situation is deteriorating and the lack of political consensus on austerity measures, with all poltical parties enjoying less than 25% support in the country making political party pledges meaningless. Elections are due in April 2012. The EU and Germany may be too focussed on getting through a March 20 deadline for a bond payment of 14.5 billion euros- because of nervous financial markets- and not able to gets its hands around the problem of long term unemployment and deteriorating economic situation facing Greece. Greece's unemployment rate increased from 18.2% to 20.9% in just one month from October 2011 to Nov. 2011, according to Elstat, the government statistics agency. Another difficulty is that the EU ministers may see the achievement of European unity as progressing without any pauses and corrections of course, as if in a straight line, when achievements of a vision of this kind take many years and problem solving; where even a Greek withdrawal from the EU could be a temporary step towards eventually rejoining in a better EU framework. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
President George Bush said in 2005, that if someone wanted to get a glimpse of how he thinks on foreign policy, he should read Nathan Sharansky's book "The Case for Democracy." Sharansky was an aide to soviet physicist and human rights advocate Andrei Sakharov. Here he is interviewed by David Feith of the Wall Street Journal. His outspoken activism in favor of the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate got him 9 years in the Soviet Gulag. He was released from prison in 1986, with the strong support of President Reagan. He emigrated to Israel and served in ministerial posts and in the Israeli parliament. Sharansky says the recent protests in Egypt prove his fundamental points. That there are limits to how much you can control people through the use of fear, and that all people, regardless of religion and culture, desire and want freedom. This is a very human message, it showed its power when the Berlin Wall fell, and it is true today in the Arab world. He says the fear that this endangers the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is not well founded. Over the last 30 years the border with Syria has been quiet, because it is really Israeli deterrance that is responsible for this and the quiet border with Egypt. He adds there is no justification for Mubarak remaining, as it only creates hostility in the Arab world against the US and Israel. And he says that Mubarak was no friend of the Jewish people, because even as he made peace with Israel, he continued to let anti-Semitism thrive and used Jews as the enemy to enhance his control. Sharansky says Gaza and Hamas control after the election was an unusual situation because of the corruption of the people around Arafat, so that even Christian villages supported Hamas. And he says the longer a dictatorship is in place the worse the situation becomes in creating more hostility to all those who support the dictatorship, including the US and Israel. For Sharansky, the Obama adminstration's response to the Iranian protests after what is seen as a stolen election in Iran, were one of the greatest betrayals of freedom in modern history. To prevent a one time, one person, one vote, Sharansky says the democratic institutions have to take root and this will take more than 8 months, so guarantees need to be put in place that this is not allowed to happen. Safeguards put in place to ensure that whoever is elected cannot survive if democratic institutions and reforms and democracy building does not occur. Dissidents like Mr Ibrahim and others should enjoy the ability to build trade unions and women's organizations. Sharansky says this is a real chance, a chance for the US and the free world to become a partner in change. In change that will help Egypt pass the town square test. Can people freely protest and express their grievances in the town square. And move from this fundamental change to establishing democratic processes and institutions. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The NYT Editorial on June 2, 2009, says the Obama anti-foreclosure plan is woefully inadequate, and can't stop the wave of foreclosures. The administration's foreclosure plan that went into effect in March 2009, offers upto $75 billion in incentives to lenders to reduce loan payments for homeowners facing foreclosure. Lender participation is largely voluntary under the Obama plan, making it weak. Since March about 100,000 homeowners have been offered a modification according to the Treasury Department. This is a small dent in the plan's intent of preventing 4 million foreclosures. And it continues the Bush administration's apathy and lack of effective action to prevent foreclosures. The Mortgage Bankers Association reported that in the first quarter 2009 5.4 million mortgages were delinquent or facing foreclosure. There are 15.4 million "underwater" homeowners, those who have no equity in their homes, and with average person deeply in credit card and other debt, these people have little to fall back on if they lose their jobs or have a