LyrArc Article Gist
The first presidential debate with Clinton and Trump is moderated by Lester Holt. The debate included an exchange on Trump's tax returns, policing in inner cities, and national security. The debate was broadcast by all television stations and was watched by over 100 million viewers. Trump made three times the interruptions made by Clinton. The birther issue raised by Trump also came up, and was cited as a "hurtful lie" by Clinton as it persisted long after the birth certificate information was seen by the public. In one exchange Clinton told Trump when he referred to all the infrastructure that had not been built, that one of the reasons was he had not payed taxes.

LyrArc Article Gist
The cultural shift as jobs in investment banking are not the status jobs anymore.

LyrArc Article Gist
The large majority of vaccine disinformation has been traced to just 12 persons, according to a report cited by the White House. This report is from the Center for Countering Digital Hate. They have a combined following of 59 million on social media with Facebook being the largest. Of 812,000 Facebook posts looked at by CCDH 65% came from these 12 persons.

On Facebook alone 73% of all anti-vaccine content comes from these 12 persons. These 12 include a religious zealot, a wellness blogger, some physicians who have taken on pseudoscience, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Only 3 have been removed from one platform of the 12 persons. US president Biden is critical of the role of social media in this pandemic.

LyrArc Article Gist
In 2017 Facebook noticed a drop in user engagement- fewer comments, fewer posts, and less sharing. To address this Facebook made a change in its algorithm, which is a bunch of mathematical equations which determine what you see in the newsfeed. The result says this WSJ Facebook Investigation was to make Facebook an angrier place, a place where divisive comments were being posted, and sensational or exaggerated comments were being shared. This increased the level of divisiveness in the US during the early period of the Trump administration. As America looks back on this time- the issues related to migration across its southern border that are still alive today and on which there is now a consensus across Democrats and Republicans on returning migrants. The issues related to the urban-rural divide that many presidents preceding Trump and Biden had chosen to ignore, and which the Tech community showed little interest in. The divide also across educational lines with college educated splitting away from people lacking college education just as costs of college had soared. All these issues were out in the open and instead of having an educated debate these algorithms never intended for solving social problems actually made them worse.  It is now in the interest of both Republicans and Democrats to take a hard look at what went wrong and restore the civility and dialogue that marked American experience across all ages and income groups, and remove the overstated influence of such algorithm based apps. The WSJ Facebook Investigation is a way to restore the traditional media's true place in the national dialogue and push back against the insidious and dangerous influence of algorithm based news feeds such as this one.  Outrage Algortihms may be good for a few people and a few in tech  business in California and in capital markets in New York, yet they are bad for America and the American people as a whole, bad for the vast landscape of America and the vast majority of the American people. Mindless infatuation with pictures of young adults leads to a mindless and dangerous result in mental health, bad effects on women, illusions about what is right living, and increasing divisiveness in America.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
NYT's Landon Thomas gives this exceptional report on how Deutsche Bank changed from a lender to the German auto industry and safe banking practices to enter the derivatives business and other opaque financial products that led to taking on huge risks. Deutsche Bank has agreed on Dec. 22, 2016 to settle with the U.S. Justice Department paying a fine of $7.2 billion for practices relating to faulty mortgage securities. This report says the problems started in 1995 with Deutsche Bank's leadership hiring Edson Mitchell of Merrill Lynch to promote the investment banking business at Deutsche Bank. Mitchell hired two derivatives traders Broeksmit and Anshu Jain. Mr. Mitchell died in plane crash in 2000 when he was 47 years age, Mr. Broeksmit committed suicide in 2014, 58 years in age, Mr. Anshu Jain, 53 years old, is the only surviving person of the three. Under Mr. Jain Deutsche Bank assumed more and more risk, and was involved in complex and opaque financial products leading to the toxic mortgage crisis, and manipulation of the lending rate for London banks.  It also lent $300 million to Donald Trump's businesses. Most of the profits generated from this venture have evaporated, with analysts estimating $15 billion in fines and penalties owed of the $20 billion that these ventures generated. Not counting the serious damage to the bank's reputation in Germany and the U.S. This report points out the role played by the CEO from 2002 to 2012 of Deutsche Bank, Josef Ackermann, in encouraging these ventures converting the bank from its original loan as a contintental lender to business to a bank selling opaque financial products for most of its profits. Landon Thomas also describes the events and days leading up to the suicide by Broeksmit, including a visit to a psychiatrist and Broeksmit's facing enormous stress about the investigations underway in Germany and the U.S. looking into the opaque financial products and practices of Deutsche Bank. This is also a cautionary tale about what happened in banking from the late 1990's leading to the collapse in 2008, leading to the problems of today- the need to rescue the economy in 2008-2009 and the low rate world that ensued damaging the savings of ordinary people, the infrastructure that was never built, the parallel crisis of the hollowing out in manufacturing as a false prosperity boomed in banking and finance. In a sense it is also a story of everyday lives that were damaged in the high flying boardrooms of finance in New York, London and Frankfurt. The revolving door between regulators and the banks made it harder to monitor and control banking risk letting this story unfold over decades, damaging the credibility of governments and the established political parties without clear alternatives from outside; as the dominance of Wall Street executives in the new outsider Trump administration shows.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
When Paulson met with his staff a few days ago he stamped his hand on a marble table asking his staff to stop their arguments with politicians who supported Fannie and Freddie because it would result in a war which he did not want as reported in the New York Times recently. Representative Barney Frank is mentioned as one of the politicians supporting the management of Fannie and Freddie. So it happened that to the very bitter end these managers used their lobbying and political donations to distort the policymaking progress right under the eyes of the Republican administration that knew what was going on and media like the Wall Street Journal that has warned about the dangers at Fannie and Freddie for years. One question remains why under the original mandate for Fannie and Freddie were the companies not banned from political donations and lobbying as they were backed by a government guarantee and at the same time could distort the process of supervision by lobbying and political donations to Congress if this was allowed. So in the end its the biggest failure of the political process and of setting up of such companies that once set up they were beyond anybody's control. Josh Rosner, an analyst at Graham Fisher an independent research firm in New York, makes an apt comment: "since 2003 when these companies' accounting came under question, policymakers have done nothing." One can repeat nothing, and the politicains in Congress who received the donations will go on with their political ways while the government and the public shoulder the burden of billions of taxpayer dollars in the biggest bailout ever, considering the size of these two companies and what at stake for the country's housing markets, and considering that foreign governments like China have invested billions of dollars in these companies and needed assurance to continue to buy and hold Treasury bonds....

LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Singer, head of hedge fund firm Elliott Management and its unit NML Capital, has relentlessly pursued a case in U.S. courts involving collecting full payment on bonds from the Argentine government after its default on the bonds in 2001. Singer bought bonds with face value of about $170 million according to legal filings, but paid a price well below the original value. Elliott and other investors are now seeking $1.5 billion, including unpaid interest. Judge Griesa's ruling in a federal court in Manhattan blocks Argentina from paying bondholders who accepted an agreement for about 25 cents on the dollar from being paid $530 million in interest in July 2014. Argentina has to consider other risks in settling the dispute as more than the $1.5 billion as a one off payment is involved, because as Stevenson points out in another article (see link), the payment could run from $15- $27 billion depending on whether it then has to pay all holdout bondholders or all exchange and holdout bondholders at a higher rate. The result is an intractable dispute beyond the statement of honoring creditor rights, seen by a debtor country facing difficult finances in a different light. Serving as a reminder for Greece, Argentina, and other countries with chronic borrowing and debt history about the need for care and constant vigilance on state finances. In May 2012 Greece paid over $436 million in a one off payment to holdout bondholder financial firm Dart Management in a similiar bind, even as pensions were being cut and Greeks protested daily on Athens streets with over 20% unemployment (see link)....

LyrArc Article Gist
Considering the fines and sanctions by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, during the time Mary Schapiro headed the organization from 2007 -2008, it did not take a serious watchdog role over the brokerage business that it was expected to supervise. NASD which she formerly headed, and FINRA, did several examinations of the brokerage business of Mr Madoff who ran a$50 billion Ponzi scheme, but failed to find anything wrong. Her agency in 2007 concluded that Madoff's firm had only violated some technical rules. Also fines and sanctions assessed by FINRA declined during the time she headed it. Fines levied by FINRA declined from $148 million in 2005, the year of her predecessor, to $40 million in 2008. Ms. Schapiro headed NASD regulatory arm in 1996, NASD itself in 2006, and FINRA after its creation in 2007. FINRA is a private agency set up by Wall Street to regulate itself. As the prevailing opinion at the time, with the SEC severely understaffed, was that Wall Street could regulate itself, agencies like FINRA had a bigger responsibility than was realized by Ms Schapiro and others. One securities lawyer who represented firms examined by FINRA, says FINRA should at least have asked more questions about the Madoff operation. In a November 2006 speech to the Securites Industry and Financial Markets Association, Mary Schapiro says, "we remain utterly committed to our regulatory mission but we should be also committed to doing no unnecessary harm or restriction to innovation in the industry and markets". Some of the stuff that went on in the name of innovation went against some basics and commonsense, and the failure to follow tested old good financial practices to separate sound innovation from unsound innovation, was a failure of that period. Schapiro's statement seemed to be a contradiction of a severe nature when examined closely, because how could she remain committed 100% to the regulatory mission if she made strong exceptions for innovations whose true logic and effectiveness only time could tell. The element of caution that should be a key part of the regulator's temperament and mental build was entirely missing. See the link to financial regulators in India, and of how this task was handled with that element of caution and skepticism of prevailing opinion. Other failure of FINRA is that it lagged behind state regulators in catching upto the mess resulting in afreeze up of auction rate securites markets. In June and July 2008, Massachusetts and New York securities regulators filed fraud charges against big firms in that matter. Another failure was the failure to look into the mortgage securites that were held in brokerage accounts and see that the valuations of these securites are sound. Finra only filed small cases against Lehman Brothers, with a fine of only $125,000 for failing to keep accurate books and records. As late as May 7, 2008 in speaking at the Financial Services Institute meeting, Schapiro was asked about what FINRA was doing to regulate complex packaged products like mortgage securites. And even though credit rating agencies had by this time been exposed as having failed, Ms Schapiro would only say, according to a financial advisor who asked the question, that "we have credit rating agencies that rate them." A pretty hands off view for a regulator when the cracks in the system were already exposed in mid 2008. Another facet of this is the high levels of compensation especially for a regulator. For her job at FINRA she received pay of $3.1 million a year including $2.5 million in compensation and $615,000 in benefits and deferred pay. In 2007 she also earned $449,000 in cash and stock grants as director of Duke Energy and Kraft Foods. All of which means that it is straining credulity for Obama to suggest that Mary Schapiro is the best person the Democrats could find for this critical job, in which the record has been severely impaired....

