LyrArc Article Gist
In a complete reversal of the situation in 2012 when Spain's and Italy's bond yields reached about 8%, Spain's 10 year government bond yields declined to 2.579% on June 8, 2014, according to Tradeweb. The ECB's efforts to fight deflation by injecting money into the financial system in 2014, and investor search for higher yields, is driving up the price of Spain's bonds and reducing yields below that of U.S. Treasurys for the first time. The period it took for this to happen- just 2 years!

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. House of Representatives votes 285-144 to suspend the debt ceiling till Feb. 7, 2014. The deal forged in the Senate by Democrat Reid and Republican McConnell passed in th Senate by 81-18. The U.S. stock markets closed with the DJIA at 15374, up 1.6% compared to Sept 30 when the government shutdown began. The Republicans opposing the passage outnumbered those supporting it 144 to 87 in the House of Representatives. Because this was a repeat of similiar failure to reach agreement and last minute deals in 2012 and 2011 the equity markets appear to have taken the conflict between the two parties in stride.

LyrArc Article Gist
Citigroup trades March 5, 2009, at intraday price of 97 cents. Its now in the penny stock region.

LyrArc Article Gist
Under new proposed changes carbon emissions permits would be sold to industry and heavier polluters would have to pay more. And to make it fair to European companies exporters in other countries like China would have to buy these carbon permits to be able to export to Europe. There is similiar discussion about this in the USA which expects caps on greenhouse gas emissions in a few years. These changes wouldn't go into effect till 2013 at the earliest and industry will be trying to create a level playing field by then. Countries like China and India because they are developing have been exempt from the greenhouse caps under the Kyoto Protocol which expire 2012. Under the Kyoto Protocol which Europe signed and the USA did not sign, European companies are giving carbon permits free to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas every year, the heavier polluters have to buy the permits from the ones that pollute less creating an incentive for companies to reduce emisssions.

LyrArc Article Gist
Interview with Dieter Zetsche, Daimler's CEO on what Mercedes is doing. Daimler is introducing the Smart car in the US in a big way. Its just 8 feet long and gets 40 miles per gallon. Demand for it from dealers was so strong that instead of 40 dealers as planned Mercedes has setup 67 dealers in 31 states in the USA. About 3500 were sold in the first 3 months, Feb to April 2008. Its Bluetec program is another way its boosting fuel efficiency. The Bluetec program is for making diesel engines as clean as gasoline engines and gasoline engines as efficient as diesel engines. Its the second generation of direct injection systems and both engines will work with self ignition. And Daimler is on the path of combining these engines with hybrids. And also develping fuel cell and all electric battery driven vehicles emission free. As Zetsche says Daimler is moving along this path very fast. In lithium ion battery in cars Daimler is taking the lead. He says the American and Japanese makers are pushing hard but Mercedes is ahead by taking the car to market that has a lithium ion battery. How does Daimler do it? It has about 24 patents. The main reason no carmaker has made it to market with lithium ion battery for cars is the cooling problem that has been seen in laptops also. Mercedes solution to this has been to integrate the cooling of the battery into the cooling system of the car with a sophisticated system, hence the many patents. Next year Dailmer will introduce the S-Class with a six cylinder gasoline engine, the S400 Hybrid with a lithium ion battery, and it will be the first in market. Dieter Zetsche is so confident that he says it will have perfect performance and absolute safety. With targets for fuel efficiency in Europe more aggressive than in the USA, and the German public pushing for higher fuel efficiency aggressive emissions targets and intolerant of excuses from German carmakers, makers like Daimler are moving very fast in this direction. Adding to pressures from the German public, they see oil prices at current levels for the foreseeable future, this adds to the urgency. Americans and Japanese makers stand the risk of falling behind. See the links to the pressure from German public opinion and the German carmakers response to this. And clearly Zetsche reflects that confidence in this interview. Daimler's Mercedes division is selling a lot of cars in China, Russia, and the Middle East. As he put it there are 400,000 millionaires in China and Mercedes are sellig very well in these markets just as the US market shrinks. And these are cars in the dollar 40,000 plus or $100,000 plus range in which Mercedes has he lead. This market will also shrink as the global economy slowsdown but the profits from this market will probably be plowed into the Bluetec and other advanced fuel efficiency programs that will give Daimler a market advantage in the longer run....

