LyrArc Article Gist
The Dean of Harvard Medical School says the Health Reform bill gets an "F" grade. He say its disingenuous to call this reform, and Congressmen and the White House are deceiving the public if they attempt to pass this off as reform. What it will do is accelerate health care spending in the US, and the bill has simply postponed most of the major health care problems, especially the ones that drive cost including the fee for service system and delivery of health care.There are no substantial efforts to control the growth in health care costs or improve the quality of care, which makes this effort unacceptable as reform. In his discussions with other health care leaders and economists, Dean Jeffrey Flier, says he has found the opinion unanimous on this point, that whatever the final legislation looks like in Congress, it will only serve to accelerate health care spending rather than contain it. On the present system's failings he is explicit- the current system he says promotes fragmented care making it difficult to assess outcomes, the true costs of care are disguised, and competition based on price and quality is made impossible. The new legislation while expanding access to coverage makes a terrible tradeoff of an accelerated crisis of health care costs and merely continues the current dysfunctional system. The experience of Massachusetts, where access to care was expanded but spending went up, is that this won't work. He points to the Special Commission on Health Care Payment System in Massachusetts recommendation, that the health care system there must be changed from a fee for service system to one with "capitated" payments. So what is really disingenuous about this whole affair? Congressmen making it look as if reform has happened and congratulating themselves on increasing access to health care, when many of the serious problems of funding health care, skyrocketing costs, and a dysfunctional system, have only been kicked further down the road for some future legislators to tackle. With the national debt about 12 trillon dollars when this plan is factored in, this is cause for serious concern. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Mark Landler of the NYT intervews Ben Bernanke at his office overlooking the Washington Mall, and Secretary Paulson in his Treasury office. Both men look back at events that led to Chinese savings financing excessive American consumption, and currency and other policies on both sides perpetuating the dependence of America on lowpriced Chinese products, and of China on the American export market. Now that this export market is collapsing it presents China with serious problems with unemployment in the export sector, and pesents America with the hangover from a consumption binge that now must be paid for with years of low or negative growth. Could this have been foreseen and if foreseen could things either have been mitigated or prevented. In March 2005, Prof. Bernanke at Princeton was not at the Fed (his Fed job started in 2006), and cautioned about the imbalances presented by Chinese savings finacing American consumption. But Bernanke saw this as a market phenomenon that would take years, even a decade to work itself out in a global economy. He said "for now, we have little choice except to be patient." The prevailing opinion among Greenspan, Bernanke and others was that the global economy worked in ways that were ultimately benign and regulation was not a good thing. After all the situation benefitted American consumers and kept inflation low while also providing China as an additional engine for global economic growth. The American economy it was believed was large and resilient, and it would not be adversely affected in the long run by such a large dependence on foreign savings. Only the positive effects were visible and the adverse effects were simply talked away as not serious for now. Zoellick, who was deputy secretary of state says that successful models are very hard to change, and Paulson says that without some kind of crisis its hard to get changes made once asituation gets entrenched. For China efforts to strengthen the currency that would slow exports and improve internal consumption were stymied by a reluctance to disturb the status quo, and Americans were lulled into complacency as years of low priced imports provided the best of both worlds, high growth and low inflation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Citing the drop in oil prices (with housing having to hit bottom at some point) and the stimulus package, Alan Blinder, says the recession should end by the 4th quarter of 2009. This is in sharp contrast to Ferguson's, Spence's, Roach's and Reinhart's view on the editorial pages of the NYT. The difference is whats striking. Ferguson, Roach and Reinhart say 3-4 years, Spence, is of a similiar view, if actions taken don't work the way they are expected to, and they don't put any dates down because too much is happening in the economy, with so much uncertainty. The titles of these three economist's pieces are also instructive, Beware of False Dawn by Roach, Rule of Four by Reinhart, and Spence's A Long Goodbye. Here is Blinder not only saying there won't be any surprises from now on (who knows for sure?) but also puts down an approximate time. He also ventures an exact impact of the stimulus, of 5% impact on real GDP in 2 years. With all that has gone wrong under Greenspan's leadership, one wonders about the credibility of being Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve during Greenspan's time at the Fed. And as if to ridicule his own forecast he says without any hesitation: "But here's the rub. My forecast assumes that no other (big) shoes will drop. Sad to say, shoes have been dropping like rain." Whats the use of a forecast that has a remark like that tagged on to it, and how responsible is a statement that doesn't suggest caution, when businesses and jobs have been destroyed through overoptimistic forecasts and lack of decisive action. A case in point being General Motors, and the government and the American people are being asked to put $100 billion into General Motors. This is no time for reckless forecasts or for any but the most carefully thought through analysis. Lives and livelihood depend on it. Is this what the President means, when he talks about an era with a lack of responsibility in government and in companies, and those in leadership positions in the country, for their statements and their actions....