medical crisis. The simple arithmetic of these 15.4 and the 5.4 million, adding upto 20.8 million households, shows that anywhere near a fifth of American households are in deep financial trouble. The same numbers, or another fifth of American households, are approaching foreclosure. Drawing concentric circles of these homeowners inside a circle showing all American households, and seeing these concentric circles increasing in size with every quarter of job losses, one can clearly see why this is the biggest problem facing the economy. Job losses in January 598,000, February 681,000, March 699,000, April 539,000, totalling 2.5 million for Jan-April 2009, and 8.9 million working parttime. The underemployment rate at 15.8%. Till this foreclosure situation exacerbated by rising under employment is addressed, the credit easing and the small recovery thats been managed since December 2009, is like a mirage in the desert. A false sense of comfort. The NYT editorial makes the point that the foreclosures prevention efforts focus entirely on reducing monthly payments. Even here it falls short, in not reducing the payments enough, or programs not big enough in scope to address the millions of homeowners needing help. But an even bigger problem remains unaddressed, says the NYT, and this is not reducing the principal. An effective anti- foreclosure plan has to reduce the principal for the 15.4 million homeowners under water. This as Martin Feldstein has argued repeatedly in the oped pages of the WSJ since early 2008- the homeowners under water or approaching that situation have no incentive to hold onto their homes- has to be addressed by government taking responsibility for loan principal reduction in a carefully designed plan requiring participation of lenders. NYT points out that the mortgage industry has resisted taking this approach, and the Obama plan does not emphasize this important part of an effective plan to reduce foreclosures. By opposing this, the banks with the toxic mortgage assets and the government by going along with this, are shooting themselves in the foot. This makes any recovery at best weak, and more likely a false hope lacking fundamental support, foresight and vision....

LyrArc Article Gist
Andrew Rosenfeld, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, and chief executive of an investment advisory firm, says the Public-Private Investment Program proposed by Secretary Geithner has serious flaws. It risks government money, and expects too little from private investors. The government will essentially finance the private investor's purchase of these toxic assets at an auction, with the private investors putting some money of their own, to buy these assets at prices emerging from the auction. It runs right smack into the problem that Secretary Paulson under President Bush faced when he suggested the auction plan as a way for these toxic assets to be sold off to buyers. It was never clear how shuch an auction would work, and whether it would work at all. Meantime the worsening credit crisis required direct injection of capital into banks. Now Secretary Paulson's abandoned effort has been essentially revived in the Geithner program, with the same problems but with the carrot of government taking up most of the risk with its financing. Rosenfeld argues that under this plan the government assumes all the risk of losses, and if private investors make too much money off of it it will create a public outcry and the risk of an AIG type situation. This might lead to lower bids and the money generated for the banks might end up being too small to make a difference. There is a better way he says, and this is for the government using existing authority to seize banks that look insolvent. Its fairer because the government will own the toxic asets, and the bank, and the proceeds for the sale of the bank, and these would be offsetting the cash that it would inject to recapitalize the bank. The way it would do it is to inject cash in the form of Treasury notes as equity in the bank, and at the same time remove the bank's toxic assets and place them in the basement of the Treasury building, while it waits to see what they turn out to be worth. Bank regulators would swap Treasury securties for the toxic assets "at par," which is at the amount of the original purchase price of assets removed. Within a short time, a month or a few months, the bank could be sold to private investors. This is sounder because it takes away the pricing problem which looks like its never going to be resolved, as banks and investors are never going to agree on toxic asset price. And the new bank could start clean and start lending flowing in the economy. If the bank turns out to be so badly managed and with so many bad bets that it cannnot be sold, its essentially insolvent and irrecoverable, so it should be liquidated. Nobel winner Krugman says some of the same things in his columns in the NYT. He has a sense of despair seeing the return of the failed Paulson solution of auctions with a new twist, even as the economy is flailing in the wind, with job loss numbers over 600,000 and jumping each month....