LyrArc Article Gist
The IMF's managing director, Christine Lagarde, pointed to the urgent need to recapitalize European banks in September 2011. European banks face potential losses of 120 billion euros for Belgium, Spain and Italy, 60 billion euros for Greece, 20 billion euros for Ireland and Portugal, and 100 billion euros for other banking exposure, for a total of 300 billion euros, according to the International Monetary Fund. In the absence of recapitalization there could be further damage to EU economies from restricted lending by banks. IMF estimates show that deteriorating credit conditions could damage growth in the eurozone countries by 3.5 percentage points, and in the U.S. by 2.2 percentage points, creating another recession.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jorg Asmusen, member of the executive board of the European Central Bank, and Jens Weidmann, president of Germany's central bank, the Bundesbank, argue on opposite sides before the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. Weidmann says the bond buying of sovereign bonds of Italy and Greece by the ECB is unconstitutional, Asmussen defends the ECB's plan to lower the borrowing costs for Italy and Spain in 2012. Both Asmussen and Weidmann are students of Manfred Neumann, professor of Economics at Bonn University. Neumann says such action is unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court takes public opinion into account in its rulings.

LyrArc Article Gist
Much of what is written here about Xi Jinping pursuing Chinese socialist vision was known since he became president in 2013 when China's Communist party was losing its appeal, and efforts were made to seize power within the communist party by a leader in the western province of Chongqing. Bo Xi Lai attempted to take advantage of the situation with appeals to the working class and without any genuine commitment beyond a power grab. It was well known that Xi Jinping is a son of one of the veterans of the Communist party under Mao, Xi Zhongxun, unlike leaders who followed premier Deng Xiaoping such as Jiang Zemin. Zemin was a relatively unknown figure who was in university during the crucial period of 1947-49 when Mao came to power in mainland China. It would not be correct to say that little was known about Xi's own ideas about socialism as the long term answer to China's problems. Xi also came in as president at a time when the Communist party was losing its appeal to working class people after three administrations that followed premier Den Xiaoping. These three administrations followed a form of state capitalism that allowed companies to pollute the environment, compete without any regulations, and allowed to operate without any controls as long as they pursued growth aggressively and expanded the economy.There was an effort by Communist party regional leader in western Chinese province of Chongqing, Bo Xi Lai, to use this as an opportunity to grab power in China. During his first year as president Xi had to resolve this issue by having a court trial after revelations of corruption and misuse of power by Bo Xi Lai.  Xi's father Zhongxun's role in the revolutionary movement offers clues to Xi's own convictions and faith in the party. Zhongxun was a communist soldier who set up the revolutionary base areas in Shanxi-Gansu northwest border region of China that provided a refuge for Mao's army following the Long March. Other clues come from Zhongxun's role as head of propaganda during the period after 1944 and in 1952. Xi's family background particularly on his mother's side shows a fervent commitment to Chinese socialist vision during the chaotic years when the Japanese invaded China and Chiang Kai-Shek's nationalist forces failed to defend China's sovereignty. One reason Xi has been less understood is that little attention is paid to Xi's mother, Qi Xin who was highly educated and fervently believed in Chinese socialism and nationalist spirit during the Japanese invasion in 1938. In fact Qi Xin had to leave middle school after the Japanese took over Beijing. She joined the Counter Japanese Political and Military University to continue education and in 1941 attended the Central Party school. She met Xi's father Zhongxun in 1944. In 1953 she enrolled in the Marx School of Communism, and it was her position at the school that offered her husband added protection during the Cultural Revolution that affected Deng Xiaoping and others. With such a history in the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's it is likely that Xi was profoundly influenced by his father's role in the revolutionary movement, and his mother's faith in socialism with national spirit as the way to protect against the foreign invasions. It would now appear that by the time Xi joined the Politburo in 2003 there was no question about the future course China would take given the role of his parents, and the events of 1938 the fall of Beijing, his mother having to flee, and the events that followed. Xi showed resilience during the period of the Great Proletarian Revolution when he was sent to the villages at a time when he would be studying in school and college. He was sent to an agricultural commune in largely rural Shanxi province where he worked as a manual laborer alongside other people and developed a relationship with the local farmers. Unlike other leaders during that period which could even be said about premier Deng Xiaoping in 1989, Xi took a different lesson from this experience largely because his father and mother were committed to the socialist vision for the long run. His father was still not fully rehabilitated by premier Chou en-lai when Xi was allowed to enter Beijing's Tsinghua University in 1975. He studied chemical engineering at Tsinghua