LyrArc Article Gist
Entergy is one of the largest energy companies. Its CEO for nine years, Wayne Leonard, talks to Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal. Its the No.2 generator of nuclear power in the USA, and uses coal for only 7% of its energy. He has made his name in nuclear energy, and here he talks about the government's cap and trade program and nuclear energy. He points to today's technology as far superior to the technology that was used in the Failed Three Mile plant, that put back nuclear energy plants in the USA for decades. He believes that price signals are needed for CO2, and the cap and trade program helps to do this, so he supports the cap and trade program. He admits that self interest colors perception of Entergy, compared to coal using utility producers like Duke Energy and American Electric Power. With coal only 7% in its portfolio of plants, and big in nuclear energy, it stands to gains from a cap and trade program, whereby Congress will set a ceiling on emissions, then allows businesses to sell any of its extra allowances that stand for the right to make emissions. And in doing so creating the largest commodity market, in carbon backed securiites. He and the government agree on the point that the allowances should be auctioned off, rather than given away as the companies with many coal plants believe. And the billions in new revenue from these allowances would be returned to the public. He understands that the view of companies like Duke and AEP, that use coal and would have to increase rates, and face the anger of ratepayers as they pay more for the allowances. He also thinks the bill should be written with a fine pen, so that if Congress mandates 20% of energy come from renewables. That it should specify replacing coal not natural gas as what this replaces, to get rid of the most polluting sources. He points to the real need for looking at things globally, as doing things locally, even to show responsible leadership in the world community, can lead to no progress in the global picture. The reason is that China is going ahead with the rapid construction of conventional coal plants. It has surpassed USA coal capacity, and is on track to double it sometime in the next decade. If the USA closed down every single coal plant, and all the time new coal plants are going up in China and India, then we would have ruined our economy, and it was'nt making much difference globally. And he says, if we just say lets lead and people will follow us, "its silly", because China isn't going to follow us, especially when they have $2 trillion invested in their coal plants, and they still aren't feeding feeding all their people. So how to deal with this? Develop the new technology for carbon capture for existing conventional coal plants, and help the Chinese with retrofit technology to curb emissions in a realistic manner. At this time most current funding is devoted to technology for second generation systems, that are still 10-20 years away....

LyrArc Article Gist
Policies and actions taken today to reduce future consumption and to conserve oil will create expectations for lower prices in the future in relation to today's price. It will lower price pressures as these expectations get embedded, and as this makes it more profitable to produce more oil rather than leave it in the ground. In addition see the supply of Iraqi oil, and efforts to reverse the oil supply situation in Iran which may happen with a different administration in the US. The reduction in fuel subsidies in Iran would lower oil consumpion in Iran. Efforts to reverse years of decline in Mexican oil fields, and increase supplies in the US by drilling in new areas, would create new supplies. While supply would see changes, demand would see a new fuel efficient car fleet on the streets in several years, and better use of mass transit and rail transit, and oil conservation across the board, this would then create anew and favorable dynamic. But look for oil prices to stabilize at lower levels in relation to current levels of about 140 and higher as it rises in 2008 and 2009 till new expectations get embedded, and not a sharp decline in prices, as pressures from the developing world's demand will continue for years to come. Think a billion people being absorbed over time into urban type economies....