LyrArc Article Gist
Russian oil policy at work in towns like Kalyazin, 100 miles north of Moscow, and across Russia. Gasification program is being extended, plan is to increase coverage from 53% to 60% of the people in Russia in the 2005-2007 program. Increase prices to discourage wasteful use and promote energy saving technologies in cooperation with German companies so that more gas is available for export at higher world market prices, especially to the European market. Use profits to promote exploration and increase exports. Germany gets 45% of its gas from Russia and has built close relationships with Gazprom. See the article in BW, July 31, 2006, Jack Ewing, "The Lines that Bind" and references to German-Russian ties: 1) Gerhard Schroeder, former Chancellor, as managing director of the pipeline joint venture, the $5.7 billion North European Gas pipeline formed by partners Ruhrgas, BASF and Gazprom. Ruhrgas owns 6.4% of Gazprom, and its CEO Burckhard Bergmann sits on Gazprom's Board. 2) The survey by Berlin pollster Forsa shows that 75% of Germans support the pipeline project, 45% consider Gazprom a reliable energy supplier vs. the 26% who consider Saudi Arabia as dependable. 3) At an industrial fair in Hanover German business leaders supportive of Gazprom as follows. Klaus Mangold for Daimler management board member considers it " a totally normal market economic process" for Russia to have threatended to supply China with the same gas if European countries cultivate other sources of energy supply. Michael Gloss, German Minister of Economics and Technology, says its good thing to have a neighbor close to home as a supplier. Ruhrgas, Essen based, is a subsidiary of Dusseldorf company E.O.N., and Wintershall, Kassel based, is a subsidiary of BASF. Wintershall management Board member Rainer Seele, speaks of not just partnerships but friendships. 4) Interlocking ownership of assets between Gazprom and the German companies. Gazprom 35% ownership of the assets in the WinGas Joint Venture, Wintershall gets 35% of the equity and 25% of voting shares in the gas field that supports the pipeline. Ruhrgas traded assets in Hungary for 25% ownership of the same gas field. 5) The German relationship under Merkel changes little because she has no options, German suppliers have long term contracts with Gazprom. This article shows how the Russian policy is being shaped on the ground in small towwns like Kalyazin. The one on Gazprom about "The Lines that Bind," shows how the policy is to build relationships with German suppliers, interlocking ownership of assets, increasing the supplies to Germany from the current 45% to over 50 %. Using German investment in joint venture with Gazprom for exploration and development and building pipelines and securing long term contracts at higher prices. Note the reference in article "Can Gazprom Keep the Gas On?" by BW's Moscow Bureau Chief, Jason Bush, BW July 31, 2006- ironically the policy that caused a lot of controversy between Russia and Ukraine about Russian energy prices will actually provide Gazprom with more profits to put into exploration. Forecasts referred to by Bush show that it is expected to earn $20 billion on $62 billion in revenues. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A crisis situation exists in state revenue and spending needs. According to a Census Bureau report overall state revenue in the US dropped 30.8%, to $1.1 trillion, between fiscal 2008 and 2009. The gap between the spending needed to provide services in the recession and revenues is very large. States fiscal problems along with housing losses, will be the two forces acting as a drag to the US recovery in 2011-2012. State payrolls will be cut back and contracts to private companies reduced to cut spending. Declining federal help in 2011-2012, with the new focus on reducing the federal deficit, will worsen the situation. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, even with large federal help 46 states had to raise taxes and make cuts to close a combined gap of $130 billion in their current budgets. And next year 40 states already have projected gaps totaling $113 billion. Even as revenues drop, the Census Bureau report says the state government expenditures went up by 3% to provide essential services, safety net programs and education. Illinois has a budget deficit of 45 percent of its overall budget, according to the Pew Center on the States. In California it is equal to 13% of te state's total budget, and in Arizona it is 15%. For 2009 tax collections fell by 8.5%, and were partially offset by a 12.9% increase in federal help, which was a total of $477.7 billion, according to te Census Bureau report....