graduating in 1979. Upon graduation he worked as a assistant for 3 years to a vice premier who was minister of defense. He then left Beijing for Hebei province to work as a deputy secretary of the provincial CCP. He was made Mayor of Xiamen, then governor of Fujian province in 1999 where he tackled environmental conservation before moving to Zheziang province. His father passed away in 2002 and it would appear that he was carefully trained in different provinces instead of staying in Beijing, for a position of national leadership. Xi got his break in 2007 when the upper leadership of Shanghai city was tainted in a wide ranging pension fund scheme. He was made party secretary for Shanghai. This was the position Jiang Zemin had held before he succeeded premier Deng Xiaoping. In only a few months in October 2007 Xi was made one of the 8 Politburo members, ready to succeed Hu Jintao as president. Xi's perception of being sent to the villages and making it to university education was that it was part of the long run socialist struggle, with pain that his father had also endured as simply a phase in which things would be right in the end. Xi's mother comes across as a resilient figure and one who had herself gone through the struggles of the 1930's and aided her husband on one occasion. Some of this resilience could have been passed on to the son. Xi's wife is a zealous participant in Chinese dance and music performances that created enthusiasm for the Chinese socialist revolution from the 1930's period. In his conversations  with colleagues in the party, in culture and temperament, Xi has been forthright about this background and his style of work.  Xi is unlike premier Deng and the presidents who succeeded him such as Hu Jintao mentored by a former mayor of Shanghai Jiang Zemin who came to power in 1989. Xi is more in line with the leaders around Mao like his father in his outlook and thinking, with a cautious temperament that comes from years going through ups and downs of political struggles. He is once said to have responded with dismay about being in a top position in the government knowing how precarious this had been for his father. The education at Tsinghua, his engineering background, and his easy familiarity with farmers in the provinces, mean that he understands China and its history well enough to have the confidence to shape Chinese policies in a way that none of his predecessors had except Mao, premier Chou-en-lai, Liu Shao Chi and a few veterans from that time in the 1930's. That Xi waited patiently for so long to gradually assert his ideas about socialist vision for China may be the surprising part of his behaviour till 2021.  It may be that he wanted to make the changes only after he could persuade party leaders and colleagues of his vision and long run goals. And because the Chinese economy had grown so large that it would take time to steer the ship in a different direction for the long term. In most of the negotiations with president Trump he cautiously let trade negotiators handle the situation, all the time learning about how to tackle problems of China's relationship with US and Europe. US president Biden also has a vision that is veering towards a socialist perspective in terms of bringing gains of progress to workers and families. So does Mr. Trump, Mr. Boris Johnson in UK, and Social Democrat's Scholz in Germany. It is both economic and political as Mr. Xi is quoted as saying in this WSJ report. The necessities of such action are both economic, social and politically driven as capitalism has veered way off course.  In this report it is mentioned that Soho China 40% stake was taken by a large capital markets firm in New York in the hope of large gains, as Soho China developer was a tycoon who wanted to leave China. Seeing it as not favorable to his company following events in Hong Kong. This behaviour of capital markets groups in New York and tech companies in Silicon Valley, driven by profits and not aware of the social and economic problems of working class American families is a problem in the US and in Europe. It is also what has driven so many large tech companies to expand manufacturing operations in China, that hurt US manufacturing capabilities and American workers jobs- an issue raised by president Trump and taken up by president Biden. Biden has already moved to make Intel Corporation change its plans and invest in American manufacturing technologies in a quietly implemented U turn. US president Biden is left with the unenviable job of solving this huge problem during the pandemic. He has also committed to a somewhat socialistic vision with a $3.5 trillion plan for workers and families, as has vice chancellor Scholz in Germany with his own version of programs, after the failures of unregulated forms of capitalism. Scholz goes so far as to say his mission is to show that there is really no such thing as a self-made man, that it is help from society, his fellow citizens, and government, that makes it possible for him to do his work. In a sense the world is shifting away from Reagan forms of capitalism without regulation after seeing disastrous results during the pandemic. Not just China. Some form of government guidance and regulations are now seen as essential in China, the US, UK, Germany and India for a better society and a better, healthier life, and for opportunity for all in each country.