LyrArc Article Gist
Luis Gutierrez, Charirman of the subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, has a bill in Congress that is presented as a reform effort by the lending industry, many Republicans and some consumers. It would allow payday operators in the $50 billion payday lending industry, to charge what amounts to an annual percentage rate of 391%. Rep. Maxine Walters described the bill this way, "we've got to resist any attempt to make it look as if we are cracking down, when in fact we are opening the door to more abuse." This is what Countrywide's Mozilo does in a interview with BW, that he gave at the time the housing and mortgage crisis was breaking open in 2008. And this is the way those in both political parties in Congress, lobbyists, and businessmen who profited from all the unethical things that went on in the housing lending industry, all worked together to undermine the foundations of the country's economy by putting toxic assets at the centre of the credit and banking system of the US. They did this by saying that they were helping the poorer classes get access to housing, and used the term "a piece of the American dream," which seems to be the phrase that opens all sorts of caves in the American imagination, like Ali Baba and his magic lamp and his magic phrase did in Arabian times. And so the NYT editorial writer, facing the greater evil suggests that a smaller evil, an usurious rate of 36% that is an option afforded to military families is a desirable option, when at that rate the loan numbers would double in less than 3 years. All this when the government at federal state and local levels could assume this among the many activities it already undertakes, because it does best those activities, such as some of the public transportation and other services. The government bank could require proof of desperate need, and provide loans for purposes of medical care, care of elderly, care of children, educational needs, food and shelter needs, at rates of 10-15% to make up for losses in loans not repaid, and run it as a nonprofit. Capitalism is also of the good kind and the bad kind, the 391% payday loan capitalism or the loans at pricing that made them unaffordable to low income people, or loans to low income people who did not have incomes to afford housing (where the risk was then passed on to the owners of the securities after a false sertification of A rating had been obtained by undermining the rating process) is a bad kind of capitalism, and the 36% usurious rate for military families is of the tolerably bad kind of capitalism, and the 10-15% kind of payday government sponsored loan is of the good kind of capitalism. And critical to its understanding is what experience has taught us in the last 100 years- that for this good kind of capitalism, there is a critical social role for the government to play. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Consideration is a term being used in Detroit auto company marketing efforts, if a customer gives little consideration to a company or brand or if its not on his list of brands or companies to consider, then snap you are not even in the running. The customer does not even visit your dealer showrooms, and no matter how well you make your cars its not going to make a difference. It has to take a lot of neglect of customers for this sort of situation to arise, but its exactly the situation Detroits auto companies face. They are trying marketing ploys such as this one by Ford's advertising agency, but its impact is uncertain. The efforts at GM also focus on marketing but again efforts to put Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys in Saturn dealerships next to the Saturn Aura, for side by side test drives have not had much impact on Aura sales. So a similiar effort for the Chevrolet Malibu in Chevy dealerships has been scrapped. There is even skepticism that a lifetime warranty on engines and transmissions by Chrysler on its vehicles will have much impact, so large is the customer resistance and ingrained perception of American car manufacturers. Over time perceptions may change but it will take a while to convince the American customer who feels he was once treated with disdain, and who will give a good hard look at things before he changes his mind. The figures bear this out. Years of neglect of car buying public and focus on SUV's and trucks is showing up in a 51.3 % share of the market for the American Three companies down from 60% 4 years ago. So half the market has pretty much been conceded to the likes of Honda and Toyota. Actually in the West and East coasts the numbers probably range to 60% and 70% depending on the local area in these 2 regions. So that means more established dealerships for cars, years of marketing effort focussed on cars, sales contacts and so that may take years to dislodge to any degree. The figures behind consideration by JD Powers show that 54% of car buyers are import loyalists, a slightly higher figure than the 51.3% showing that the trend is even more defection to imports in the 1-3 years ahead. And 22% consider both domestic and import cars. With this segment there is more selection in the imports beause only now are the American Three carmakers building up their car model lineups, especially Ford, so this will be ahard fought segment with no certainty that the Detroit Three carmakers will come out on top given the lead and established networks of the carmakers like Toyota and Honda. Only 25% are domestic or American carmaker loyal. A lot may depend on the way a customer is treated from reading letters to the editor in the media by buyers of US and import cars. A car buyer treated with no respect and sincere concern for his needs and preferneces is likely to remember the treatment for a long time. Not just products but attitudes and people in sincerity will have to change....