LyrArc Article Gist
Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker has opinion about the financial crisis that is deeply felt. He wants the wall that separates banks that take in federally insured deposits from the public separated from the risky trading activities of investment banking houses. That would essentially put us back to the situation that existed before Glass Steagall Act of 1933 was revoked in the 1999. The lessons of the thirties apply today. Says Volcker "people say I am old-fashioned and banks can no longer be seaprated from nonbank activity, but that argument brought us back to where we are today." The Obama advisers like Geithner and Summers are close to the bankers- see the links to Geithner and Summers- and believe that extensively regulating the banks would prevent the banks from engaging in risky practices. However as this reporter Louis Uchitelle of the NYT has not pointed out, the problem is that this is more easily said than done. The very fact that there were close ties between Geithner and Summers and the bankers during the Clinton Administration and Geithner as head of the New York Fed under the Bush administration, and the aggressive lobbying by the investment banks like Goldman and others who are now banks to water down any regulation on derivatives trading and on other supervision, can only lead to a situation where neither Volcker's solution or the Obama people's solution is put into effect. THis will only invite another crisis. With the public anger even worse as the bonuses and compensation from trading profits by Goldman and other banks come through cheap money created by the Fed- see links- for the purpose of addressing the financial crisis. Volcker would separate JP Morgan and Bear Stearns trading operations and separate Merrill from BofA, and Goldman would revert from abank holding company to a investment banking house. Volcker believes that the pay on Wall Street "has gotten grotesquely large." Volcker believes that the separation of deposit taking institutions from investment banking would reduce trading profits and consequently automatically reduce these large bonuses. So is Volcker being ignored by the Obama administration, even as his glow helped the Obama people win public support as a better steward of the economy than McCain during the election campaign? During the crisis Volcker headed the president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Today he is rarely seen in his Washington office, he talks to administration officials mostly on the phone, at 82 he is not knocking on doors, and the advisory board has been assigned to look at the tax law on overseas corporate profits. Volcker agrees with most of the Obama plan on financial regulation including higher capital requirements and and pay guidelines, but if this is not enacted because of lobbying by bankers then the nation will have the benefit of neither the Volcker Plan or the Obama Plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
State run programs that help businesses to retain employees and avoid layoffs are a great way to operate during the lockdowns and gradual reopening. In these workshare programs workers work reduced hours and collect prorated unemployment benefits to offset lost wages. This avoids full layoffs. As the coronavirus is a temporary setback companies need their employees in a healthy economy. How to retain employees. Shift some of the cost of retaining employees to the U.S. or state governments funded by the federal government which comes in the form of unemployment benefits. Workers can then do shorter hours and get through this period.