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The first significant action to help homeowners threatened with foreclosure comes from Sheila Bair, Chairman of the Federal Deposit insurance Corporation, one of the few people after Bernanke and Paulson who have shown initiative and foresight in the current crisis. Bernanke and Paulson had the foresight to open the Fed lending window to investment firms like Lehman Brothers and others but little has been done for homeowners to have significant impact. When interviewed on television in the days surrounding the Bear Stearns crisis Sheila has shown a good grasp of the issues and courage to take the initiative. This action is similiar in line to what Martin Feldstein has suggested on the pages of the WSJ for some time now. Martin wanted the Federal government to step in to loan homeowners the 20% of their outstanding loan and work towards bringing the homeowners payment to an affordable sum. According to Feldstein's calculation this would be about the right amount as a percentage of their loan so that homeowners rationally would not be better off walking away from the loan as the best possible decision under the circumstances. If the rational option was taken under a scenario that homeowners would get no direct help here is what would happen even though it may be intuitively read in one's mind. Homeowners would walk away in increasing numbers, it would become the popular option, one that has happened in prior housing crises in Colorado for example but this time it would be spread out across America, making it dangerous. This would launch a downward spiral or cycle in which the more homeowners walk way, or default the more house prices drop, and the more house prices drop a new group of homeowners who previously had enough equity in the house now because of the last price drop enter the category of homeowners who would be better off just walking away as a rational option. During the next wave this gorup would default and set the spiral or cycle moving again to lead to further price declines and another group of homeowners finding not enough equity in their homes to justify making payments and this group would walk away. At each turn of this spiral another cycle would be set in motion which is why it is so dangerous once it gets started, and the need for timely but also well thought out plan and good execution. This cycle is that of the economic system as a whole. As house prices drop at each turn of this cycle, it would have a serious impact on consumption for an already indebted American consumer. A drop in consumption means fewer product purchases by consumers, and the falling demand means factories would close as companies consolidate operations around the remaining factories to keep capacity utilization at reasonable levels, and this would mean layoffs and cuts in investment and other spending. The layoffs in turn would add another layer of homeowners leaving their homes through foreclosures adding to the pool of homeowners who have left their homes, and adding to the downward pressure on house prices. The pickup in inflation would bite at exactly the worst time as this would mean consumers would have to spend even more carefully. The price of oil which normally would respond to changes such as a fleet of cars with higher mileage on American roads would take a longer time to respond as this fleet change would take a few years to occur. It would respond to lower demand for oil in American factories but the considerable demand in Asia and other countries where the economies are likely to slow down but still be growing at rates to accomodate the large number of people who have not benefited from the market economy, would make the price decline in oil a gradual affair. The weaker dollar would add to the price of imports adding to the inflation. This bite from inflation would lower consumption even further in the economic cycle. And this would mean lower production in factories and even more layoffs at the next turn of the economic cycle. The Federal Reserve would find itself having difficult choices between maintaining confidence in the dollar, for which Capman and McKinnon argue on the pages of the WSJ recently and lowering rates but not achieving much in terms of stimulating either consumption or investment as this would take time to work itself out and all the Fed could achieve by its interest rate making tool is to buy time to weather these adjustments in an orderly manner. There is almost a consensus among experts that interest rate reductions in the current climate of inflationary movements in prices and the current currency exchange rates moving towards a loss of confidence in the dollar is something to be done very carefully and each action taken only with careful understanding of the possible consequences. A look at the proposal itsel shows that it gets around the whole issue of moral hazard by having the cost paid for in this manner. The mortgage investors will pay for the 5 years of interest on the 20% of the loan the government provides. The homeowner takes over after that. The mortgage investors cannot add deferred interest, prepayment penalties or other ways to make the homeowner pay some of the interest charges. And the homeowners payment has to be afforadable so mortgage investors have to show that the payment is not more than 35% of income of the homeownercalled the debt to income ratio (DTI). And only homeowners with mortgage payments above 40% DTI are eligible. And the government would raise the money needed through a $50 billion offering. To show there is no moral hazard that is the government bailing out any of the parties involved, the government will get back all of its money or intends to do so, the government will have the first rights to the money should a home foreclose and before anybody else is paid. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Wagoner became President at age 45, CEO at age 48. So you would think that young blood is coming in to GM, but that does not appear to be the case. At the Board level most of the Board members like George Fisher formerly of Motorola, have been around for a long time, and there does not appear to be new blood that would bring in fresh thinking. And serious decisions about investment in developing new technologies to develop fuel efficient cars, like hybrid technologies, electric and other alternative technologies, diesel technology, have been held up for years at General Motors. The way decisions are made on such issues with Board members voicing their opinions more than wrestling seriously with the issues, shows serious shortcomings of management and the Board. At key points of decision making the CEO and key members of his team had not prepared carefully, and Board members did not come up with serious thinking on the problems facing GM. It, appears that the investment in technologies to develop fuel efficient cars much earlier, long before they were finally being addressed in 2006, was a failure of Wagoner's management and of the Board. Management discussed this but continued to be mired in old ways of thinking that continuing with the status quo- cars with existing low fuel efficiency- would not expose GM to illwinds as preferences changed. Its clear from the description here of discussions within GM that the old thinking is quite entrenched at GM, and Wagoner just was not the kind of person who could vigorously articulate a new vision for GM. A couple of things are noteworthy in this account of management indecision at GM. When fuel prices began hurting sales of SUV's and large vehicles in 2005, efforts to get a decision on investments in new technologies for fuel efficiency for the whole product lineup failed at the Board level in an April 2005 meeting. One Board member saying at that meeting, that" do we want to lose another billion dollars in developing new technology for fuel efficient cars." And no one calling him to account that the remark still did not address the point that GM had to respond to the changing market and world oil dynamics, and not just hope for the best, as GM had aggressive competitors, and faced continually diminishing role in the market place for the entire decade of the 1990's. While April 2005 was already at the tail end of the previous era of gas guzzling cars and a decision then would still not have shown a forward looking vision of things, it was not until 10 months later that a decision was reached. And this almost from necessity, as oil prices jumped in 2006 after hurricane Katrina, and by this time President Bush was also calling for higher mandated fuel efficiency standards. The other noteworthy point here is that by making the changes so late in the game, GM had to compress the development cycle for new and some cases unknown technologies into short time frames. If the ingenuity of its engineers comes to its rescue it still faces another hurdle that of cost, because the technologies have to be perfected and improved, so that the costs are low enough for customers, and importantly comparable with what it is costing competitors to make the same fuel efficient technology engine or other part. Which is why one Honda executive remarked, "GM like everyone else is serious about this, because they have to be, but how many of their hybrids and how many Volts will they sell? Their technology is very expensive." Even if GM develops the Volt electric car by 2010, GM will need a whole range of fuel efficient technolgies to power its large product lineup. Its just to hard to avoid the conclusion that this is going to prove costly. All the dragging of feet and indecision, and failure to prepare GM for a different world in case something drastically different from what was expected happened, will prove very costly especially considering how aggressive and well financed some of the Japanese and German competitors are. It also hard to avoid the conclusion that there is too much bureaucracy at the large auto companies, and getting new blood and new ideas and fresh thinking is tough in a place where everybody agrees with everybody else, and there is uniformity of thinking. This makes it difficult for any original or wayward types to thrive. These bureaucracies look up to the top for direction. Initiative is discouraged on one hand, and at the same time even if a new direction is taken at the top. a lot of resistance can be expected to implementing it throughout the company without persistent persuasion and reminder of new facts and realities. This is true for both Wagoner and Mullaly as they face the skepticism of subordinates to new direction. Mullaly for instance has to remind his managers that large vehicles are only a small percentage of the entire global market, and if Toyota is making money in small cars so can Ford. See the link to this. Is Toyota immune from bureaucracy type behaviour throughout the company? Not really, Toyota's chairman emeritus came out of retirement in fact and went out of the way to caution its CEO and management about their complacency a year or so before. Shoichiro Toyoda personally intervened to caution against too much expansion in the US and climbing wage costs, and other risks they perceived such as the company managers in the USA appearing to be resting on their laurels. See the link to this. A lot of discussion is probably going on within these companies about the present state of affairs, and considerable anxiety for what the future will bring. It may be useful to ask the question is there something that makes it difficult for once successful organizations -now with entrenched bureaucracy and set ways -to put forward leaders with vision and foresight, till it becomes very late? The vision and foresight about where their markets and the world is heading, and the ability to move their organizations in that direction. Or to break out of old patterns of behaviour and thinking....