LyrArc Article Gist
What Handan Iron and Steel in Hebei Province 300 miles south of Beijing and ThyssenKrupp in Dortmund, Germany, have in common. The transplanting of Germany's aging defunct iron and steel furnaces and plant to Handan, boxed and crated away- its unreal that in 1998 Handan Iron and Steel bought and transferred an aging polluting plant to a city where the steel works are located in China which has 8.5 million residents. When years later the steel works were debated to be moved to a distance away from the city with Baoshan Steel, the decision was made to instead put a new plant there instead. The solution was to make pollution payments to residents of Handan. It was Mao's dream to build a steel industry in Hebei province ,which has large deposits of iron ore and coal and a rail line. Couple of questions come up to mind- one why did the first steel works go up right in Handan, and same is true of Dortmund, labor supply perhaps but couldn't homes be built nearby instead and these plants located away from cities. Second the deal for bringing the ThyssenKrupp plants was as recent as 1998, by this time China was already a big steel producer (producing more than the US by one estimate) and in a few years Chinese steel production was to exceed the US, Europe and Japan combined. With steel production already on the rise why didn't China move more carefully. Some of the Thyssen Krupp assets were built only a few years before 2000 and met stringent environmental control. China bought these.. Why didn't China pick out the best assets instead of old aging blast furnaces. The possible answers are that they were available at cut rate prices, but were they worth it. The second is that Hebei must be competing with other parts of China, and there wasn't a rational allocation of capital as would happen if a sophiticated company like a Mittal or a Tata Steel is involved. Is China operating on a outmoded concept- nationalism, competition between provinces with local government officials running the show? The other question is that in the case of the automobile industry a different pattern is seen, the most modern technology was selected , and in the case of Cherry, the most recent technology was selected for manufacturing cars, then why was this same pattern not adopted in the case of steel. In the end China has a surplus of steel mills, which makes this rush into steel production without carefully thinking through this appear to have been a mistake. The visual picture if one flies into Dortmund of manmade lakes, green park areas and residential housing and shopping from the $22 billion the EU and Germany are investing to turn the Ruhr valley region of Dortmund into a centre of education, technology and tourism now contrasts sharply with Handan in Hebei province. Can emerging countries do better, build manufacturing for jobs but keep living conditions in mind, be patient and work to achieve the best overall results, and build education, technology, appropriate for their own situation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Important year end reveiw of the oil price forecasting work of so many anlaysts and where they failed . The IEA and the US Enery Dpt forecast have year after year underestimated this pirce by over 20%. Analysts change the price forecasts within a couple of weeks based on changing information and assumptions. Of all this the Saudi Arabian forecasts have ben within 12 % of what has actually ocurred according to a study by Ronald Berger Strategy Consultants of Muich, Germany. And whats their forecast for 2008. By extrapolating from the Saudi budget and the assumptions, used such as giving a wide margin to avoid a deficit in the budget if oil prices undershot by a wide margin, one gets $75 for US benchmark crude. Forecast by experts are in the neighborhood of $80 average for the whole year 2008. Goldman recently revised theirs upwards from $85 average for 2008 to $95 within a 4 week period. How good is the Goldman forecast. No one really knows. Lehman has a forecast of $84 average for 2008 and bases it on the opacity of the market because no one knows what OPEC will do with supply and China does not provide good information on demand. So basically anlysts are adding an uncertainty premium to the price of oil. And this is especially so because as the Chief Economist at IEA says global space capacity is so thin and any event can influence price. Last year the rhetoric about Irans nuclear intentions was enough to stir up the price, as were other smaller events disrupting supplies. But the Iranian situation has since cooled down and diplomatic solutions are in the works. So what to expect in 2008 in the way of political uncertainty. Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon have all seen a cool off in the ast couple of years and the Bush administration rhetoric has become outmoded as has other rhetoric from Iran so that does'nt look like it will stir up oil prices in 2008. Still there will be some uncertainty premium about supply from OPEC and demand from China and India. And demand from the Middle Eastern oil producing countries themselves as well as the increasing demand in India and China will mean that lower demand in the US because of a recession will still mean an increase in global demand over 2007 of 1.5 million barrrels a day over 2007's 85 million barrels a day. What will change the dynamics of this situation is the government mandated fuel economy for all vehicles on the road with Europe more aggressive in this area under the pressures of global warming. If this impacts India, China and Russia as these fuel saving technologies are transferrred there overall consumption should see an impact. Europe's targets are only 4 years away for 2012. And the environment may cause China to bring in newer technologies that both contribute to improving environment and conserving energy. Because China's environmental record is almost catastrophic one could see some of this happen much sooner than expected after the Olympics in 2008. All that might change the way the world looks at oil and its use, and all energy sources and their use. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
People with doubts about Obama and McCain being agents of change or just bearers of the latest popular slogan for electioneering, would benefit from looking at the details gathered by the New York Times about the two candidates ties to lobbyists. Obama is second only to Senator Dodd in the amount of donations received from employees and PAC's of the 2 companies Fannie and Freddie. Mr McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, is a longtme lobbyist, and previously was head of Homeownership Alliance. Homeownership Alliance is a coalition of banks and housing industry interests led by Fannie and Freddie to counter another organization FM Watch, which was an alliance of financial institutions and lobbying associations that wanted to even the playing field against Freddie and Fannie by challenging the implicit government guarantee that allowed them to borrow funds at lower rates. And both candidate's vetters for vice Presidential picks have links to Fannie. Its former chairman, James Johnson, initially led Obama's search committee and Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., McCain's vetter was a Fannie Mae lobbyist. For McCain, confidant and adviser, Charlie Black, and deputy Finance Chairman, Wayne L. Berman, lobbied for the 2 companies. For Obama, Robert Tsien, Freddie Mac VP, and directors. William Lewis , Brenda Gaines, a Chicago businesswoman, come up as names of contributors. There are so many such names right at the top of these two candidates advisors, that it makes one wonder seriously who are these people fooling when they make statements about Fannie and Freddie- like the one made recently by McCain about Fannie and Freddie enriching their executives by millions of dollars while things were going downhill, and the picturesque phrase "going to hell in a handbasket". And did he talk to Rick Davis about this. And Obama did he talk to James Johnson about this, and Brenda Gaines? One, McCain is a maverick yes, meaning he is independent, and the other can talk intellectually and excite young people about the future, but its a thin veneer, when all is said and done both promote their careers above anything else, and the difference is in degrees with one perhaps more than the other. And people have short memories. The Times reminds us that McCain was one of the "Keating Five" senators investigated by the Senate, accused of interceding with federal regulators for the operator of a failing thrift and received a rebuke. This is what Paul Gigot, who as editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal has directed the investigative reporting on Fannie and Freddie for years, says in his recent column about all the dishonesty and failure and efforts to corrupt the whole political system across the political spectrum with lobbying and donations and tactics. In a note of pessimism he says "not that either presidential candidate is interested." Quite a comment on the political system. Which is also why Vincent Reinhart, who headed the Monetary affairs section at the Federal Reserve, when asked about the bailouts of Bear Stearns and of Fannie and Freddie, and the help Detroit auto companies are seeking, on Bloomberg News on September 8, 2008, said that "free markets is a thin veneer" when things really get rough. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Journal's Jeff Bennett talks with Rodney O'Neal, the CEO of Delphi Automotive. O'Neal says Delphi's success depends on focussing on advanced technologies where emerging market producers are less able to compete. He has focussed on 33 product lines which are 'green,' safe' and connected.' If it doen't create value then revenue and cost numbers are wrong, is O'Neal's lesson from the bankruptcy filing. He likes the chaotic discussion coming form strong debate, where views are expressed with passion and counterpoints made, and he takes this debate seriously, because as he sees it choosing the right course is a significant task in itself, which takes much time to correct if wrong. There are major improvements in emission and fuel economy ahead and a high tech future for the automobile industry. He see America's future in high-tech where America can do better than emerging market producers, and ensuring that the steady flow of exceptional American talent continues to be channelled properly....