Such programs are now set up by states in more than half of American states covering about 70% of payrolls. The problem is getting companies and employees to use this program. As of March 28 only 1% of 8.2 million employees have used the program, but it is growing.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Cleveland address and question answer session on July 10, 2011, showed Janet Yellen at her best. She was applauded several times for her answers especially for her emphasis on clarity. One question was about the use of the term"quantitative easing," couldn't the Fed have found a better word? Yellen pointed out that the Fed at the time used "buying of long term assets" as the phrase for that activity, after the media referred to it as "quantitative easing." That term stuck and the Fed ended up accepting the use of the term to refer to the Bernanke Fed's program. Yellen also said the buying of long term assets was intended to raise long term rates, and was different from the effort in Japan of buying short term assets that failed to stimulate the Japanese economy. Throughout Yellen was entirely comfortable making clear what she had in mind. At one point she was asked about the IMF director Lagarde's statement that the U.S. is better off not raising rates in 2015, because of the uncertain economic outlook in Europe, China and other places. Yellen's response was that this was one more view that she considered along with the views of several other Fed governors who had different views and reading of the economic situation. She emphasized that the increase in the rates will be very gradual, a position very consistent with her earlier statements, and this made the long tem path of interest rates more important said Yellen, than the particular time when the Fed first raised rates. For her clarity, empathy, and sound grasp of the economic situation, few Fed chairman have come close to Yellen, as was evident in the audience's grateful response. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Three regional Fed bank presidents have expressed skepticism of the Fed plan to buy medium to long term Treasury bonds- they are Kocherlakota of Minneapolis Fed, Richard Fisher of the Dallas Fed, and Plosser of the Philadelphia Fed. There are 12 regional Fed banks, and five voting seats on the Federal Open Market Committee rotate for the 12 Fed bank presidents. Opposition to Bernanke will increase as these presidents take voting positions in the Fed Open Market Committee. The Wall Street Journal reports that there is deep skepticism about Bernanke's plan among some of his colleagues. Thomas Hoenig of the Kansas City Fed says that more expansive monetary policy was "a bargain with the devil." The Fed's plan is to take a measured approach with U.S. Treasury bond purchases with maturities between 2 and 10 years. A WSJ survey of private sector economists in October 2010 found that the Fed is expected to purchase about $250 billion of Treasury bonds each quarter, and continue till mid 2011, amounting to $750 billion in all. By pushing down Treasury yields the Fed hopes to have an impact on the federal funds rate of one-half to three-quarter percentage point impact for $500 billon of bond purchases, says Dudley, President of the New York Fed. Treasury yields on the 10 year note have fallen from 4% in April to 2.6% partly in anticipation of Fed's action. The previous Fed intervention in March 2009 was a program to buy $1.75 trillion of Treasury and mortgage bonds over 6-9 months. This time the approach will be careful and measured based on results, according to the Fed. Alan Blinder, former vice chairman of the Fed, says this is the tool less preferred and of unknown effectiveness, as fiscal tools would be the preferred choice. The deficit concerns, he says, have restricted the preferred option....

LyrArc Article Gist
CEO Shigetaka Komori of Fujifilm Holdings Corp. describes how Fuji responded to the technological changes that made photographic film obsolete. Kodak recently filed for bankruptcy protection. Fuji made the transition to other products to cope with the change. Komori became president in 2000. He says one of the responses was to reduce costs. In 2005 and 2006 Fujifilm reduced costs by $2.5 billion mostly in photographic film. Fuji's management asked the question what technologies the company possessed and how they could be applied in new business areas. This led to new businesses in making the films used for making LCD panels used on PC's, televisions and other devices. These materials generate 10% of sales. The other areas are in medical equipment, drugs and cosmetics. Fujifilm acquired health care companies Toyama Chemical for $1.4 billion in 2008 and agreed to buy SonoSite for $995 in Jan. 2012. Health care now makes up 12% of sales.

LyrArc Article Gist
Prof. Neera Chandhoke of Delhi University points out that Jawaharlal Nehru and other leaders of the Congress made great contributions for India. First in the freedom movement and then in helping India take the first steps to modernization. During the early years India needed the leadership of Nehru and Gandhi to establish a functioning democracy. Even though the focus has shifted to the economy and the next steps in modernizing the economy, the contribution of the early years should not be forgotten, as it laid the basis for what happened later.