LyrArc Article Gist
Most Americans pay less in taxes, including state, local and federal taxes, today than in 1980 in inflation adjusted dollars. The taxes have gone down by 2-3% for incomes in the range of $50,000 to $150,000, and gone down by 3-4% for incomes between $150,000 and $350,000. Taxes have gone down over 7% for incomes above $350,000. The main reason is the decline in federal income taxes.Tax rates increased in the period to 1990 and declined from 1990 to 2010. The Democratic party and president Obama are pushing for increase in taxes for incomes above $250,000. Republicans are resisting the changes citing disincentives to investment and growth for small business which generates a large proportion of new jobs created in the U.S. economy. The New York Times study shows the percent of the U.S. population that makes between $200,000 and $350,000 almost doubling in the period 1980-2010 and at the same time its share of the U.S. income remaining the same - many small business owners who hire employees would fall into this income category. Republican's response is for tax reforms that reduce loopholes, deductions and other tax expeditures that disproportionately help the wealthy. Democrats say this cannot create enough revenues to address the deficit, when mortgage deductions, charitable deductions are excluded. The back and forth is leading to stalemate but also opening up discussion for the first time on whether the mortgage and charitable deductions make sense in today's environment. A significant portion of revenues lost in the mortgage deduction goes to affluent households, subsidizing larger borrowings to build larger homes than otherwise, according to the Brookings Institution. Politicians have resisted changes that would go against powerful lobyying groups in the past, yet the impasse has opened up new thinking outside the box because of the pressing need to come up with a solution....

LyrArc Article Gist
Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University economist, author of the well researched book on the 2008 financial crisis, "This Time Is Different," gives his thoughts on the economic prospects for the U.S under the new Trump administration. He says 4% GDP growth and 3% inflation is possible temporarily for a while with stimulus policies, less regulation, and increased private investment. After 8 years of not investing in much needed infrastructure because of concerns about the deficit, the timing is right for such investments, especially as the economic effects of the crisis of 2008 gradually fade.  This is about taking advantage of ultra low interest rates to invest in infrastructure. He says it helps that Trump policies are pro-business. He sees drawbacks as the stimulus program adds a 25% increase with extra debt, adding $5 trillion over 10 years, but adds that for many years Nobel prize winning economist Krugman and others have said that there is good reason to increase borrowing to invest, and this is now being tried. Inflation remains an uncertainty- if there are large quantities of underutilized and unemployed resources it would raise prices less than its effect to increase output. The reverse would apply if the U.S. economy is closer to full capacity. One factor that would help- increasing confidence for business and increasing investment. Against this what he calls optimistic view or spin, is the idea of mistakes under a Trump administration, errors made and a degree of incompetence which he says is a real possibility. Overall his view is that some risks are appropriate now, and from his deep study of financial crises sees the slow growth of the last 8 years a result of a financial crisis that now begins to fade, creating the possibility of higher growth under prudent policies.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
First signs that OPEC may relent on production increases, as price of oil takes a new turn and becomes driven by forces that are beyond what OPEC may either foresee or be able to control. OPEC's different oil countries' senior officials are probably studying these new signals. Shukri Ghanem of Libya, a former prime minister and former head of Libya's national oil company, comments on new developments and shows willingness to increase production, to support a meeting before September and to look at the option of increasing production is his comment to Bloomberg News, May 8, 2008. Shukri was trained at the Fletcher School, Tufts Unversity, with a Masters degree in International Economics, and may have a better understanding of what is happening in international oil markets than senior officials of other OPEC countries. The signals that OPEC as well as the rest of the business community are watching are first the estimate by analysts at Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and CERA's Yergin that prices are headed in the direction of another spike to $150 to $200 per barrel before coming down sharply. Ghanem and others at OPEC may find that it is not in their interest to actually lose all control of prices if this happens, that is lose the market stability that enables a cartel to do well. Price spike would generate huge spike in revenues for a short period 6-12 months before setting up for a big fall as a result of setting in motion a whole set of new forces in the use of oil. Some of this are much higher and aggressive automobile fuel efficiency targets for Europe, the US and also in places like India and China, conservation in a big way, fuel efficiency in other uses such as