LyrArc Article Gist
Spiegel Online provides a inside look at the leader of the Law and Justice Party which was elected to power in 2015. The liberal opposition that was in power since the fall of communism has seen its popularity decline in the rural areas of Poland, especially in the east. The urban-rural divide seen in other countries such as France is acutely present in Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe, with poor governance and a tendency for economic gains made under capitalism following the fall of communism to go to more educated people in the large cities. The party's leaders are Lech and Jaroslav Kaczynski who were president and prime minister from 2005 to 2007. At the time they were seen as outsiders lacking the sophistication and experience in government of the liberal opposition under Donald Tusk, who now is head of the EU Council since 2014. Tusk was prime minister of Poland from 2007 to 2014. Lech Kaczynski was killed in a plane crash in 2010. Jaroslav Kaczynski appoints members of his party to key positions in government including prime minister Duda. Kaczynski is strident about the manner in which the gains since Poland joined the European Union have gone only to certain groups able to benefit from capitalism. At a recent party congress near Warsaw he is quoted here as saying: "We are here to ensure that everyone in Poland has the same opportunities, regardless of where they live, in the cities or the country." Kaczynski's appeal is in offering a generous welfare state for the middle classes- small businessmen in villages and towns across Poland, common people, with subsidies to tackle the cost of living. His focus is on the "pathological" consequences of economic liberalism after the fall of the Iron Curtain, privatization that benefitted a few, including Kaczynski says former communists and dissidents. Small businessmen felt the inroads of large private retail chains, and families felt the problems of lack of investment in schools and kindergartens. The liberal opposition can only offer the hope that being a reliable EU ally will ensure prosperity, which does not go well with the eastern part of Poland. As a result the Kaczynski government is moving away from the ideas that anchor the European Union. It sees the rule of law and independence of the judiciary as something that can be changed to where the president appoints members of the Supreme Court and the judiciary. Protests in Warsaw and the large cities are taking place against these moves. Der Spiegel says this could end up the way it happened in Britain where it simply stumbled into leaving the EU just by accident. This is the situation in 2017. It could be a temporary process that is a response to the excesses of capitalism. As Kaczynski says to create a level playing field for all parts of Polish society by smoothing out some of the harsh effects of rampant capitalism. Or as Spiegel Online points out a shaky period in which the EU and Poland are at odds- ironically with Donald Tusk as the head of the EU confronting both Theresa May and Kaczynski.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Reports that the family and relatives of China's prime minister Wen Jiabao have accumulated assets worth about $2.7 billion.

LyrArc Article Gist
AT&T had 4.3 million iPhone activations in the first quarter of 2012, down 43% from the prior quarter. Of the most valuable subscribers who signed up for 2 years AT&T showed 187,000 additions. All but 7000 of these were in tablets. . This indicates that the smartphone market in the U.S. is being saturated. AT&T used the iPhone introduction in 2007 as a way to take subscribers from Verizon and Sprint. That advantage is now fading.

LyrArc Article Gist
The majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commisssion says Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, regulators, and several financial institutions were responsible for what was an "avoidable disaster." The report criticizes Mr Greenspan for advocating deregulation and considers the failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages under his leadership at the central bank as a "prime example" of negligence. The report also says that the New York Fed under Timothy Geithner, now Treasury Secretary, also missed signs of trouble at Citigroup and Lehman. There are 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans on the Commission. The fourth Republican has his dissent, calling policies to promote home ownership, the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a major cause. The panel was hobbled by internal divisions and staff turnover, which have made what should have been a report of major significance into one marred by partisan differences. The majority report itself was heavily shaped by Phil Angelides, the committee's chairman, and it has many literary phrases. Overleveraging was a critical factor in the crisis. For every $40 in assets, the US's 5 largest investment banks had only $1 in capital to cover losses. The banks hid their leveraging with derivatives, off-balance sheet entities and other devices. The banks relied heavily on short-term debt which worsened the crisis. The report also said the Clinton adminstration's decision to exempt over-the counter derivatives from regulation- made in the last year of Clinton's term- also helped set up the ground for later events leading to the crisis....