LyrArc Article Gist
Italy's prime minister, Mario Monti put it best when he said in a speech in Brussels in April 2012: "If a country becomes more productive and competitive, but there is no demand for its products domestically or around it, growth will not materialize." There is a new shift in opinion towards a balance of fiscal discipline with growth measures to get Europe back on track. The feeling in different parts of Europe is that the German view of austerity alone will not work for Europe. And the view is coming from the far right to the far left, from Marie Le Pen, far right presidential candidate in France, to the far right leader whose move to withdraw support to the government in Netherlands on the issue of austerity measures led to its collapse. Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, said: "we don't want our pensioners to bleed just to meet the dictates from Brussels." The IMF has put out research that questions what is now called "the German hypothesis." The "German hypothesis," is based on the unique experience of Germany with the Hartz reforms under chancellor Schroeder which were based on wage restraint by workers, the German "kurzarbeit" program of government support for retaining workers with lower pay during cyclical downturns, improving competitiveness of German companies, and conservative budget practices. There appear to be two exceptions to this. One is that demand has to be strong outside or domestically for a country to reduce unemployment and improve productive capacity utlilization as it increases competitiveness. This was the case as Germany made the Hartz reforms under Schroeder. Wage restraint acts as a form of devaluing currency for reducing the cost of its products to improve exports. All leading parties and the unions are now in favor of wage restraint and lowering wages to preserve jobs to improve France's competitive position. Germany had the benefit of a decade to implement these reforms to reduce unemployment, because demand was not declining domestically or around it during its reforms. The situation is different in Spain where in all likelihood demand would shrink further with unemployment rising from 25% to higher levels, and higher sales taxes. This is why Francois Heisbourg, special advisor at the Paris based Foundation for Strategic Research, says about the current situation in Europe, that destroyiing Greece with strict austerity alone wasn't something the EU can look back at with the sense of having done the right thing, for Spain it appears misguided and lacking careful thought. The editors of the Wall Street Journal expressed the same sense when they described the March 2012 bailout of Greece as a tragic sideshow, because the main purpose was to buy time and insulate the other larger economies in the EU by giving the French, Spanish and German banks time to improve their financial position. The Journal called it bad for Greece leaving it with debt at 120% of GDP till 2020 and no economic growth, and bad for democracy as it was done against overwhelming Greek public opinion- The Tragic Greek Sideshow, Feb. 22, 2012. Volker Perthes, director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, a Berlin think tank, says the Germans have always viewed German leadership in Europe with discomfort, and would prefer a leadership where several states, France, Italy, Spain, and other countries in the EU coalesce around consensus positions. This is historically true for the German position since chancellor Adenauer. With the Free Democrats in decline, and the Social Democrats and the Pirate party doing well in recent German elections and favoring consensus in Europe, Merkel's Christian Democrats need to rethink their policy to give greater weight to economic growth for a consensus position in Europe. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How Mulally almost turned down the job. The prevailing defeatist culture at Ford (yellow highlights). The working style which takes the edges off of direct facing up to reality in people dealings across Ford's many areas. The zeroing in on marketing by working at a dealership (hands on style also shows here) and assessing Ford's need for someone new to run this area. Also assessing what Ford needs to lead and run the different areas compared to what he has now- may need to make changes after he gets a clear sense of things at Ford. A building up of good rapport in media which helps build credibility on Wall Street considering how shattered its been in some areas of the media and with the public.

LyrArc Article Gist
A description of Ben Bernanke's style at the Fed and how its different from Greenspan's. Bernake has brought a more open and cooperative style with lots of questions asked of other experts of all ages and experience and in different parts of the world, with lots of discussion, testing assumptions, and looking for creative ways to and creative solutions to address the problems. Its more collaborative mode. As one Fed staffer puts its more like a seminar room at Princeton. Description from insiders on how the Fed met with advisors on August 9, a day after the ECB had acted on the mortgage crisis, and how the response by the Fed was developed on that day in a collaborative cooperative mode with a lot of participation and discussion on the Fed's next move, calming the markets and reassuring them while making sure that the Fed's actions were well thought out in all aspects for a series of moves over the next couple of months. Involvement of NY Fed's Geithner, of former Treasury Secretary Rubin and Wall Street bankers, sought out for advice by Bernanke....

LyrArc Article Gist
Chancellor points out that economists from Irving Fisher in 1929 to Ben Bernanke in the mid-1990's have often played the role of academic shills during each successive period of "This Time its Different, " claiming that there was some new event, technology, or innovation, that justified higher valuations of assets and higher institutional debt levels. He quotes Walter Bagehot who says about merchants and bankers of his day-" they fancy the prosperity they see will last always, that it is only the beginning of a greater prosperity." The significance of the book is that it suggests an hypothesis that is quite different from the general idea in 2011 that there won't be a protracted period of slow or marginal growth after a bubble of this nature. Because the bubble is also in other countries, in countries of the euro-zone, China, Turkey, Brazil, and other countries, the situation takes a much longer time to heal.