generating electricity and other industrial uses in plants and so on, almost like the race to the moon, with new urgency. The spike in revenues followed by a drop may actually hurt OPEC long term revenues over next 5 years as the moderation in growth in developing countries like China and India is quite likely as the US slows down and this would only accelerate the pace of this moderation. With focus on efficiency in the use of oil worldwide, accelerated new production in non-opec oil fields, and moderated growth worldwide, enough savings could be generated in 24-36 months to bring oil prices down from the demand side and reduce speculative investments. The second signal was a WSJ survey of 53 respondents n this case economists, and 51% of the economists surveyed said that the oil price rise's key reason was on the demand side from developing countries. And speculation was a smaller factor attributed to by 11% of the economists. So the combination of these 2 factors added up to 62%. Foreign exchange was cited by 15% of the economists, adding all three factors would attribute 77% of the rise in oil prices to demand from developing countries, speculation based on rising demand, and the weakness of the dollar. If demand the key element in this drops as a result of an even bigger spike in oil prices to $150-$200, with demand moderating in developing contries, and the dollar strengthens in 12-18 months, then the spike would be temporary, leading to significant correction afterwards. This sharp correction would then become entrenched as the world would look at oil in a new way entirely different from the way it did in the years 1945-2007. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the Economist says Spain's economy has recovered to pre crisis levels by 2018 with growth at 3 percent. It says Spain had a bigger crisis than Italy and took stronger measures under prime minister Rajoy to fix problems in its banking system, address the housing crisis, and unemployment. Italy's steps by comparison were timid and faltering. Mr. Rajoy had his problems including corruption scandals in his party and a poor handling of the Catalan drive for independence. Yet Spain owes muchas gracias to Rajoy for his leadership in bringing Spain out of the housing and economic crisis, and for running the country for two and a half years after losing his majority in parliament.  Another difference with Italy is the generally favorable attitude to immigration for all parties. Of the newer parties Ciudadanos remains at the centre and the Podemos party remains to the left in politics, as part of the populist changes in Spain during the economic crisis. The new government of Pedro Sanchez has a positive attitude to immigrants and to women, with the largest number of women in the cabinet of any European country. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke's move in January 2012 to announce detailed projections for interest rates for each of the 17 Fed Governors participating in policy meetings, is an effort to show that he operates by consensus. Names of the Fed Governors are not stated.This is a change from the Greenspan years at the Fed. Hilsenrath points to the research done by Alan Blinder of Princeton University, former Fed vice chairman, which shows group consensus based action works bettter. Another reason for this is the Fed's damaged credibility after the Greenspan years and the financial crisis of 2008, when the Fed operated under one dominant figure. An additional step taken by Bernanke is to move from the ad hoc type of policy decisions of the past decade to a longer term plan for unemployment and inflation goals. The Fed has set a 2% goal for inflation with some flexibility to reduce unemployment if it is too high. This gives businesses more information to plan ahead and improves Fed credibility....

LyrArc Article Gist
The May 6 episode of the stock market plunge of 900 points in the U.S. and then recovering had the effect of rattling investors nerves especially retirees. The impact of this episode is recorded in the experience of one Charles Schwab broker office in Englewood, Colorado. By the end of that day this broker had 50 calls on his answering machine from a fifth of his clients, all seeking to know what happened. Charles Schwab, who helped launch a period of individual investing in the U.S. after 1982 by cutting fees and going after the average investor, (along with others like Jack Bogle of Vanguard Funds), is also on edge. He says he has not seen anything like this since his early days. Schwab confirms Yale Prof. Shiller who says (see link) that his index for markets shows a lot of nervousness. Saying that 98% of people are still very concerned, coming after the May 6 incident, and the Greece and eurozone crisis that impacted US stock markets. One other factor he points out is the constant flow of headlines that suggest certain business people engaged in fradulent practices, something that fuels a lack of trust. Charles Schwab ponders from his office across the San Francisco Bay Bridge, whether words like safety and soundness mean anything anymore. Another factor of concern, Bogle points out, is that institutional investors now own 70% of American corporations, up from 35% in 1975. And the advantage has veered sharply in their direction as institutions, hedge funds, and investment banks trade on their own account, with wealth moving in that direction. This leaves the individual investor and especially the retiree or those about to retire in a severe predicament....