LyrArc Article Gist
In the current situation where the "too big to fail" problem for banks has only worsened since the crisis with the remaining banks even larger after mergers, and no dividing wall between speculative trading in securities and the utility banking of collecting deposits and making loans, the country depends on regulators to do the job of supervision. Regulatory reforms have faced resistance from the banking industry and the reforms have been watered down in Congress. It is in this environment that Patrick Parkinson takes on the job of head of bank supervision at the Federal Reserve. He will work with Daniel Tarullo, the Fed governor who heads the committee of governors overseeing bank supervision. But he is also one of the old faces at the Fed when the Fed failed in its role of bank supervision. From 1993 to 1998 he was the top staff advisor to the Fed chairman, for matters considered by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets.

LyrArc Article Gist
Its incorrect to call a loan that has only slightly lower, same or higher monthly payment after modification, a loan modification. The intent is to make a loan affordable in monthly payments for the borrower, for it to be a meaningful modification. Says Tom Miller, the Attorney General of Iowa, "it should'nt be called modifications if people pay more or approximately the same." Many lenders and banks do not want to have to mark to market a whole set of loans of one type in one geographical region, as an accounting rule now requires, just because they have modified one loan of that type, because their reserves are severely depleted and most are already or nearly insolvent. So their way of discouraging loan modifications as a solution is to respond by saying that loans go into foreclosure even after modification, when the modification they are talking about is tacking on interest penalties and fees that accelerate the home into foreclosure in some cases, and in others by leaving payments higher or the same make foreclosure just as likely as before. Tom Miller, attorney general of Iowa, also says that " if you do real modifications, the default rate is significantly lower." Some mortgage companies say that default rates drop significantly, some to as low as 25%, when loan payments are reduced to the 30-40% of borrower income range, which is becoming the standard for a meaningful modification. Analyst Ron Dubitsky's research at Credit Suisse confirms this, showing lower payments reduced defaults to less than 50%. Research by Credit Suisse and Alan White, a law professor at Valparaiso University also show that at this time loan, 2 years into the foreclosure crisis, modification has mostly resulted in higher monthly payments. White says banks like Wells Fargo, a large servicer of loans, have done have modified few loans as apercentage of their delinquent mortgages. Sheila Bair and others have long advocated reducing loan payments to 30-40% of monthly income since early 2007, because foreclosure is costlier for banks than loan modification, but met resistance from the banks and lenders and their lobbying groups. The relevant question is that if the banks are misquided in pursuing this course, and its not in the interests of the banks or the country's economy- because accelerating foreclosures or not taking modification action in the middle of a huge wave of layoffs may result in a even bigger wave of foreclosures that threaten housing prices and effectively leave banks insolventleading to nationalization- then what purpose did all this serve except to exacerbate the crisis and increase the price tag of the government's and country's ultimate rescue of homeowners?...