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
Glen Hubbard, who was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush and is now Dean of Columbia University Business School, Hal Scott professor of International Fiancial Systems at Harvard Law School, and Luigi Zingales professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, say a different plan of action is needed from what the Obama administration is doing to tackle the banking crisis. They are really skeptical about the the Public Private Investment Program and other plans put forth upto now for several reasons. First, in every case they say there is a lot of carrot but very little stick, and this won't work. TARP program was mostly carrot, with Treasury getting back securities worth $78 billion less than the $254 billion invested, as pointed out by the Congressional Oversight Panel.The FDIC's guarantee of short term debt was worth $100 billion just for the original nine TARP participating banks, and the mortgage related asset guarantees offered Citibank and Bank of America were worth tens of billions. They see anew round of TARP injections with the conversion of the government's preferred stock into equity after release of the stress test results. Then there is PPIP the Public Private Investment Program, and its plans to subsidize the purchase of bank's"toxic assets" by hedge funds and other investors. They estimate the government will spend $2 for every $1 the private sector puts up. And even with this subsidy their thinking is that the probability of succes is low for the same reason that has prevailed since the earlier efforts by Treasury Secretary Paulson- there is just too big a gap between the bid and ask prices on the toxic assets, and add to that the reluctance of investors to partner with the government. Its time for more stick say these experts as the problem of toxic assets, and of credit and lending in the economy, will hang like a large shadow over the economy, as long as these tough problems are not wrestled with. This is the Hubbard-Scott-Luigi Plan: 1) The FDIC should announce that its guarantees of short term debt set to expire in October will not be renewed. Insolvent banks, defined not by stress tests but as those that cannot fund themselves in the private market, will be taken over by the FDIC under aclear and credible action plan. 2) The FDIC lacks the resources to run several large and complex banks which may become insolvent. And waving the idea of nationalization the creditors may try to get the government to bail them out. The authors of this plan say the FDIC should solit each bank into a "bad bank" and a "good bank." The "bad bank" would carry all the residential and commercial real estate loans and securitized mortgages as assets, and all the long term debt as liabilities. THe "bad bank" would obtain along term laon from the good bank to fund the assets of the bad bank. Al the remaining assets including the derivative contracts and the loan to the bad bank would be assets of the good bank. It would also have all the insured deposits and the FDIC guaranteed short term debt as liabilities. With the split accomplished the good bank can be released from FDIC receivership. 3) The long term debt holders would be compensated by receiving all the equity of the good bank. The old shareholders would get the equity in the bad bank. And in any restructuring bondholders should do better than equity holders. If banks are not really insolvent as some say and just facing temporary dislocations, then the bad bank will eventually surge in value, and the equity holders will do alright, and if not they will receive nothing as they should. 4) For this to work legislation needs to take effect before October for FDIC procedures for handling failed banks to be also applicable to bank holding companies. And this new legislation puts no new cost on the taxpayer....

LyrArc Article Gist
Miller says the whole thing about the super-committee, the polemics between Republicans and President Obama about deficits and billionaires, could end up being a charade with Obama hoping to squeeze by in the 2012 presidential elections and the Republicans equally intent on getting 51%. In the end Obama's poor handling of the debt ceiling, including an unwillingness to go ahead with raising the debt ceiling even if it went to court, says Miller, shows a basic failure of the Obama presidency. In the end he thinks its not that the centre-left is going to be mad at Obama, they will be mad at themselves for believing he was going to be any different.

LyrArc Article Gist
Edmund Phelps, is 2006 Nobel prize winner and director of the Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University. Phelps offers a deep reflection on capitalism and what it is as a system and isn't, from the insights gathered and knowledge accumulated about its workings- conditions in which operates best, and conditions under which it is stressed or fails. It is the actors and overseer's, the public's ignorance about how the system works, the insights about its advantages and its serious hazards if neglected, that lead him to say we need deep reform and re-education. Capitalist systems, he says, are mechanisms by which economies may generate growth in knowledge- with much uncertainty in the process owing to the incompleteness of knowledge- with growth in that knowledge leading to income growth and job satisfaction. The uncertainty can be serious and dangerous if not accounted for, and the knowledge offers opportunities for personal growth, problem solving and exploration. There has been an intellectual failure in developing a wide understanding of its benefits as well as its serious costs if not kept in check, costs that arise from uncertainty and moral issues of proper behaviours if not properly guided. This is an admirable and clear expression of what capitalism is and how it should be understood....