LyrArc Article Gist
The tough job President Obama faces as he faces opposition from politicians who have interests to protect, and healthcare businesses with interests to protect. The President has to come up with a plan that is deficit neutral, because financial markets could see a healthcare bill that further widens the deficit as a signal for higher interest rates that would deepen the recession. At the same time each of the three sources of revenue puts him at loggerheads with political leaders in Congress or groups with interests to protect. Limiting income tax deductions for high earners could raise $267 billion in 10 years. It would require taxpayers in the top tax brackets deduct their mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations, at the 28% tax rate instead of the 33% and 35% tax rates. The opposition is with democratic leaders that it would hurt charities, universities that depend on tax deductible donations, and taxpayers in high tax cities like New York city that are the home base of Democratic leaders. Yet only 1.4% of households would be affected says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, says charitable giving would decrease by 2%. The other opposition on this comes from the preference of Senators Baucus and Grassley, who head the Senate Finance Committee, for tax increases or cost savings to come from the health sector. Specifically they want to see the value of workers' employer provided health benefits subject to income taxes. It is a situation in which every sensible person admits the need for healthcare reform and would see the current pace of healthcare costs as unsustainable and dangerous; and after that will just go back to his group and try to preserve as much of the status quo as possible, so as not to disturb by much the benefits or compensation they have secured from the system over the years. Then there are political leaders in Congress with their own preferences, and Congressmen who are the subject of heavy lobbying by these interests. The administration and the Presidents job is to navigate this stream with a workable deficit neutral plan, without any requirement for any group to make sacrifices, and in some situations even small sacrifices for the public interest. Would charitable institutions be hurt that much, what if charitable institutions were exempted, why would other interests the try to obtain the same exemption. Its like the unions trying to keep the old unsustainable goldplated healthcare and other benefits at GM even as the ship was going down. Taxing employer provided employee health benefits as income would raise $2.5 trillion over a decade. The opposition here is from unions which are a force in the Democratic party and which count tax free health benefits as a legacy of the labor movement. Employer provided health insurance covers 160 million American employed and their dependents under the age of 65, so it has a wide impact. Yet most economists favor ending the tax break. They say it mainly goes to upper income taxpayers, and discourages cost consciousness among consumers of health care, thus encouraging excessive spending and surging health care costs. Senior Obama advisors, Peter Orszag, the budget director, and economist Jason Furman favor this approach. So do Republicans in Congress. Senators Baucus and Grassley are not asking for the complete removal of the tax break, what they want to see is capping the value of benefits that go untaxed. If the tax-free limit is $13,000, a policy worth $15,000 would pay income taxes on $2000. A third spource is to spend less on Medicare. About two thirds of the $948 billion in savings Mr Obama has proposed over 10 years comes from a number of reductions in Medicare spending. $177 billion comes from insurance companies bidding for government reimbursements for offering private plans to seniors. $106 billion comes from cutting the subsidies to hospitals serving the uninsured as universal coverage should remove this need. And $110 billion in reduced payments to hospitals and doctors because of productivity gains. A range of industries insurance companies, hospitals, doctors drugmakers, nursing homes, home health care companies and medical device makers, all stand to lose from reduced payments from Medicare and Medicaid. And these groups with interests to protect are another factor in this process of working out a healthcare plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This analysis of coal use using graphs shows a clear move away from coal in the world, except for two growth markets China and India which account for 60% of the increase in coal use since 2008. India has gone black in its shift to increasing use of coal. China has begun the shift away from coal to address the smog over large urban areas, poor air quality and health impact of coal use. Because China used five times the coal used by India in 2017, the overall impact in China and India is showing a shift away from coal to hydropower, other renewables including solar energy. It is likely that India will make the shift following China's example in the future. 

The trend is clear when one looks at the incremental terawatt hour and where it comes from. The shift is clear to renewables, hydropower, and non fossil uses in the rest of the World and China which account for most of the coal use in the world.

 

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial goes over the issue of budget cuts for embassy security that never happened in relation to the requests for help from the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

LyrArc Article Gist
A look at the views expressed in the blogs following the appointment of Jeffrey Immelt to head the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness shows considerable skepticism. Questions were raised about the deal signed by GE with China that involves sharing jet technology with China, shutting US plants to move work to China, the need for $16 billion in bailout funds for its finance unit, in one blog. Another blog points to the negligible amount paid by GE in corporate income taxes, paying no taxes in 2009 and paying 3.6% in 2010. And another blog pointed to the lack of a position by Immelt on the trade distortions created by America's trading partners, such as China's currency and other policies. One blog refers to the Obama election campaign's need to raise something near the record $700 million raised for the 2008 campaign, and the need to get business lined up for that effort.