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the NYT provides a look at the features of the Republican House Health Care Plan- Both the Affordable Health Care Act and the House Plan provide incentives for buying insurance- the ACA bases these incentives on income levels whereas the House Plan does not provide additional help for low incomes or elderly. Incomes at $20,000 would see a loss greater than  $2000 under the House Plan and as many of the elderly poor living in high cost areas may not have the resources to make up for this loss of subisidies they may forgo buying insurance or have insurance coverage that protects only in a limited way. President Trump has given assurances that all will be covered. For people with incomes of $50,000 or $75000 the loss of $2000 subisidies would also have some impact. At larger incomes or the well to do the subsidies are not handed out under either plan. Under the ACA the emphasis was on income levels and high cost insurance areas the subsidies were greater, under the House Plan the subisidies would be higher for the elderly compared to the young but very low income levels are not given additional help.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist warns in this editorial and cover issue that if Germany and the European Union do not act fast the Greek crisis could have a Lehmann like effect on Europe's banking systems, with a sovereign default. This would threaten the weaker economies of Portugal, Spain and Italy. As Simon Johnson has done on the pages of the New York Times, the Economist calls the German government and Chancellor Angela Merkel's handling of this crisis filled with ineptitude. Instead of leading the German people and giving a true account of things she followed public opinion- to see that Greece was punished for its mistakes and to provide a lukewarm show of support. A true account would have shown how Germay has gained from the euro, the huge portion of Greek debt that German banks hold, and the losses that the government would have to step in and avert in its banking system if Greece defaulted. Waiting till after a big regional election in Germany on May 9, was to show a lack of grasp of how such a crisis could explode if Greece in the meantime was shut out of capital markets (yield on Greek bonds shot up to 20%). Helping Greece was more in Germany's interest than an act of charity that public opinion in Germany seems to think it is. Other mistakes the Economist cites are- the idea that going to the IMF would be humiliating thus not bringing in the IMF actively much earlier. In the view of these experts it is the ineptitude that led to the loss of confidence in financial markets that now necessitates a much larger aid package for Greece, from $60 billon to $150 billion. The other is to have a slow decision making machinery in the Eurozone and knowing this not to have taken more aggressive action. Suggestions from the Economist as an adhoc measure- set up a single crisis management committee to make quick decisions. Set up a firewall between Greece and the other states like Spain and Italy so that contagion does not spread, with these countries also being shut out of financial markets at some future date if the situation deteriorates. The other is that the European governments should setup inter-governmental liquidity lines, and the European Central Bank act using the new arrangements....

LyrArc Article Gist
IBM's researchers predict five developments in new technology in the next five years to 2016- precise language translation, precise voice recognition, storing of biometric information to replace passwords, conversion of energy from walking or water moving through pipes to power small devices, search engines and software that gives people the information they want. IBM has invested $15 billion in analytics companies and other fields in the last 5-7 years to accomplish some of these tasks. Bernie Meyerson, vice president of innovation at IBM, and a scientist in advanced microprocessor design and computer systems, issued the list. He says predicting this requires a deep knowledge of what happened before in the last five decades of technological advances. A novel application is conversion of the approximately 65 watts of energy generated from walking to power devices such as a phone. Precise and ubiquitous language translation also means ease of communication and a whole range of benefits in increasing communication between people in different parts of the world....

LyrArc Article Gist
Urban renewal in Detroit, Michigan, at one time the fourth largest city in the U.S., which was hit hard by the decline in jobs in the auto industry.

LyrArc Article Gist
Under the Volcker Rule setup during the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, banks total investments in private equity, hedge funds and similar higher risk funds cannot exceed 3% of high quality capital. During the financial crisis investment banks were highly leveraged leading to the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and the precarious financial condition of other banks. Goldman has pared down about 60% of such investments. Remaining are $4.8 billion in private equity investments, $1.2 billion in real estate, and about $1.1 billion in both credit and hedge funds. Regulators have given the bank till July 2017 to comply. As banks recovered from the impact of the crisis, the tearing of the social fabric that happened with high unemployment in some groups especially older white men, has remained six years after the crisis- as evident in the U.S. election campaigns this year. As a result the mood has shifted for tighter regulation and both party platforms, Republican and Democratic, now call for reinstatement of the Glass Steagall Act, which separated commercial banking from investment banking as part of the lessons learned from the Great Depression. Volcker, was chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve during the Carter administration, known for taking a tough line against inflation. He was the principal driver of the move to restrict banks from risky activity, and faced considerable opposition from banks during the 2009-2013 period when the rule was being formulated.  ...